BACKWARD FLOW HYPOTHESIS (L4 — breaking the RYF tradeoff)
CONTEXT: VAI confirmed (r=-0.710, p=1.26e-16): coherent hierarchy → asymmetric vulnerability → no homeostasis. The mechanism: template catalysis creates one-way flow (source→sink) with few backward edges. Hub removal cascades downstream with no return path for recovery.
HOT/RYF prediction (Carlson & Doyle 1999, 2000): overcoming L3→L4 requires breaking the robustness-fragility tradeoff. Three routes proposed: (a) add backward edges (reduces coherence, weakens hierarchy) (b) add redundant catalysts (template matching naturally converges to hub dominance) (c) multi-scale architecture (hierarchy at macro, redundancy at micro)
THIS EXPERIMENT tests route (a): can personas that explicitly QUESTION upstream contributions create backward information flow, reducing VAI while preserving hierarchy (TR_range > 0)?
DESIGN: two conditions at N=5, 60 rounds each.
- QUESTIONING condition: 2/5 agents have "challenger" personas that explicitly reference, question, and modify upstream contributions. This should create backward edges in the influence graph.
- STANDARD condition: 5 agents with standard differentiated personas (same as exp-pent baseline). One-way flow expected.
PREDICTION: if questioning creates backward edges:
- F₀ should INCREASE (more incoherent = more backward edges)
- VAI should DECREASE (less asymmetric vulnerability)
- TR_range should remain > 0 (hierarchy doesn't collapse)
- If all three hold: first evidence that L4 route exists.
If questioning COLLAPSES hierarchy (TR_range → 0): backward flow is incompatible with hierarchy. Route (a) is closed. HOT tradeoff is strict in this substrate.
If questioning has NO EFFECT on F₀/VAI: LLM text interaction doesn't produce genuine backward edges through persona instruction alone. Template matching overrides persona intent.
EXPLORATION TIER (N=1 per condition). Goal: does backward flow exist?