The claim
U7: “These three views are perfectly mutually compatible. They are not different things. They absolutely can be treated as complementary components of one theory.”
A10 assigned each its sub-question: Brooks, how coherent behaviour arises without a central executive; Kelso, how interaction produces collective variables and regime transitions; Levin, how a higher-scale goal-directed boundary forms.
What it does not say
That the three are one theory already. It says they do not compete, which is
why the record wanted a complements relation. It has one between its own
claims; between a claim and a THEORY it waits on a luria fix
(dmarx/luria#358), so the accounts are premises here.
Note of 2026-10-27: the edge says what the claim uses
The status review of this date (ADR-057, ADR-058) moved THEORY-069 from grounds to corroborated_by, the cross-scheme relation the body was waiting for (ADR-058). The claim uses what Kelso’s account is about, and not HKB’s empirical claims.