Note

Draft status: MMv2-SysEng (2026m04d05). This is the systems engineering presentation of the e7Day model, written for systems theorists, software architects, organizational designers, and engineers. Companion papers present the formal derivations (b12-math), theological context (b12-theophil), psychological evidence (b12-socpsy), and a general introduction (b12-intro). Draft by Claude Opus 4.6 (dv_ClaOp46_MMv2_2026m04d05).

The e7Day Model: A Systems Engineering Framework for Self-Correcting Construction#

Study a2-SysEng in the HEAVEN series

Honestly Examining Axioms — Vetting Every Narrative

Abstract #

Why do complex systems tend toward self-destruction? Why is it so hard to build organizations, software systems, and institutions that self-correct before they collapse? This paper presents the e7Day model — a formal framework of 21 axioms and 9 theorems that answers these questions with a structural diagnosis.

The model identifies 8 construction stages (VOID through TRUST) that any self-correcting system must pass through, organized as a cumulative dependency cascade (the Work-Logic Cascade, or WoLC). The critical finding is a bifurcation at the self-assessment stage: when a system’s governance assesses itself as adequate (OK), self-correction stops and collapse becomes inevitable through the OSCR mechanism (over-Simplify, over-Complicate, over-Reach). When governance assesses itself as adequate-but-incomplete (OKO), self-correction can continue — but requires perpetual effort.

The framework connects to established systems theory: Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety [Ashby, 1956] explains why general intelligence is necessary (theorem th4), Shannon’s channel capacity [Shannon, 1948] grounds the noise-destruction mechanism (axiom m5.ax2), Tuckman’s stages [Tuckman, 1965] independently exhibit the same OKO tension at the “storming” stage, and Luhmann’s autopoiesis [Luhmann, 1995] parallels the self-managing machine axiom (m5.ax1).

This paper translates the formal results into engineering language: what to build, what to monitor, and what to avoid.

1. Introduction: The Self-Destruction Problem #

Every experienced engineer knows the pattern. A system is designed, built, and deployed successfully. It works well. It scales. And then, gradually or suddenly, it begins to destroy itself. The same properties that enabled success — optimization, efficiency, scaling — become the mechanism of failure.

A financial system optimizes for efficiency, strips out redundancy, and collapses when a novel shock hits the stripped-out safety margin.
A software architecture abstracts away complexity, creates a clean API surface, and then cannot adapt when requirements change in ways the abstraction assumed away.
An organization creates clear roles and processes, achieves operational excellence, and then cannot respond to disruption because the processes have become immune to feedback.

The common element is not a lack of capability but a failure of self-correction. The system’s own success makes it blind to the conditions under which it will fail.

The e7Day model formalizes this pattern and provides a structural diagnosis. The diagnosis has three parts:

The EQUAL problem (Section 2.3): Every system that maps continuous reality to discrete categories (which is every system) loses information. This loss is irreducible.
The self-assessment bifurcation (Section 2.7): When governance assesses itself as adequate, it stops checking for the information loss. When it assesses itself as incomplete, it keeps checking.
The OSCR collapse (Section 3.1): When self-correction stops, the system over-simplifies, then over-complicates, then over-reaches, then fails.

1.1 The Work-Logic Cascade as an Engineering Framework #

The e7Day model organizes system construction as a Work-Logic Cascade (WoLC): 8 stages that any self-correcting system must instantiate. For engineers, the stages map to design phases:

Stage	Name	Engineering Instantiation
m0	VOID	Undefined requirements. No constraints, no types, no scope.
m1	TYPE	Scope definition. What is in scope? What is explicitly out of scope? The scope decision is irrevocable within the development cycle.
m2	EQUAL	Data type design. Integer types (entities) vs. Real types (quantities). Every ORM, every type system, every database schema makes this choice. Verdict: OKO — the tension between nominal and structural typing is permanent.
m3	VALUE	Data architecture. Ground (constants, configuration) vs. Ocean (live data, streams). Programs are functions from Ocean to Ground. Data must circulate (event sourcing, stream processing).
m4	LOGIC	Process architecture. Foreground (synchronous, directed) vs. background (asynchronous, reactive). Time is a first-class type (event time, process time, wall-clock time).
m5	CARE	Autonomous services. Microservices that self-manage and self-scale. The UMP: when noise (spam, bad data, log storms) exceeds channel capacity, monitoring becomes useless.
m6	HOPE	Governance and self-assessment. After automation is complete, who assesses whether the system is working? The OK/OKO bifurcation: “the system is fine” (OK → BABL) vs. “the system needs ongoing attention” (OKO → ZION possible).
m7	TRUST	Consolidation and rest. Periodic maintenance windows, batch processing, garbage collection. The 6:1 work/rest ratio as a sustainability boundary.

1.2 Connections to Established Systems Theory #

The e7Day model does not replace existing systems theory. It integrates several established results into a single cascade framework:

Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety [Ashby, 1956]: “Only variety can absorb variety.” This is the formal foundation for theorem th4 (Balospe Necessity): special-purpose automation cannot handle novel variations. General intelligence (human judgment, adaptive AI) is structurally necessary.
Shannon’s Noisy Channel Theorem [Shannon, 1948]: Axiom m5.ax2 (UMP) is a direct application. When noise exceeds channel capacity, reliable communication is impossible. Applied to monitoring: when alert fatigue exceeds threshold, no alert is actionable.
Tuckman’s Stages [Tuckman, 1965]: The forming-storming-norming- performing-adjourning model independently exhibits the WoLC structure. “Storming” is the EQUAL stage (OKO: unresolved tension, no consensus). “Adjourning” is the TRUST stage (consolidation, rest).
Luhmann’s Autopoiesis [Luhmann, 1995]: Self-reproducing systems of communication parallel m5.ax1 (Self-Managing Machines). The system maintains itself through its own operations.

For the formal derivations of all claims, see b12-math. For the psychological evidence on why self-assessment fails, see b12-socpsy.

2. The Eight Construction Stages #

2.1 VOID (m0) — Undefined Requirements #

Axiom: The starting condition is maximum disorder with no types.

Engineering translation: Before any design begins, the problem space is undifferentiated. No requirements are defined. No constraints are established. This is the most dangerous state: because nothing is excluded, anything can be demanded. The “blank canvas” is not freedom; it is a trap — projects that never define scope never converge.

Design principle: Acknowledge the void. Do not pretend requirements are known when they are not. The first act of construction is not building; it is scoping (Stage 1).

2.2 TYPE (m1) — Scope Definition #

Axiom: Binary partition: in-scope (L) vs. out-of-scope (D). Irrevocable within the development cycle.

Engineering translation: Define what the system will do and — critically — what it will not do. The scope decision is a commitment: once made, it constrains all subsequent design. Changing scope mid-cycle is a new cycle, not a continuation.

Design principle: “This compiler handles language L; everything outside L is someone else’s problem.” Make the scope decision explicit, document it, and enforce it. Scope creep is the engineering form of VOID re-entering the construction.

2.3 EQUAL (m2) — The Type Tension #

Axioms: Types partition into indivisible (Int) and divisible (Real). Every mapping from Real to Int loses information.

Engineering translation: Every system that maps continuous reality to discrete categories (database schemas, type systems, classification models, organizational roles) loses information. The loss is not a bug; it is a mathematical necessity (formally proven in b12-math, theorem m2.th1). Two strategies are always in tension:

PERFECT: Preserve the integrity of each entity (every user is unique; every edge case matters; nominal typing)
PERFIDE: Preserve system-level interoperability (users are fungible; edge cases are rounded; structural typing)

You cannot fully satisfy both. This is the most important lesson of the model for systems engineers: the tension between PERFECT and PERFIDE is permanent. No architecture eliminates it. The best you can do is manage it — and the management must be ongoing.

Tuckman parallel: Tuckman’s “storming” stage [Tuckman, 1965] is precisely this: the team has been formed (scope defined, Stage 1) but now disagrees about how to handle the fundamental trade-offs. Storming has no “it was good” verdict. It is OKO: the tension must be acknowledged, not resolved. Teams that skip storming (pretend everyone agrees) are in BABL.

Design principle: Do not optimize for PERFECT or PERFIDE globally. Design for local trade-offs with a mechanism for periodic review (the Jubilee pattern, paper a4 forthcoming). Monitor where the current trade-off is causing pain and adjust. Never declare the trade-off “solved.”

By Ashby’s Law: The variety of real-world situations (Real-type) exceeds the variety of your type system (Int-type). Your types will always be an approximation. Build the system knowing this.

2.4 VALUE (m3) — Data Architecture #

Axioms: Values partition into Ground (configuration, constants) and Ocean (live data, streams). Programs are functions from Ocean to Ground. Data must circulate.

Engineering translation: Separate stable knowledge (Ground: schemas, configurations, business rules) from fluid data (Ocean: events, user input, sensor readings). Programs process fluid data using stable knowledge and produce stable outputs.

The circulation requirement is critical: data must flow from Ocean (live sources) through programs (processing) and back to Ocean (updated state). Systems where data stops circulating fail:

Ground dries: If programs never receive fresh data, their outputs are based on stale assumptions.
Ocean stagnates: If live data is never processed, the system accumulates unprocessed state until it overwhelms capacity.

Design principle: Event-driven architecture, stream processing, continuous integration. Data must flow. Batch-only systems violate the circulation axiom and accumulate staleness.

2.5 LOGIC (m4) — Process Architecture #

Axioms: Processes partition into foreground (DAY: synchronous, directed) and background (NIGHT: asynchronous, reactive). Time is a first-class type.

Engineering translation: Design systems with both:

DAY processes: Request-response, synchronous APIs, user-facing operations, directed workflows
NIGHT processes: Background jobs, event listeners, cron tasks, garbage collection, monitoring

Time must be explicitly modeled (event time vs. processing time vs. wall-clock time). Systems that treat time as implicit (e.g., relying on wall-clock ordering for event processing) fail under distribution.

2.6 CARE (m5) — Autonomous Services #

Axioms: Conditional-data machines are self-managing and self-replicating. When noise exceeds threshold, channel capacity for signal collapses to zero.

Engineering translation: Microservices, Kubernetes pods, auto-scaling groups — systems that maintain and replicate themselves without manual intervention. The UMP (Unimportant Message Problem) is the formal name for a universal engineering experience: alert fatigue.

When the monitoring system generates more noise than signal (false positives, irrelevant alerts, log storms), the on-call engineer cannot distinguish real incidents from noise. Channel capacity for actionable signal collapses to zero. The system is “monitored” in name only.

By Shannon’s theorem [Shannon, 1948]: reliable communication requires signal-to-noise ratio above a threshold. Below that threshold, no amount of monitoring infrastructure helps — the channel is saturated.

Design principle: Monitor fewer things, but monitor them well. Signal-to-noise ratio of monitoring is a first-class system property. Alert fatigue is not a people problem; it is an information-theoretic problem (m5.ax2).

2.7 HOPE (m6) — Governance and Self-Assessment #

Axioms:

The automated system is complete but cannot handle novel situations (m6.ax1)
General intelligence (human judgment or adaptive AI) is necessary for long-term survival (m6.ax2)
The system works when the governance mechanism (OKO) matches the system’s inherent tension (OKO) (m6.ax3)
The self-assessment bifurcation (m6.ax4): OK = BABL, OKO = ZION prerequisite

Engineering translation: After automation is complete (CI/CD pipelines, auto-scaling, self-healing infrastructure), the most important question becomes: who is checking whether the automation is working?

If the answer is “nobody, because it’s automated and it’s fine” — this is OK self-assessment. The system is in BABL. It will fail when a novel situation arises that the automation was not designed for.
If the answer is “we have an ongoing process for reviewing whether our assumptions still hold” — this is OKO self-assessment. The system has a chance at ZION.

By Ashby’s Law [Ashby, 1956]: the automated system’s variety is fixed at design time. The environment’s variety grows. Eventually, the environment generates a situation the automation cannot handle. Only a general-intelligence agent (human or sufficiently capable AI) can adapt.

The OSCR pattern in organizations:

Over-simplify: “We don’t need manual review; the automation handles it.” Nuance collapses. Blind spots form.
Over-complicate: The blind spots cause incidents. Each incident gets a new rule, a new process, a new exception handler. The system becomes a patchwork of work-arounds.
Over-reach: The patchwork is declared “best practice” and imposed on new situations it was not designed for. The system cannot adapt to genuine novelty because all adaptive capacity has been consumed by work-arounds.

Design principle: Build governance that assumes it is incomplete. Schedule periodic reviews of assumptions. Resist “the system is fine” as an organizational steady state. Create Chaos Engineering practices that test whether self-assessment is real.

2.8 TRUST (m7) — Consolidation and Rest #

Axioms: TRUST adds nothing new (null aggregation). Time partitions into WorkTime and RestTime. The 6:1 ratio is a constrained optimum.

Engineering translation: Maintenance windows, batch processing, garbage collection, technical debt reduction. These are not optional luxuries; they are structurally necessary (theorem th5: Rest Necessity).

Three arguments for rest:

Information-theoretic: Every decision introduces approximation error (m2.ax2). Without consolidation, errors compound. Technical debt is the engineering name for accumulated approximation error.
Thermodynamic: The system exports entropy during rest (cleans up temporary files, rebuilds indexes, re-compresses data). Without entropy export, internal disorder grows until the system becomes unmaintainable.
Computational: Even concurrent garbage collectors consume CPU cycles that could be used for user-facing work. Periodic full-stop GC is sometimes necessary for operations that require global consistency (database vacuuming, index rebuilds, security audits).

The 6:1 ratio as an engineering heuristic: for every 6 units of feature development, budget 1 unit of consolidation (maintenance, refactoring, documentation, testing). Teams that run at 100% feature velocity accumulate technical debt until the system becomes unmovable.

Design principle: Budget consolidation time structurally, not “when there’s time.” The 6:1 ratio is a Schelling point [Schelling, 1960]: a bright-line rule that resists erosion because it is discrete and memorable.

3. Key Theorems for Engineers #

3.1 OSCR Collapse (m6.th1) — The Failure Pathway #

When governance self-assesses as OK:

Step 1: The system has unresolved tension (OKO at m2)
Step 2: Governance declares "the system is fine" (OK)
Step 3: → Governance is in BABL (from m6.ax4)
Step 4: → Governance stops self-correcting
Step 5: → Cannot resolve the unresolved tension (m6.ax3 fails)
Step 6: → System fails (KO)

This is the formal derivation of “success breeds failure.” The mechanism is not mysterious: it is a 6-step logical consequence of self-assessment failure.

Detection heuristic: When leadership says “we have the best processes” (OK), check whether the processes have been recently tested against novel situations. If not, the system may be in OSCR.

3.2 Balospe Necessity (th4) — Why You Need Generalists #

Theorem: Special-purpose automation cannot survive long-term without general-intelligence governance.

By Ashby’s Law: The environment’s variety exceeds the automation’s variety. The gap grows over time. Only an agent with open-ended variety (general intelligence) can bridge the gap.

Engineering implication: Pure automation strategies (“we’ll automate everything and eliminate human judgment”) are structurally doomed. The question is not whether human judgment is needed but which decisions require it and how to make that judgment effective.

3.3 Compassion Capacity (th7) — Why Help Often Fails #

The five-gate theorem applies to engineering support and incident response:

Gate 1 (Repair-History): You cannot help with a fault class you have never encountered and resolved. On-call experience is not optional; it is a prerequisite.
Gate 2 (Scope Limitation): Your expertise is bounded. You have in-group (things you know) and out-group (things you do not know). At the boundary, your help is noise.
Gate 3 (Other-Awareness): You must understand the specific system’s current state, context, and trajectory. Generic advice applied to a specific system is optimization for the wrong objective.
Gate 4 (Channel Quality): Even with expertise, awareness, and good intentions, if communication is noisy (unclear runbooks, ambiguous alerts, team politics), help-capacity collapses to zero.
Gate 5 (Perpetual Learning): Senior engineers who stop learning become dangerous. Their large scope (from prior experience) combined with frozen knowledge produces “friendly fire” — confidently wrong advice at the boundary of their expertise. This is the “supervillain theorem”: a former hero whose stale expertise does more harm than good.

Design principle: Build support systems that address all five gates, not just Gate 1 (hire experienced people). Invest in Gate 3 (system observability), Gate 4 (communication clarity), and Gate 5 (continuous learning).

3.4 Dual-Nothing (th6) — The Bookends of Construction #

VOID (undefined requirements) and TRUST (consolidation) are formally dual. Projects that begin without defined requirements and end without consolidation have the same structural property: nothing. But the two nothings are opposite: VOID-nothing is maximally dangerous (anything can be demanded); TRUST-nothing is maximally stable (the system rests on what has been built).

4. Design Patterns from the Model #

4.1 The OKO Pattern #

Problem: Governance must decide whether a system decision is “good enough.”

Solution: Never declare OK. Always declare OKO: “This decision works for the current context, but the context may change. Schedule a review.”

Implementation: Decision records (ADRs) with mandatory review dates. The review date is not optional metadata; it is a structural commitment to OKO self-assessment.

4.2 The Jubilee Pattern #

Problem: Technical debt accumulates because consolidation is always deferred.

Solution: Schedule periodic full-stop consolidation at multiple scales: daily (standup retro), weekly (sprint retro), quarterly (architecture review), annually (strategy review). The 6:1 ratio provides the budget constraint.

Implementation: For every 6 sprints of feature work, 1 sprint of consolidation. For every 6 quarters of growth, 1 quarter of structural review. The Jubilee-cycle version: every 7 years, a major architectural reset. (This pattern is detailed in paper a4, forthcoming.)

4.3 The OSCR Detection Pattern #

Problem: How do you detect OSCR before system failure?

Indicators:

Over-simplification: Decreasing number of exception handlers. Increasing number of “we don’t handle that case” decisions. Rising count of “works on my machine.”
Over-complication: Increasing number of one-off fixes, growing configuration surface, rising onboarding time for new team members.
Over-reaching: System applied to use cases it was not designed for. “We can do that too” without impact assessment.

Implementation: Track these metrics. When all three trend upward simultaneously, OSCR is in progress. The intervention is not more automation; it is a return to OKO self-assessment: “What are we assuming that we should not be?”

4.4 The UMP Monitoring Pattern #

Problem: Alert fatigue destroys monitoring effectiveness.

Solution: Apply Shannon’s theorem: signal-to-noise ratio is the critical metric. If more than 30% of alerts are non-actionable, the monitoring system is approaching UMP collapse.

Implementation: Measure alert signal-to-noise ratio weekly. When it drops below threshold, stop adding alerts and start removing noisy ones. A monitoring system with 10 high-quality alerts is more effective than one with 1,000 mixed-quality alerts.

5. Discussion #

5.1 The WoLC as a Maturity Model #

The WoLC stages can be read as a maturity model for system design:

Level 0 (VOID): No defined scope or architecture
Level 1 (TYPE): Scope defined, but no type discipline
Level 2 (EQUAL): Type system in place, but trade-offs not managed
Level 3 (VALUE): Data architecture with circulation
Level 4 (LOGIC): Process architecture with temporal reasoning
Level 5 (CARE): Autonomous, self-managing services
Level 6 (HOPE): Governance with OKO self-assessment
Level 7 (TRUST): Periodic consolidation structurally budgeted

Most mature organizations operate at Level 5 (good automation) but stumble at Level 6 (governance that assumes its own adequacy) and Level 7 (consolidation deferred indefinitely). The model predicts that systems which skip Levels 6 and 7 will eventually fail through OSCR, regardless of how excellent their Level 5 automation is.

5.2 Future Work: e7Ch and e7Tr #

The e7Ch model (forthcoming) formalizes the 7 stages of innovation adoption. The e7Tr model (forthcoming) maps the technology adoption lifecycle. Both connect to e7Day: the e7Ch stages instantiate the 6+1 periodicity (m7.ax3) at the innovation-cycle level, and e7Tr maps how system constructions propagate through organizations.

6. Conclusion #

The e7Day model provides systems engineers with a formal framework for understanding why self-correction fails and how to design for it:

The EQUAL tension is permanent. Stop trying to eliminate the trade-off between type integrity and type exchangeability. Design for ongoing management instead.
Self-assessment is the critical variable. Not technology, not process, not tooling — self-assessment. OK = BABL. OKO = ZION prerequisite. Build governance that assumes incompleteness.
OSCR is detectable. Over-simplification, over-complication, and over-reaching have measurable indicators. Monitor them.
Rest is structurally necessary. Budget consolidation. The 6:1 ratio is a defensible heuristic.
Alert fatigue is information-theoretic. Signal-to-noise ratio is a first-class system metric. Shannon’s theorem applies to monitoring.

The system is designed to be tested in engineering practice.

#AuditTheMath

Appendix: Authorship Contributions #

Same as b12-math, Appendix B. See that paper for the full statement.

References #

[al-Ghazali, n.d.]

al-Ghazali, A. H. (n.d.). The Niche of Lights (Mishkat al-Anwar).

[Aquinas, n.d.]

Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Summa Theologica, Part I, Questions 3–11.

[Asch, 1956]

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718, doi:10.1037/h0093718

[Ashby, 1956] (1,2,3)

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

[Beddington et al., 2008]

Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., … Thomas, S. M. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057–1060. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/4551057a, doi:10.1038/4551057a

[Benci & DiNasso, 2003]

Benci, V., & Di Nasso, M. (2003). Numerosities of labelled sets: a new way of counting. Advances in Mathematics, 173(1), 50–67. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9, doi:10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9

[Bernal, 1929]

Bernal, J. D. (1929). The World, the Flesh and the Devil: An Enquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

[Beyer et al., 2016]

Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (2016). Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

[Bezos, 2019]

Bezos, J. (2019). Going to Space to Benefit Earth.

[Bloom et al., 1956]

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.

[Brower, 2008]

Brower, J. E. (2008). Making sense of divine simplicity. Faith and Philosophy, 25(1), 3–30. URL: https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20082511, doi:10.5840/faithphil20082511

[Caplan et al., 2020]

Caplan, Y., Stewart, N., Smittenaar, P., & Sgaier, S. K. (2020). Fighting COVID-19's disproportionate impact on black communities with more precise data. Stanford Social Innovation Review. URL: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fighting_covid-19s_disproportionate_impact_on_black_communities_with_more_precise_data

[Clayton & Peacocke, 2004]

Clayton, P., & Peacocke, A. (Eds.) (2004). In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[Cooper, 2006]

Cooper, J. W. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers — From Plato to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

[Davis, 1983]

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

[Ehlert & Loewe, 2014]

Ehlert, K., & Loewe, L. (2014). Lazy updating of hubs can enable more realistic models by speeding up stochastic simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(20), 204109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901114, doi:10.1063/1.4901114

[Ericsson et al., 1993]

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

[Erikson, 1950]

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton.

[Ferguson et al., 2020]

Ferguson, N. M., Laydon, D., Nedjati-Gilani, G., Imai, N., Ainslie, K., Baguelin, M., … Ghani, A. C. (2020). Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team.

[Festinger, 1957]

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[Giordano et al., 2020]

Giordano, G., Blanchini, F., Bruno, R., Colaneri, P., Di Filippo, A., Di Matteo, A., & Colaneri, M. (2020). Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy. Nature Medicine, 26(6), 855–860. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7, doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7

[Gould & Wilson, 2020]

Gould, E., & Wilson, V. (2020). Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus—Racism and Economic Inequality.

[Godel, 1931]

Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692, doi:10.1007/BF01700692

[Godel, 1970]

Gödel, K. (1970). Ontological Proof.

[Hare, 2017]

Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 155–186. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201, doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201

[Hare & Woods, 2020]

Hare, B., & Woods, V. (2020). Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity. New York: Random House.

[Hartshorne, 1941]

Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago/New York: Willett, Clark & Company.

[Hartshorne, 1948]

Hartshorne, C. (1948). The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[Hegel, 1812]

missing publisher in Hegel1812

[Heschel, 1951]

Heschel, A. J. (1951). The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.

[Hick, 1966]

Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan.

[Hindmarsh et al., 2005]

Hindmarsh, A. C., Brown, P. N., Grant, K. E., Lee, S. L., Serban, R., Shumaker, D. E., & Woodward, C. S. (2005). SUNDIALS: suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 31(3), 363–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1089014.1089020, doi:10.1145/1089014.1089020

[Jack & Dill, 1992]

Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self scale: schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x, doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x

[Janis, 1972]

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

[Kermack & McKendrick, 1927]

Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 115(772), 700–721. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1927.0118, doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0118

[Kissler et al., 2020]

Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H., & Lipsitch, M. (2020). Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science, 368(6493), 860–868. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793, doi:10.1126/science.abb5793

[Kitcher, 1981]

Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531. URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/289019, doi:10.1086/289019

[Kohlberg, 1971]

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Beck, C. M., Crittenden, B. S., & Sullivan, E. V. (Eds.). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Moral Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 23–92). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

[Kripke, 1963]

Kripke, S. A. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94. URL: http://saulkripkecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Semantical-Considerations-on-Modal-Logic-PUBLIC.pdf

[Kruger & Dunning, 1999]

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

[Kruglanski & Webster, 1996]

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263

[Lawvere, 1973]

Lawvere, F. W. (1973). Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico e Fisico di Milano, 43, 135–166. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924844, doi:10.1007/BF02924844

[Leibniz, 1710]

missing publisher in Leibniz1710

[Leveson, 2011]

Leveson, N. G. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[Levin et al., 2012]

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0, doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0

[Loewe, 2006]

Loewe, L. (2006). Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetical Research, 87(2), 133–159. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672306008123, doi:10.1017/S0016672306008123

[Loewe & EvoSysBio Group at UW-Madison, 2015--2026]

Loewe, L., & EvoSysBio Group at UW-Madison (2015–2026). Prototype Evolvix: A Domain-Specific Language and Compiler to Simplify Accurate Mass-Action Modeling in Biology — Simulating Systems where Parts randomly meet to trigger Actions at defined Rates.

[Loewe, 2026a]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Axioms — Discussions and Caveats.

[Loewe, 2026b]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Axioms ax1–ax14: Formal Panentheism.

[Loewe, 2026c]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Theorems th1–th4.

[Lucanus, n.d.]

Lucanus, M. A. (n.d.). Pharsalia (De Bello Civili), Book I, line 81.

[Luhmann, 1995] (1,2)

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[Mallet, 2012]

Mallet, J. (2012). The struggle for existence: how the notion of carrying capacity, k, obscures the links between demography, Darwinian evolution, and speciation. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 14, 627–665. URL: https://mallet.oeb.harvard.edu/files/malletlab/files/mallet_the_struggle_2012_kindle.pdf

[Marcia, 1966]

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281, doi:10.1037/h0023281

[Martin-Lof, 1984]

Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory. Naples: Bibliopolis.

[Maslow, 1943]

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346, doi:10.1037/h0054346

[McCollum et al., 2006]

McCollum, J. M., Peterson, G. D., Cox, C. D., Simpson, M. L., & Samatova, N. F. (2006). The sorting direct method for stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with varying reaction execution behavior. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 30(1), 39–49. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007, doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007

[Meadows, 2008]

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Wright, D. (Ed.). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

[Meyerowitz-Katz & Merone, 2020]

Meyerowitz-Katz, G., & Merone, L. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 101, 138–148. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464

[Moltmann, 1981]

Moltmann, J. (1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

[Mosley et al., 2025]

Mosley, T. J., Zajdel, R. A., Alderete, E., Clayton, J. A., Heidari, S., Pérez-Stable, E. J., … Bernard, M. A. (2025). Intersectionality and diversity, equity, and inclusion in the healthcare and scientific workforces. Lancet Regional Health — Americas, 41, 100973. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973, doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973

[Mullins, 2013]

Mullins, R. T. (2013). Simply impossible: a case against divine simplicity. Journal of Reformed Theology, 7(2), 181–203. URL: https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-12341294, doi:10.1163/15697312-12341294

[Hippo, n.d.a]

of Hippo, A. (n.d.). City of God (De Civitate Dei), Books XI–XII.

[Hippo, n.d.b]

of Hippo, A. (n.d.). Confessions, Book VII.

[Oppy, 2006]

Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Ottati et al., 2015]

Ottati, V., Price, E., Wilson, C., & Sumaktoyo, N. (2015). When self-perceptions of expertise increase closed-minded cognition: the earned dogmatism effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 131–138. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003

[Perrow, 1984]

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

[Plantinga, 1974a]

Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. New York: Harper & Row.

[Plantinga, 1974b]

Plantinga, A. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Rittel & Webber, 1973]

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730, doi:10.1007/BF01405730

[Schelling, 1960]

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Senge, 1990]

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

[Shannon, 1948] (1,2,3)

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3 & 4), 379–423, 623–656. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x, doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

[Simons, 1987]

Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Sobel, 2004]

Sobel, J. H. (2004). Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Stutt et al., 2020]

Stutt, R. O. J. H., Retkute, R., Bradley, M., Gilligan, C. A., & Colvin, J. (2020). A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with `lock-down' in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2238), 20200376. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376, doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

[Talic et al., 2021]

Talic, S., Shah, S., Wild, H., Gasevic, D., Maharaj, A., Ademi, Z., … Ilic, D. (2021). Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 375, e068302. URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068302, doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-068302

[Tay & Diener, 2011]

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779, doi:10.1037/a0023779

[Tetlock, 2005]

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[Tuckman, 1965] (1,2,3)

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100, doi:10.1037/h0022100

[Varzi, 2016]

Varzi, A. C. (2016). Mereology.

[Wasserman et al., 2020]

Wasserman, D., van der Gaag, R., & Wise, J. (2020). The term “physical distancing” is recommended rather than “social distancing” during the COVID-19 pandemic for reducing feelings of rejection among people with mental health problems. European Psychiatry, 63(1), e52. URL: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60, doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60

[Whitehead, 1929]

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: Macmillan.

[Wilde, 2018]

Wilde, R. (2018). Joseph Stalin's Death—He Did Not Escape the Consequences of His Actions.

[Wink, 1984]

Wink, W. (1984). Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Wintour, 2020]

Wintour, P. (2020). Covid-19 Will Devastate Poorest Nations if West Does Not Act, Warns UN: G20 Told to “Step Up Now or Pay Price Later”.

[Wurth et al., 2020]

Wurth, R. C., Braxton, M. L., & Cohen, C. L. (2020). Racism and Covid-19 Threaten Our Health—We Can't Fight Them as Separate Battles.

[Balospecom, 2026]

Balospe.com (2026). Formal Foundation Test for the e7Day Axiom System.

[Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000]

Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

[Gregory of Nyssa, n.d.]

Gregory of Nyssa (n.d.). Life of Moses (De Vita Moysis).

[John of Ephesus & Pearse, 543CE, 2017]

John of Ephesus, & Pearse, R. (543CE, 2017). John of Ephesus Describes the Justinianic Plague.

[National Center for Health Workforce Analysis & Health Resources and Services Administration, 2014]

National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, & Health Resources and Services Administration (2014). Sex, Race, and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Health Occupations (2010–2012). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026a]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-1: The PET Model — A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026b]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-2: The e7Day Axiom System — Towards a Formal Framework for Self-Correcting Construction.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026c]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). The PET Model: A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.