If the multi-agent trophic hierarchy is autopoietic (actively self- maintaining), then removing the keystone agent (highest trophic ratio) will NOT permanently destroy the hierarchy: the remaining agents will reorganize and maintain trophic differentiation, even as a dyad (N=2).
If the hierarchy is merely a passive byproduct of persona directives + N=3 topology, then keystone removal collapses it permanently — the remaining N=2 system reverts to the undifferentiated state observed in EXP-DYAD (TR diff 0.060).
KEY DISTINCTION: This tests whether organizational structure is encoded in the SHARED MEMORY (autopoietic — memory maintains role pressure even after agent removal) or only in the AGENT DIRECTIVES + TOPOLOGY (not autopoietic — structure disappears with the topology that created it).
PRIOR EVIDENCE: EXP-ASYM: behavioral directives create stable trophic roles (d=1.2) EXP-SLC: three-level gradient confirmed (p=0.002), interpreter-dependent EXP-DYAD: fresh N=2 → NO hierarchy (TR diff 0.060) EXP-QUAD: N=4 COLLAPSES hierarchy (TR range 0.059) → N=3 is Goldilocks topology. Removing 1 agent → N=2. → The question: can "socialized" N=2 maintain what fresh N=2 cannot?
AUTOPOIESIS FRAMING (adapted from EXP-11 pond-level design): Varela (1974): does the system "continuously regenerate the network of processes that produced" its components? Rosen (1991): is the "repair function" internal to the system? Beer (2004): which perturbations are recoverable? Our test: remove keystone → does hierarchy self-repair?