Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Ecology — how organisms interact with each other and their environment — symbiosis and host–microbe partnerships, competition, herbivory and trophic interactions, community structure, resilience and regime shifts in ecosystems (ADR-028). How a partner comes to live inside another and depend on it is endosymbiosis (ADR-055).
5 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-063 v4 | When a collective outcome such as synchrony, or the fall of a regulated quantity, can come from a shared external drive, from coupling among the members or from different internal routes, what measurement or intervention tells which architecture produced it, given that directional information measures under a recorded one-sided drive need not follow the coupling? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on QUESTION-035, QUESTION-033, CLAIM-172, CLAIM-167 and CLAIM-158. THEORY-129 and THEORY-130 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-132 v4 | Under what conditions do initially equivalent adaptive operators differentiate into functionally complementary specialists that each have positive recovery growth when rare, rather than into roles kept in place by external load balancing or by persistent authority asymmetries? | The central mathematical question of the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. QUESTION-083 asks whether operators sharing one update rule can come to hold differentiated authority. This asks the coexistence version: does the differentiation produce stabilizing negative frequency dependence, meaning every specialist recovers when rare (Chesson’s stabilizing mechanisms, LIT-1219, unread)? Or is it held in place from outside, or by one process’s entrenched advantage? An answer is a population model that derives the interaction structure from learned contributions, states recovery criteria, and finds the regimes of coexistence and exclusion. Heterogeneous embeddings, unequal routing weights or persistent expert identities do not answer it. | Open |
| QUESTION-135 v2 | When does spectral differentiation among learned features correspond to stabilizing coexistence among the processes that implement them, and what besides the feature geometry decides it? | From the synthesis the owner relayed on 2026-10-18. In symmetric resource-mediated competition the interaction matrix is the Gram matrix of the components’ feature vectors, A = UᵀU, so representational redundancy and competitive overlap are one object (CLAIM-369). In the two-component case invasion growth equals λ_min(A) (CASE-118). But the same A supports coexistence or exclusion depending on the growth rates. An answer says when the Gram spectrum of a learned representation predicts that the processes carrying its features will coexist, and what else, such as supply, task distribution or evaluation opportunities, has to be fixed for it to. | Open |
| QUESTION-229 | Does the critical delay of a delayed random Lotka–Volterra community still fall with diversity when self-regulation is weak and interactions set the leading eigenvalue, is its Hopf bifurcation supercritical, and is the divergent phase reported past it real under a stiff delay-equation solver? | The delay-half promotion condition formerly on THEORY-548. THEORY-548 was narrowed and promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2 for the critical delay, v3 with a re-run against an averaging null for the variability). What it does not settle: the weak-self-regulation regime, whether the Hopf bifurcation is supercritical, and whether the divergent phase is real. | Open |
| QUESTION-371 | Can a moral norm work among cooperating groups as a stabilizing mechanism does in coexistence theory, limiting a dominant group more than it limits its rivals so that a group reduced to rarity can increase again; and is that what separates norms that keep several groups in being from norms that serve only one group’s internal cooperation? | From §9 of the synthesis “The Evolution of Cooperation: From Coexistence to Symbiosis to Morality”, which the owner supplied on 2026-11-04: “Can moral norms function analogously to ecological stabilizing mechanisms by preventing powerful groups from excluding weaker ones?” Made precise here with Chesson’s distinction (LIT-1219). A stabilizing mechanism makes each type limit itself more than it limits others, which is what lets a type recover from rarity. | Open |