>>> Technical Specification

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification (TS‑1)

Canonical Architecture-Level Technical Document
Version 1.0 — Zenodo-Ready

Jamel Bulgaria

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5269-5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: jamebulgaria@gmail.com
Version: 1.0
Date: 2025-12-29
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification (TS‑1) defines the formal operational mechanics, mathematical structure, and regulatory constraints of the CEF architecture. Whereas the Core Essence Document establishes the minimal canonical definition of centers, processes, and operators, TS‑1 expands the architecture into a fully specified technical system suitable for computational modeling, empirical validation, and theoretical analysis. This document formalizes operator algebra, directionality rules, activation matrices, state transitions, and structural constraints. All definitions are presented in precise, architecture-level language, without examples or applied interpretation. TS‑1 is intended as the authoritative technical reference for researchers, theorists, and modelers working with the CEF.

1. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of TS‑1 is to provide the formal technical specification of the Core Emotion Framework. This document:

• Extends the canonical architecture into explicit operational mechanics
• Defines the mathematical and structural rules governing operators
• Specifies directionality, activation, modulation, and state transitions
• Establishes constraints required for computational and empirical use
• Maintains strict separation from clinical, applied, or interpretive content

TS‑1 does not include examples, case material, or implementation guidance.
It is strictly a technical, architecture-level specification.

2. Formal Architecture

2.1 Centers

The CEF defines three functional centers:

• Head — cognitive and executive regulation
• Heart — relational and affective flow
• Gut — action, embodiment, and motivational drive

Each center is a domain of emotional processing with distinct regulatory functions.

2.2 Processes

The CEF defines ten core emotional processes, distributed across centers:

• Head: Sensing, Calculating, Deciding
• Heart: Expanding, Constricting, Achieving
• Gut: Arranging, Appreciating, Boosting, Accepting

Processes are actionable regulatory mechanisms, not emotional states.

2.3 Operator Space

Let:

•   = set of centers
•   = set of processes
• = set of operators

An operator is defined as:

 :        

Each operator  maps a center–process pair to a scalar activation value. Operators do not encode semantic, emotional, or narrative meaning. They generate state transitions by modulating activation values within the architecture.

3. Operator Algebra

3.1 Operator Identity

An operator is uniquely defined by its center and process:

            

3.2 Activation Values

Operators may take:

• binary values (active/inactive)
• scalar values (continuous activation level)

Activation values represent regulatory intensity.

3.2.1 Special Functional Role of Deciding

Deciding is a commitment operator whose functional profile differs from operators that vary in magnitude. Deciding does not reduce ambiguity, oppose uncertainty, or seek additional clarity. Instead, Deciding determines the acceptable level of ambiguity the system is willing to carry. It permits commitment under conditions of partial information and does not require the resolution of uncertainty prior to activation.

Deciding is always present as a latent capacity of the system but becomes active only when commitment occurs. Its activation is binary in experience (engaged or not), yet represented in the architecture to maintain compatibility with the operator algebra, activation matrices, and state transition function.

3.2.2 Deciding as a Constant‑Activation Operator

Deciding does not scale in intensity and does not express graded activation. When engaged, Deciding operates at a constant level that does not fluctuate. Its activation value does not encode strength or magnitude; it encodes engagement. Deciding is therefore represented as a constant‑activation operator within the architecture.

This constant representation ensures that Deciding can participate in operator composition, activation matrices, and state transitions without implying intensity variation. Deciding remains a latent capacity when not engaged and becomes active only at its fixed level when commitment occurs.

3.3 Composition

Operators may compose under the following forms:

• Sequential composition:
     
• Parallel composition:
     
• Conditional composition:
     

Composition is constrained by directionality rules (Section 4).

3.4 Interaction Rules

Operators may interact:

• within centers (intra-center)
• across centers (inter-center)

Interaction is permitted when it does not violate structural constraints.

4. Directionality Specification

4.1 Directionality Graph

The CEF defines a directed graph:

• Nodes = processes
• Edges = permissible transitions
• Edge types = sequential, reciprocal, conditional

4.2 Intra-Center Directionality

Example (Head Center):

       

4.3 Inter-Center Directionality

Inter‑center flow within the CEF is fully bidirectional.

All centers may influence all other centers in all directions.

No center holds a privileged, restricted, or hierarchical directional relationship with any other center.

The center‑level directionality graph is therefore fully connected, with permissible activation pathways between every pair of centers.

This reflects the core architectural principle that:

•             all core emotional processes may co‑activate in any configuration

•             temporary combinations are structurally permissible and healthy

•             chronic, rigid, or involuntary fusions represent dysregulation and fall outside canonical function

The architecture defines structural validity, not empirical possibility.

4.4 Center Activation Matrix

For all centers     :

   

4.5 Forbidden Transitions (Canonical Definition)

Forbidden transitions are transitions not defined within the canonical architecture.
They may occur in lived experience, but they do not represent stable, regulated, or structurally valid pathways within the model.

This distinction is essential:

• Temporary co‑activations of any processes are permissible and healthy.
• Chronic fusions between processes represent dysregulation and fall outside canonical function.

The architecture defines structural validity, not empirical possibility.

5. Activation Matrices

5.1 Center Activation Matrix

A 3×3 matrix defines influence among centers:

 = influence of center  on center

5.2 Process Activation Matrix

A 10×10 matrix defines influence among processes:

 = influence of process  on process

5.3 Operator Activation Matrix

A 30×30 matrix defines influence among operators:

 = influence of  on  

5.4 Constraints

Matrices must satisfy:

• Non-negativity
• Zero entries for structurally invalid transitions
• Symmetry only where reciprocity is defined

5.5 Fusion as Cross‑Center Modulation

Fusion is defined as a temporary cross‑center modulation state in which the activation of one process alters the activation dynamics of another process without relocating either process outside its home center. Fusion does not create new operators, does not modify operator identity, and does not permit processes to operate outside their canonical center. Instead, fusion establishes a transient coupling between two or more processes, allowing their activation values to mutually influence one another through inter‑center pathways.

Fusion modifies activation patterns but preserves structural boundaries. Each process retains its center affiliation, operator identity, and activation constraints. Fusion affects only the modulation of activation values and the resulting state transitions.

Operator transitions may occur in any direction across centers and within centers. The only restriction is structural: transitions must follow pathways that preserve operator identity, center boundaries, and the coherence of the activation and state‑transition functions. The restriction is structural rather than directional.

Overflow occurs when the activation of a process exceeds the regulatory capacity of its home center and drives activation in another center. Overflow produces cross‑center activation (e.g., Heart–Constricting activating Gut–Arranging or Gut–Boosting) but does not alter operator identity or center affiliation. Overflow is modulation, not migration.

Fusion states are permissible within the architecture when temporary and non‑chronic, and they do not alter the canonical directionality or operator space. Fusion is represented implicitly through modulation of activation values within the existing activation matrices and does not introduce additional matrix structures or operator classes.

5.6 Chronic Fusion and Maladaptive Suppression

Chronic fusion is defined as a persistent cross‑center coupling in which two or more processes remain involuntarily co‑activated over time. In chronic fusion, the activation dynamics of the fused processes become rigid, self‑reinforcing, and resistant to modulation. Chronic fusion produces stable activation patterns that manifest as chronic behavioral outputs and impulsive regulatory tendencies within the system.

Attempts by other core emotional processes to regulate a chronic fusion do not resolve the fused activation pattern. Instead, these regulatory attempts frequently target the emergent behavioral expression rather than the underlying fused processes. This results in suppression of the individual processes involved in the fusion rather than dissolution of the fusion itself.

Suppression reduces process differentiation, restricts regulatory flexibility, and increases activation rigidity. As a result, suppression intensifies the fused activation pattern and reinforces the chronic fusion state. Chronic fusion therefore represents a maladaptive regulatory configuration in which persistent co‑activation, secondary suppression, and reduced differentiation collectively increase dysregulation within the system.

6. State Model

6.1 Emotional State Vector

The emotional state is represented as:

• A 10-dimensional process vector
• A 3-dimensional center vector
• A combined state representation

6.2 State Transition Function

 =

6.3 Stability Conditions

A state is stable when:

• activation converges
• transitions remain within defined pathways
• no chronic fusion occurs

7. Modulation and Regulation

7.1 Modulation Operators

Modulation adjusts activation values:

 =    

7.2 Regulation Sequences

Regulation is defined as a sequence of operators:

 = , , ⋯ ,

7.3 Regulation Stability

A regulation sequence is stable when:

• no operator exceeds activation bounds
• no chronic fusion occurs
• transitions remain canonical

8. Formal Constraints

8.1 Identity Constraints

Operators must remain distinct.

8.2 Boundary Constraints

Activation values must remain within defined limits.

8.3 Directionality Constraints

Transitions must follow the directionality graph.

8.4 Activation Constraints

Operators cannot activate outside their center.

8.5 Composition Constraints

Only defined compositions are canonical.

9. Implementation Notes

This section provides structural guidance for computational modeling:

• vector representations
• matrix operations
• precision considerations
• scaling rules

No code is included.

10. Canonical Status

TS‑1 is the authoritative technical specification of the CEF.
It is subordinate to the Core Essence Document and expands its architecture into operational form.

11. Licensing

This document is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC‑BY).

End of Document

This Technical Specification defines the operational mechanics of the Core Emotion Framework (CEF) in its canonical, architecture-level form. All specifications herein are definitive for scholarly, computational, and theoretical reference.

 

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification 2 (TS‑2)

Validation & Empirical Architecture

Canonical Architecture‑Level Document — Version 1.0

Jamel Bulgaria

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5269-5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: jamebulgaria@gmail.com
Version: 1.0
Date: 2025-12-29
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification 2 (TS‑2) defines the formal empirical validation architecture of the CEF. Whereas TS‑1 establishes the operational mechanics of centers, processes, operators, and activation dynamics, TS‑2 specifies the canonical measurement models, factor structures, validation pathways, and falsifiability conditions required for scientific evaluation of the framework. TS‑2 is an architecture‑level document: it defines general validation logic applicable across all research contexts and does not prescribe study‑specific hypotheses, datasets, or protocols.

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 Purpose

TS‑2 establishes the empirical validation architecture of the CEF. It defines:

• canonical measurement models for operators and centers
• latent variable structure and identification rules
• empirical tests for directionality, fusion, and overflow
• state‑transition validation methods
• falsifiability conditions for the architecture

1.2 Scope

TS‑2 is a general, architecture‑level specification. It does not include:

• study‑specific hypotheses
• sampling plans
• statistical power analyses
• item‑level measurement instruments

TS‑2 defines the principles and structures that govern empirical testing across all implementations.

2. Validation Architecture Overview

2.1 Validation Domains

The CEF requires validation across the following domains:

• structural validation of operators and centers
• process‑level validation of operator distinctiveness
• center‑level validation of hierarchical structure
• directionality validation for intra‑ and inter‑center flow
• fusion and overflow validation
• state‑transition validation

2.2 Validation Principles

Validation must satisfy:

• Non‑circularity: empirical tests must not rely on assumptions derived from the CEF itself.
• Testability: all constructs must be empirically measurable.
• Replicability: results must be reproducible across samples and methods.
• Cross‑method convergence: multiple measurement modalities must converge.
• Cross‑cultural generalizability: constructs must remain stable across populations.

3. Measurement Model Specification

3.1 Observable Indicators

Each operator must be associated with observable indicators that reflect its activation. Indicators may be behavioral, physiological, or self‑report based.

3.2 Latent Variables

Operators are latent constructs inferred from observable indicators. A latent variable is an unobservable process whose activation must be inferred from measurable data.

3.3 Center‑Level Latent Constructs

Head, Heart, and Gut are second‑order latent constructs defined by their constituent operators.

3.4 Measurement Invariance

Measurement models must demonstrate invariance across groups, cultures, and contexts.

3.5 Operator Distinctiveness

Operators must exhibit discriminant validity. No operator may empirically collapse into another.

4. Factor Structure Specification

4.1 Operator‑Level Factor Structure

The canonical operator‑level structure is a 10‑factor model with distinct latent variables for each operator.

4.2 Center‑Level Factor Structure

The canonical center‑level structure is a 3‑factor model representing Head, Heart, and Gut.

4.3 Combined Hierarchical Model

A hierarchical model nests the 10 operators within the 3 centers. Identification rules must ensure model stability and interpretability.

5. Directionality Validation

5.1 Intra‑Center Directionality

Sequential activation within centers (e.g., Sensing → Calculating → Deciding) must be empirically testable.

5.2 Inter‑Center Directionality

Bidirectional influence among centers must be validated through temporal, structural, or computational methods.

5.3 Directionality Graph Testing

The canonical directionality graph must be tested using longitudinal, experimental, or computational approaches.

6. Fusion and Overflow Validation

6.1 Fusion Detection

Fusion is defined as temporary cross‑center modulation. Empirical signatures must reflect modulation without operator migration.

6.2 Chronic Fusion Detection

Chronic fusion must be identifiable through persistent, involuntary co‑activation patterns.

6.3 Overflow Detection

Overflow occurs when activation exceeds home‑center capacity and drives cross‑center activation. Overflow must be empirically distinguishable from fusion.

6.4 Identity Preservation Tests

Operators must retain identity under all fusion and overflow conditions.

7. State‑Transition Validation

7.1 State Vector Observables

The emotional state is represented by a 10‑dimensional process vector and a 3‑dimensional center vector.

7.2 Transition Function Testing

The state‑transition function  =  must be empirically testable.

7.3 Stability Validation

Stable states must exhibit convergence, canonical transitions, and absence of chronic fusion.

8. Validation Methods

8.1 Self‑Report Methods

Self‑report indicators may assess operator activation, center activation, and fusion states.

8.2 Behavioral Methods

Behavioral indicators may include task performance, reaction times, and decision patterns.

8.3 Physiological Methods

Physiological indicators may include HRV, EDA, respiratory patterns, and somatic activation.

8.4 Computational Modeling

Computational methods may simulate activation matrices, directionality graphs, and state transitions.

8.5 Multi‑Method Integration

Validation requires convergence across multiple measurement modalities.

9. Falsifiability Conditions

9.1 Operator‑Level Falsifiability

An operator is falsified if it cannot be empirically distinguished from other operators.

9.2 Center‑Level Falsifiability

A center is falsified if its operators do not form a coherent second‑order factor.

9.3 Directionality Falsifiability

Directionality rules are falsified if empirical activation flows contradict canonical pathways.

9.4 Fusion and Overflow Falsifiability

Fusion or overflow definitions are falsified if empirical patterns contradict structural constraints.

10. Validation Roadmap

10.1 Short‑Term Goals

• operator distinctiveness
• center structure validation
• basic directionality testing

10.2 Mid‑Term Goals

• fusion detection
• overflow modeling
• state‑transition validation

10.3 Long‑Term Goals

• cross‑cultural invariance
• longitudinal validation
• computational implementation

11. Canonical Status

TS‑2 is the authoritative validation architecture of the CEF. It is subordinate to TS‑1 and the Core Essence Document and defines the empirical framework for all validation studies.

 

 

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification 3 (TS‑3)

Computational Specification

Canonical Architecture‑Level Document — Version 1.0

Jamel Bulgaria

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5269-5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: jamebulgaria@gmail.com
Version: 1.0
Date: 2025-12-29
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification 3 (TS‑3) defines the canonical computational architecture of the CEF. Whereas TS‑1 establishes the operational mechanics of centers, processes, operators, and activation dynamics, and TS‑2 defines the empirical validation architecture, TS‑3 specifies the computational structures, update rules, matrix operations, and simulation cycles required for implementing the CEF in algorithmic and computational environments. TS‑3 is an architecture‑level document: it defines the formal computational rules and constraints governing all CEF‑based simulations and models, without prescribing programming languages, code, or applied examples.

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 Purpose

TS‑3 establishes the computational specification of the CEF. It defines:

• computational representations of operators, processes, and centers
• vector and matrix structures for activation, modulation, and directionality
• update rules governing state transitions
• simulation cycle definitions and convergence criteria
• computational models for fusion, overflow, and identity preservation
• constraints ensuring fidelity to the canonical architecture

TS‑3 translates the architecture defined in TS‑1 and the validation logic defined in TS‑2 into a computationally implementable form suitable for modeling, simulation, and algorithmic analysis.

1.2 Scope

TS‑3 is an architecture‑level computational specification. It defines:

• canonical data structures
• update functions
• matrix operations
• stability and boundary constraints
• computational rules for directionality, fusion, and overflow

TS‑3 does not include:

• programming language implementations
• software engineering patterns
• code examples
• applied simulations or case studies

TS‑3 provides the computational foundation upon which all CEF‑based simulations, models, and algorithmic systems must be built. It is subordinate to TS‑1 and TS‑2 and must be interpreted in accordance with their definitions and constraints.

2. Computational Representation

2.1 Operator Representation

Each operator  is represented as:

• a scalar activation value
• bounded within defined limits
• updated according to operator‑level update rules

Deciding is represented as a constant‑activation operator:
its activation is binary (engaged or not) and does not scale in magnitude.

2.2 Center Representation

Each center is represented as a 3‑dimensional vector:

 = [Head, Heart, Gut]

Center activation is computed from operator activations using aggregation rules defined in TS‑1.

2.3 Process Vector

The process vector is a 10‑dimensional vector:

 = [ …, ]

Each element corresponds to a core emotional process.

2.4 Combined State Representation

The full emotional state is represented as:

• a 10‑dimensional process vector
• a 3‑dimensional center vector
• an optional concatenated state vector

Dimensionality and ordering must remain consistent across implementations.

3. Matrix Structures

3.1 Center Activation Matrix (3×3)

 = influence of center  on center  

Constraints:

• non‑negativity
• no zero rows
• full bidirectionality

3.2 Process Activation Matrix (10×10)

 = influence of process  on process  

Constraints:

• zero entries for forbidden transitions
• symmetry only where reciprocity is defined

3.3 Operator Activation Matrix (30×30)

 = influence of  on  

Constraints:

• identity preservation
• structural boundaries
• no operator migration

3.4 Matrix Normalization

Matrices may require:

• scaling
• clipping
• normalization

to maintain stability and prevent divergence.

4. Update Rules

4.1 Operator Update Function

Operator activations update according to:

  

4.2 Center Update Function

Center activations update according to:

   

4.3 Process Update Function

Process activations update according to:

   

4.4 Combined Update Function

The full system update is:

  

4.5 Stability and Convergence

A computational update is stable when:

• activation values remain within bounds
• transitions converge
• no oscillatory or divergent patterns emerge
• no chronic fusion is induced by the update rules

5. Simulation Cycle

5.1 Initialization

Simulations must define:

• initial operator activations
• initial center activations
• boundary conditions

5.2 Iterative Update

Simulations proceed through iterative updates:

• synchronous or asynchronous
• fixed or adaptive step size

5.3 Convergence Detection

Convergence is detected when:

• activation changes fall below a threshold
• no further structural transitions occur

5.4 Logging and Output

Simulations must record:

• state vector history
• activation trajectories
• fusion and overflow markers

6. Computational Modeling of Fusion and Overflow

6.1 Fusion Modeling

Fusion is modeled as:

• temporary cross‑center modulation
• without operator migration
• without identity alteration

6.2 Chronic Fusion Modeling

Chronic fusion is modeled as:

• persistent co‑activation
• rigidity in activation patterns
• resistance to modulation

6.3 Overflow Modeling

Overflow is modeled as:

• activation exceeding home‑center capacity
• cross‑center propagation
• identity preservation

7. Directionality Computation

7.1 Intra‑Center Directionality

Sequential activation within centers must follow canonical pathways.

7.2 Inter‑Center Directionality

Bidirectional influence among centers must be preserved in all computations.

7.3 Directionality Graph Implementation

The directionality graph is implemented as:

• an adjacency matrix
• with defined edge types
• and structural constraints

8. Computational Constraints

8.1 Identity Constraints

Operators must remain distinct in all computations.

8.2 Boundary Constraints

Activation values must remain within defined limits.

8.3 Directionality Constraints

Updates must follow the canonical directionality graph.

8.4 Fusion and Overflow Constraints

Fusion and overflow must not violate structural boundaries.

9. Implementation Notes

9.1 Precision

Floating‑point precision must be sufficient to avoid numerical instability.

9.2 Scaling

Normalization strategies may be required for stability.

9.3 Efficiency

Matrix operations should be optimized for computational efficiency.

9.4 Reproducibility

Simulations must specify random seed handling.

10. Canonical Status

TS‑3 is the authoritative computational specification of the CEF.
It is subordinate to TS‑1 and TS‑2 and defines the computational rules for all simulations and implementations.

 

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification 4 (TS‑4)

Simulation & Modeling Protocols

Canonical Architecture‑Level Document — Version 1.0

Jamel Bulgaria

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5269-5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: jamebulgaria@gmail.com
Version: 1.0
Date: 2025-12-29
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification 4 (TS‑4) defines the canonical simulation and modeling protocols for computational implementations of the CEF. Whereas TS‑1 establishes the operational mechanics of centers, processes, operators, and activation dynamics, TS‑2 defines the empirical validation architecture, and TS‑3 specifies the computational structures and update rules, TS‑4 provides the formal procedures, protocols, and methodological standards for running simulations, conducting computational experiments, and generating model‑based predictions. TS‑4 is an architecture‑level document: it defines simulation logic, perturbation methods, stability analyses, and reproducibility requirements without prescribing programming languages, software platforms, or applied case studies.

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 Purpose

TS‑4 establishes the canonical simulation and modeling protocols for the CEF. It defines:

• simulation types and modeling paradigms
• initialization procedures and boundary conditions
• perturbation and intervention methods
• stability, convergence, and divergence analyses
• fusion and overflow detection algorithms
• directionality stress‑testing procedures
• reproducibility and reporting standards

TS‑4 operationalizes the computational architecture defined in TS‑3 and provides the methodological foundation for computational experiments, predictive modeling, and simulation‑based validation.

1.2 Scope

TS‑4 defines:

• simulation cycle protocols
• perturbation and intervention frameworks
• stability and sensitivity analyses
• model comparison and evaluation procedures
• reproducibility and documentation standards

TS‑4 does not include:

• programming language implementations
• software engineering patterns
• code examples
• applied simulations or case studies

TS‑4 is subordinate to TS‑1, TS‑2, and TS‑3 and must be interpreted in accordance with their definitions and constraints.

2. Simulation Types

2.1 Deterministic Simulations

Deterministic simulations use fixed update rules and produce identical results for identical initial conditions. They are used for:

• baseline modeling
• directionality testing
• stability analysis
• identity preservation checks

2.2 Stochastic Simulations

Stochastic simulations introduce controlled randomness into:

• activation updates
• perturbation timing
• noise injection

They are used for:

• robustness testing
• sensitivity analysis
• cross‑method convergence

2.3 Hybrid Simulations

Hybrid simulations combine deterministic update rules with stochastic perturbations. They are used for:

• stress‑testing directionality
• modeling real‑world variability
• testing chronic fusion emergence

2.4 Multi‑Agent Simulations

Multi‑agent simulations instantiate multiple CEF systems interacting through:

• shared environments
• communication channels
• emotional contagion pathways

They are used for:

• group‑level modeling
• social dynamics
• emergent behavior analysis

3. Initialization Protocols

3.1 Initial Activation Values

Simulations must specify:

• operator activation values
• center activation values
• process vector values

Initial values may be:

• neutral
• biased
• randomized
• empirically derived

3.2 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions define:

• activation limits
• center capacity thresholds
• fusion and overflow thresholds

3.3 Structural Integrity Checks

Before simulation begins, the system must verify:

• operator identity preservation
• center structure integrity
• directionality graph validity
• matrix dimensionality consistency

4. Perturbation and Intervention Methods

4.1 Activation Perturbations

Perturbations may target:

• individual operators
• entire centers
• process vectors

Perturbations may be:

• instantaneous
• sustained
• periodic
• stochastic

4.2 Directionality Perturbations

Directionality edges may be:

• strengthened
• weakened
• temporarily disabled

Used for:

• stress‑testing
• sensitivity analysis
• validation of canonical pathways

4.3 Structural Perturbations

Structural perturbations modify:

• matrix weights
• center aggregation rules
• operator influence patterns

Used for:

• robustness testing
• model comparison
• falsifiability analysis

5. Simulation Cycle

5.1 Update Order

Simulations must specify whether updates are:

• synchronous
• asynchronous
• center‑first
• operator‑first
• process‑first

5.2 Iteration Rules

Simulations proceed through:

• fixed iteration counts
• convergence‑based stopping
• divergence detection
• oscillation detection

5.3 Logging Requirements

Simulations must record:

• state vectors at each iteration
• activation trajectories
• fusion and overflow events
• perturbation timing
• convergence metrics

6. Stability and Convergence Analysis

6.1 Stability Criteria

A simulation is stable when:

• activation values remain within bounds
• transitions converge
• no oscillatory patterns emerge
• no chronic fusion is induced

6.2 Divergence Detection

Divergence is detected when:

• activation values exceed limits
• oscillations increase in amplitude
• directionality violations accumulate
• structural integrity is lost

6.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis evaluates:

• parameter dependence
• perturbation response
• noise robustness

7. Fusion and Overflow Detection

7.1 Fusion Detection Algorithms

Fusion is detected when:

• cross‑center modulation exceeds thresholds
• temporary coupling emerges
• operator identity remains intact

7.2 Chronic Fusion Detection

Chronic fusion is detected when:

• co‑activation persists across iterations
• rigidity emerges
• modulation fails to resolve

7.3 Overflow Detection

Overflow is detected when:

• activation exceeds home‑center capacity
• cross‑center propagation occurs
• identity preservation is maintained

8. Directionality Stress‑Testing

8.1 Intra‑Center Stress Tests

Tests include:

• sequential activation perturbations
• reverse‑direction challenges
• forced‑order violations

8.2 Inter‑Center Stress Tests

Tests include:

• cross‑center activation shocks
• delayed propagation
• asymmetric influence challenges

8.3 Graph Integrity Tests

Graph integrity is evaluated through:

• edge removal
• edge inversion
• weight scaling

9. Model Comparison and Evaluation

9.1 Baseline Model

The canonical CEF model defined in TS‑1 through TS‑3.

9.2 Alternative Models

Alternative models may vary:

• matrix structures
• update rules
• directionality patterns

9.3 Evaluation Metrics

Metrics include:

• stability
• convergence
• predictive accuracy
• robustness
• identity preservation

10. Reproducibility Standards

10.1 Random Seed Handling

Simulations must specify:

• seed initialization
• seed storage
• seed reporting

10.2 Parameter Documentation

All parameters must be documented, including:

• activation limits
• matrix weights
• perturbation schedules

10.3 Output Archiving

Simulations must archive:

• state histories
• convergence metrics
• perturbation logs

11. Canonical Status

TS‑4 is the authoritative simulation and modeling protocol specification of the CEF.
It is subordinate to TS‑1, TS‑2, and TS‑3 and defines the methodological rules for all computational experiments, simulations, and model‑based analyses.

 

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification 5 (TS‑5)

Interoperability & Cross‑System Integration
Canonical Architecture‑Level Technical Document
Version 1.0 — Zenodo‑Ready

Author: Jamel Bulgaria
ORCID: 0009‑0007‑5269‑5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: admin@optimizeyourcapabilities.com
Date: 2025‑12‑30
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC‑BY)

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification 5 (TS‑5) defines the canonical interoperability architecture for integrating the CEF with external psychological models, computational ontologies, multimodal data systems, and cross‑framework taxonomies. Whereas TS‑1 through TS‑4 specify the internal mechanics, validation logic, computational structures, and simulation protocols of the CEF, TS‑5 establishes the formal rules, constraints, and translation principles governing all cross‑system mappings.

TS‑5 is an architecture‑level document. It does not include applied examples, clinical interpretations, or modality‑specific reframes. Instead, it defines the structural logic that ensures identity preservation, directionality integrity, and boundary coherence when the CEF is interfaced with external systems.

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 Purpose

TS‑5 establishes the canonical interoperability architecture of the CEF. It defines:

• cross‑system mapping rules
• equivalence constraints
• translation principles
• interoperability boundaries
• identity‑preservation requirements
• cross‑framework alignment logic
• multimodal data integration rules
• ontology‑level compatibility conditions

1.2 Scope

TS‑5 defines:

• interoperability constraints
• mapping functions
• equivalence classes
• translation matrices
• cross‑ontology alignment rules
• multimodal data integration architecture

TS‑5 does not include:

• clinical examples
• applied reframes
• psychotherapy modality descriptions
• implementation code
• software engineering patterns

TS‑5 is subordinate to TS‑1 through TS‑4 and must be interpreted in accordance with their definitions and constraints.

2. Interoperability Architecture Overview

2.1 Interoperability Domains

CEF interoperability occurs across four domains:

1. Psychological Frameworks
2. Computational Ontologies
3. Multimodal Data Systems
4. Cross‑Framework Taxonomies

2.2 Interoperability Principles

Interoperability must satisfy:

• Identity Preservation
• Structural Integrity
• Directionality Fidelity
• Non‑Collapse
• Non‑Expansion
• Bidirectional Transparency
• Non‑Circularity

3. Mapping Architecture

3.1 Mapping Functions

Let CEF be the canonical architecture and X an external system.

A mapping function is defined as:

M: CEF  →  X  

Mappings must be:

• injective
• reversible
• boundary‑preserving

3.2 Equivalence Classes

Mappings must define:

• operator‑level equivalence
• process‑level equivalence
• center‑level equivalence
• directionality‑level equivalence

3.3 Translation Matrices

Translation matrices must satisfy:

• non‑negativity
• structural boundaries
• identity preservation
• zero entries for invalid mappings

4. Identity Preservation Requirements

4.1 Operator Identity

Operators must remain distinct under all mappings.

Forbidden:

• merging operators
• splitting operators
• redefining operators using external constructs

4.2 Center Boundaries

Centers must remain intact.

Forbidden:

• relocating operators
• collapsing centers
• redefining centers

4.3 Directionality Integrity

Directionality pathways must remain canonical.

Forbidden:

• adding edges
• removing edges
• reversing edges

5. Cross‑Framework Integration Rules

5.1 Psychological Models

Mappings must:

• preserve operator identity
• maintain center boundaries
• avoid interpretive drift
• avoid semantic substitution

5.2 Dimensional Models

Dimensional axes may modulate activation but may not redefine operators.

5.3 Personality Models

Traits must be treated as emergent patterns, not operator‑level constructs.

6. Computational Interoperability

6.1 Ontology Alignment

CEF constructs must map to external ontologies using:

• unique identifiers
• reversible mappings
• structural constraints

6.2 Knowledge Graph Integration

CEF nodes must:

• retain identity
• maintain center affiliation
• preserve directionality edges

6.3 Agent Architecture Integration

CEF may be embedded as:

• internal state vectors
• regulatory modules
• activation matrices

But must not be:

• reinterpreted as reward functions
• collapsed into fewer states

7. Multimodal Data Integration

7.1 Data Streams

CEF may integrate:

• physiological data
• behavioral data
• linguistic data
• environmental data

7.2 Mapping Constraints

Data may modulate activation but may not:

• redefine operators
• introduce new operators
• alter directionality

7.3 Fusion and Overflow Detection

External data may support detection but cannot redefine:

• fusion
• chronic fusion
• overflow

8. Interoperability Boundary Conditions

8.1 Forbidden Mappings

Forbidden:

• operator merging
• operator splitting
• center redefinition
• directionality modification
• semantic reinterpretation
• cross‑center operator migration

8.2 Permissible Mappings

Permissible:

• functional equivalence
• modulation mapping
• dimensional overlays
• cross‑ontology alignment

8.3 Structural Violations

Any mapping that violates identity, boundaries, or directionality is non‑canonical.

9. Reversibility and Transparency

9.1 Reversibility Requirement

All mappings must satisfy:

M^{-1}(M(O))  =  O  

9.2 Transparency Requirement

Mappings must include:

• mapping function
• equivalence class
• translation matrix
• boundary conditions

10. Canonical Status

TS‑5 is the authoritative interoperability specification of the CEF.
It is subordinate to TS‑1 through TS‑4 and defines the structural rules for all cross‑system integrations.

Versioning and Revision History

• Version: 1.0 (Zenodo‑Ready)
• Date: 2025‑12‑30
• Revision History: Future revisions will be documented through Zenodo DOI versioning.

Licensing

This document is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC‑BY).
Reuse is permitted with attribution to the original author.

 

Core Emotion Framework (CEF): Technical Specification 6 (TS‑6)

Structural‑Constructivist Mapping of Human Experience

Technical Specification for Decomposing All Human Experiences and Emotional Expressions into the 10 Core Functional Powers of the Core Emotion Framework (CEF)

Version 1.0 — Zenodo‑Ready

Author: Jamel Bulgaria
ORCID: 0009‑0007‑5269‑5739
Affiliation: OptimizeYourCapabilities.com
Contact: admin@optimizeyourcapabilities.com
Date: 2026‑01‑05
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC‑BY)

Abstract

The Core Emotion Framework (CEF) Technical Specification 6 (TS‑6) defines the canonical structural‑constructivist mapping engine used to decompose any human emotional expression or experience into the ten core functional powers of the CEF. Building on the architectural definitions of TS‑1, the validation logic of TS‑2, the computational structures of TS‑3, and the simulation protocols of TS‑4, TS‑6 establishes the formal rules, representational standards, and canonical constraints governing emotional composition. The specification introduces a hybrid symbolic–vector representation format, a deterministic mapping pipeline, and a machine‑readable schema for computational and semantic‑web integration. TS‑6 provides the authoritative framework for identifying active functional powers, assigning intensities, normalizing ratios, validating compositions, and ensuring structural fidelity across all CEF‑based lexicons, models, and applications. This document serves as the foundational standard for the EL‑Series global emotional lexicon and all future compositional, analytic, and computational work within the CEF canon.

0. Document header

Document ID: TS‑6
Version: 1.1 (Canonical, Drift‑Corrected)
Status: Published
Canonical Position: Sixth Technical Specification in the CEF Canon
Dependencies: TS‑1 (Technical Specification), TS‑2 (Validation Architecture), TS‑3 (Computational Specification), TS‑4 (Simulation & Modeling Protocols), TS‑5 (Lexical Integration)
Governing Body: Core Emotion Framework Canonical Architecture

1. Purpose and scope

TS‑6 defines the formal architecture, rules, and representational standards for mapping any human emotional expression or experience to the 10 core functional powers of the Core Emotion Framework (CEF).

TS‑6 specifies:

• Mapping engine: Structural‑constructivist rules for decomposing experiences into functional powers.
• Representation standard: Hybrid symbolic + vector representation.
• Operational rules: Identification, decomposition, and validation of compositions.
• Canonical constraints: Conditions ensuring cross‑document consistency within the CEF canon.
• Machine‑readable schema: Formal structures for computational and semantic web integration.

1.1 Inclusions

TS‑6 governs the mapping of:

• Linguistic expressions: All emotional expressions across all natural languages.
• Historical expressions: Emotions and affective constructs across all historical eras.
• Domain‑specific expressions: Clinical, aesthetic, moral, spiritual, literary, anthropological, organizational, and related domains.
• Granularity: Affective states, micro‑emotions, meta‑emotions, mixed emotions, and compound experiences.
• Modalities: Somatic, cognitive, relational, existential, and social emotional expressions.

1.2 Exclusions

TS‑6 does not include:

• Global emotional lexicon: The full cross‑linguistic lexicon (defined in the EL‑Series).
• Clinical interpretation: Psychopathology structures and diagnostic mappings (TS‑7).
• Neurodiversity calibration: Trait, style, and profile calibration (TS‑8).
• Synthetic affect: INTIMA and synthetic affective benchmarks (TS‑9).
• Therapeutic protocols: Structured disassembly and intervention sequences (TS‑10).

TS‑6 defines the mapping engine only.

2. Definitions

For the purposes of TS‑6, the following terms are defined formally:

• Experience:
  A subjective, affective, cognitive, somatic, relational, or existential state that can be decomposed into functional powers.
• Emotional expression:
  Any linguistic, behavioral, cultural, or symbolic label that refers to an affective state or experience.
• Functional power:
  One of the 10 irreducible core emotional processes defined in the CEF architecture, instantiated as operator‑level regulatory functions.
• Composition:
  A structured combination of functional powers, each with an assigned intensity, that together model an emotional experience.
• Center (domain):
  One of the three CEF centers: Head, Heart, Gut, defined canonically in TS‑1.
• Intensity:
  A numerical value representing the magnitude or contribution of a functional power within a composition, typically normalized to a () range.
• Ratio:
  The relative weighting of functional powers in a composition; usually represented via normalized intensities summing to 1.0.
• Symbolic representation:
  A human‑readable expression of a composition using functional power names, usually ordered by contribution.
• Vector representation:
  A 10‑dimensional numerical array encoding intensities for each functional power in a fixed canonical order.
• Hybrid representation:
  A combined representation including symbolic form, vector form, and associated metadata.

3. Architectural model

3.1 The ten functional powers (canonical assignment)

TS‑1 and the Core Essence Document define the following canonical assignment of processes to centers:

• Head Center (cognitive and executive regulation):
  • Sensing
  • Calculating
  • Deciding
• Heart Center (relational and affective flow):
  • Expanding
  • Constricting
  • Achieving
• Gut Center (action, embodiment, and motivational drive):
  • Arranging
  • Appreciating
  • Boosting
  • Accepting

TS‑6 does not redefine centers or processes; it strictly inherits this mapping from TS‑1.

3.2 Structural‑constructivist principle

All emotional experiences are modeled as compositions of the 10 functional powers:

• Completeness:
  Every emotional expression is representable as a composition of these powers.
• Irreducibility:
  No additional functional powers are introduced.
• Constructivism:
  Complex experiences are constructed from multiple powers rather than treated as atomic states.

3.3 Composition equation

For any emotional expression (E), TS‑6 defines:

where:

• ( ) is the ( )-th functional power (in canonical order).
• (Ii ) is its intensity (typically in ( ), often normalized so ( .

3.4 Mapping pipeline (conceptual overview)

TS‑6 defines a canonical pipeline for mapping any emotional expression:

1. Feature identification
2. Functional power activation selection
3. Intensity assignment
4. Ratio normalization
5. Symbolic construction
6. Vector construction
7. Validation against canonical constraints

Subsequent sections define these steps more formally.

4. Representation Standards

4.1 Symbolic Representation

A symbolic representation expresses an emotional composition as an ordered list of functional powers, arranged from highest to lowest intensity.
Only the ten canonical functional powers may appear.
Symbolic representations must reflect the normalized intensity ordering derived from the mapping pipeline.

4.2 Vector Representation

A vector representation expresses an emotional composition as a ten‑element numerical array corresponding to the ten functional powers in canonical order:

Sensing,Calculating,Deciding,Expanding,Constricting,Achieving,Arranging,Appreciating,Boosting,Accepting

Each value represents the normalized intensity of the corresponding functional power.
All values must be non‑negative.
At least one value must be non‑zero.

4.3 Normalization

All intensities must be normalized such that the highest intensity equals 1.0 unless the composition is uniformly zero, which is invalid.
Normalization preserves relative proportions between functional powers.

4.4 Optional Metadata

Optional metadata may accompany a TS‑6 compliant representation to support search, interoperability, and integration with external frameworks.

Optional metadata does not participate in the CEF mapping engine and must not alter the symbolic or vector representation. It may not introduce alternative structural constructs beyond the ten canonical functional powers.

Permissible metadata fields include, but are not limited to:

- Contextual descriptors: Free‑text notes describing situational, cultural, or narrative context.
- Linguistic descriptors: Language codes, register labels (e.g., clinical, colloquial, literary), and usage notes.
- Domain descriptors: Application domains (e.g., clinical, organizational, educational, artistic) where the expression is used.
- Affective descriptors (external frameworks): Valence and arousal labels or scores drawn from non‑CEF models (e.g., circumplex models of affect). These fields are allowed only as external descriptors for interoperability and must not be treated as functional powers, centers, or structural categories within the CEF.

All metadata fields are strictly optional, implementation‑specific, and non‑canonical. The CEF architecture, as defined in TS‑1 through TS‑4 and implemented in TS‑6, is fully specified by the ten functional powers and their intensities alone.

5. Mapping algorithm

5.1 Step‑by‑step procedure

TS‑6 defines the following canonical mapping procedure:

1. Feature extraction
   • Input: An emotional expression ( ) (word, phrase, description, or vignette).
   • Task: Identify cognitive, somatic, relational, motivational, and contextual features relevant to ( ).
2. Power activation selection
   • Task: Determine which of the 10 functional powers are actively contributing to ( ).
   • Constraint: Only the 10 canonical powers may be used; no additional powers are introduced.
3. Intensity assignment
   • Task: Assign a raw intensity value ( ) to each active power (and zero to inactive ones).
   • Range: Typically ( ) or another defined continuous range.
4. Ratio normalization
   • Task: Normalize intensities so that ( ) (unless a different normalization rule is explicitly specified).
5. Symbolic construction
   • Task: Generate a symbolic representation by listing all powers with non‑zero intensity in descending order of ( ).
6. Vector construction
   • Task: Construct a 10‑element vector in the canonical order (Section 4.1) using the normalized intensities.
7. Validation
   • Task: Validate the composition according to the canonical constraints in Section 6.

5.2 Primary vs. secondary powers

To support interpretation and analysis, TS‑6 defines:

• Primary powers:
  Functional powers with intensity ( ) (after normalization, if used).
• Secondary powers:
  Functional powers with ( ).

Thresholds may be adjusted in specific applications, but TS‑6 recommends ( ) as a default cutoff for primary contributions.

5.3 Ambiguous expressions

For ambiguous expressions (e.g., polysemous terms, context‑dependent labels):

• Multiple compositions:
  The expression may be mapped to multiple distinct compositions, each corresponding to a different meaning or context.
• Disambiguation:
  Each composition must be internally valid and separately validated.
• Context indexing:
  Implementations should label or index each composition with contextual qualifiers where possible.

5.4 Drift prevention rules

To prevent conceptual or structural drift:

• No new powers:
  No composition may introduce new functional powers beyond the 10 canonical ones.
• No re‑assignment:
  Functional powers may not be assigned to different centers than those defined in TS‑1.
• No renaming:
  Canonical names (Sensing, Calculating, etc.) must be used without substitution or synonym replacement in formal representations.
• No altered definitions:
  TS‑6 does not modify the definitional content of powers; it only uses them for mapping.

6. Canonical constraints

A representation is valid if and only if:

1. It uses only the ten canonical functional powers.
2. The symbolic and vector forms correspond exactly.
3. Intensities are normalized correctly.
4. No negative values appear in the vector.
5. At least one functional power has non‑zero intensity.
6. Canonical order is preserved in the vector.

Validation does not require center totals, center summaries, or any center‑based metadata.

7. Examples

Example: “Anger” (Illustrative Only)

Symbolic: Constricting > Boosting > Arranging > Sensing
Vector:

Example: “Joy” (Illustrative Only)

Symbolic: Expanding > Appreciating > Boosting > Accepting > Sensing
Vector:

8. Machine‑readable specification

8.1 JSON schema (conceptual)

A TS‑6‑compliant JSON structure for a mapped expression must include at least:

• expression: String label of the emotional expression.
• symbolic: Ordered list of canonical functional power names.
• vector: 10‑element numeric array in canonical order.
• metadata: Optional extended fields.

Example schema (informal):

{

  "expression": "string",

  "symbolic": ["Sensing", "Expanding", "..."],

  "vector": [0.0, 0.3, 0.1, 0.7, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1, 0.6, 0.4, 0.5],

  },

  "metadata": {

    "valence": "positive",

    "arousal": "high",

    "language": "en"

}

Metadata fields (including any valence/arousal labels or scores) are external descriptors only and do not participate in the TS‑6 mapping pipeline or alter the symbolic or vector representation. 

}

8.2 Vector schema

• Type: Array of 10 numbers (float or fixed‑precision).
• Order:
• Constraints: Range and normalization as per implementation, but consistent across the dataset.

8.3 Symbolic schema

• Type: List of strings.
• Allowed values: Exactly the 10 canonical names.
• Ordering: Strictly descending by intensity; ties may be broken by canonical order.

8.4 Example encoding (illustrative only)

Example for an expression typically associated with positive affect and engagement (values are illustrative, not empirical):

{

  "expression": "Happiness",

  "symbolic": ["Expanding", "Appreciating", "Boosting", "Accepting", "Sensing"],

  "vector": [0.1, 0.0, 0.0, 0.7, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4],

  },

  "metadata": {

    "valence": "positive",

    "arousal": "medium-high"

  }

}

This example respects:

• canonical process names
• canonical vector order
• canonical process‑to‑center assignment

9. Appendix A: Canonical‑style examples (illustrative)

Values below are illustrative and not empirically validated. They demonstrate format and structural rules, not normative content.

9.1 Happiness

• Symbolic: Expanding + Appreciating + Boosting + Accepting + Sensing
• Vector (canonical order):
  [ [0.1, 0.0, 0.0, 0.7, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4] ]

9.2 Fear

An example emphasizing boundary, appraisal, and action preparedness.

• Symbolic: Sensing + Constricting + Arranging + Boosting
• Vector:
  [ [0.6, 0.0, 0.0, 0.1, 0.7, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.4, 0.0] ]

9.3 Awe

An example with strong openness and cognitive‑perceptual engagement.

• Symbolic: Sensing + Expanding + Appreciating + Accepting
• Vector:
  [ [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.8, 0.1, 0.0, 0.0, 0.6, 0.2, 0.4] ]

These examples remain structurally consistent with TS‑6 constraints and TS‑1 canonical assignments.

10. Appendix B: Reserved extensions

TS‑6 reserves the following series and specifications for extended use:

• TS‑7: Structural Psychopathology (clinical mapping and dysregulation patterns)
• TS‑8: Neurodiversity Calibration (individual differences and trait calibration)
• TS‑9: Synthetic Affect & INTIMA (AI and synthetic emotional systems)
• TS‑10: Therapeutic Structural Disassembly (protocols for structured emotional work)
• EL‑Series: Global Emotional Lexicon (multi‑volume, cross‑linguistic lexicon built on TS‑6)

End of TS‑6 (Version 1.1, Canonical)