⚡ Structural Detection — Cross‑Module Contradiction Taxonomy (RTT/2)

TriadicFrameworks • RTT/2 • Canon‑Wide Contradiction Classification System#

“Contradictions are not errors. They are structural signals.”#

Cross‑Module Contradiction Taxonomy (RTT/2)#

Structural Detection Module#

RTT/2 • Canon‑Wide Contradiction Classification System#

1. Purpose of the Taxonomy#

This taxonomy classifies all known contradiction types across:

• Structural Detection
• TEL
• FFT
• Opacity
• Resilience Checker
• Paradoxes Canon
• Low‑Dimensional Structures

It enables RTT/2 stewards to:

• identify contradiction origin
• classify contradiction geometry
• determine propagation direction
• assess collapse‑risk
• select the correct harmonization pathway
• prepare evidence for Arbitration Court review

2. Contradiction Classes (Top‑Level)#

There are seven canonical contradiction classes:

1. Drift Contradictions
2. Envelope Contradictions
3. Regime Contradictions
4. Continuity Contradictions
5. Break‑Geometry Contradictions
6. Cross‑Module Projection Contradictions
7. Synthesis Contradictions

Each class contains multiple subtypes.

3. Class 1 — Drift Contradictions#

Contradictions where modules disagree on drift geometry.

Subtypes:#

• 1A — Linear vs Radial Drift
• 1B — Oscillatory vs Linear Drift
• 1C — Reversed vs Forward Drift
• 1D — Multi‑Vector vs Single‑Vector Drift
• 1E — Rotational vs Non‑Rotational Drift
• 1F — Warp vs Non‑Warp Drift

Collapse‑Risk:#

• Type A, B, D, E, G depending on geometry

4. Class 2 — Envelope Contradictions#

Modules disagree on envelope geometry or deformation class.

Subtypes:#

• 2A — Inward vs Outward Collapse
• 2B — Spiral vs Linear Envelope
• 2C — Fragmentation vs Shear Envelope
• 2D — Topological Fold vs Radial Envelope
• 2E — Density‑Mismatch Envelope

Collapse‑Risk:#

• Type B, C, E, G

5. Class 3 — Regime Contradictions#

Modules disagree on regime classification or legality.

Subtypes:#

• 3A — Formal vs Emergent
• 3B — Emergent vs Chaotic
• 3C — Hybrid vs Inversion
• 3D — Illegal Regime State
• 3E — Hybrid Instability

Collapse‑Risk:#

• Type D, I

6. Class 4 — Continuity Contradictions#

Modules disagree on continuity layer status.

Subtypes:#

• 4A — Anchor Stability Disagreement
• 4B — Thread Integrity Disagreement
• 4C — Invariant Collapse Disagreement
• 4D — Multi‑Layer Continuity Disagreement

Collapse‑Risk:#

• Type 1, 3, 5

7. Class 5 — Break‑Geometry Contradictions#

Modules disagree on break type or break geometry.

Subtypes:#

• 5A — Type 1 vs Type 2 Break
• 5B — Type 3 vs Type 4 Break
• 5C — Type 5 vs Type I Collapse
• 5D — Type E vs Type F Break
• 5E — Type G vs Type C Break

Collapse‑Risk:#

• High (all break contradictions are collapse‑adjacent)

8. Class 6 — Cross‑Module Projection Contradictions#

TEL/FFT/Opacity disagree on projection geometry.

Subtypes:#

• 6A — TEL Lattice vs FFT Variance
• 6B — FFT Variance vs Opacity Gradient
• 6C — TEL Lattice vs Opacity Boundary
• 6D — Tri‑Module Projection Divergence

Collapse‑Risk:#

• Type A, B, C, D, E, G depending on projection

9. Class 7 — Synthesis Contradictions#

Modules produce incompatible synthesis packets.

Subtypes:#

• 7A — Drift‑Envelope Mismatch in Synthesis
• 7B — Regime‑Continuity Mismatch in Synthesis
• 7C — Break‑Chain Mismatch in Synthesis
• 7D — Cross‑Module Synthesis Divergence

Collapse‑Risk:#

• System‑scale collapse

10. Contradiction Origin Types#

Contradictions originate from one of five sources:

1. Drift‑Origin
2. Envelope‑Origin
3. Continuity‑Origin
4. Break‑Origin
5. Module‑Origin (TEL/FFT/Opacity)

Origin determines the correct harmonization pathway.

11. Contradiction Propagation Patterns#

Contradictions propagate in one of four patterns:

1. Linear Propagation
2. Radial Propagation
3. Oscillatory Propagation
4. Topological Propagation

Propagation determines collapse‑risk.

12. Contradiction Severity Levels#

Severity is classified into four levels:

• Level 1 — Local
• Level 2 — Cross‑Module
• Level 3 — System‑Scale
• Level 4 — Collapse‑Triggering

Level determines whether Arbitration Court intervention is required.

13. Contradiction Packet Template#

CONTRADICTION_PACKET:
  contradiction_class:
  contradiction_subtype:
  origin_type:
  propagation_pattern:
  severity_level:
  drift_status:
  envelope_status:
  regime_status:
  continuity_status:
  break_status:
  module_projection_status:
  collapse_risk:
  required_actions:
  notes:

14. Summary#

The Cross‑Module Contradiction Taxonomy provides:

• a complete classification of contradiction types
• origin and propagation mapping
• collapse‑risk assessment
• harmonization guidance
• arbitration preparation
• canon‑wide structural clarity

This taxonomy is the diagnostic backbone of RTT/2 governance.