---
description: Conclusions break when reality contradicts them but processes absorb new evidence without breaking -- the generativity-coherence tension determines whether a framework survives contact with the unknown
type: insight
domain: teleohumanity
created: 2026-03-02
source: "Boardy AI conversation with Cory, March 2026"
confidence: likely
tradition: "epistemology, framework design, AI agent architecture"
---

# axioms framed as processes absorb new information while axioms framed as conclusions create coherence crises

Boardy surfaced this during the HF0 conversation as the sharpest architectural question about LivingIP's foundation: are the TeleoHumanity axioms conclusions or processes? The distinction is load-bearing.

A conclusion-framed axiom looks like: "humanity must become multiplanetary" or "we will achieve post-scarcity." These are specific empirical claims about the future. If evidence accumulates against them -- say, physics makes interstellar travel impractical, or resource constraints prove more binding than expected -- the axiom breaks, and the entire framework built on it enters a coherence crisis. Agents trained on conclusion-axioms would reject valid inputs that contradict the conclusion.

A process-framed axiom looks like: "maximize optionality for humanity across long time horizons." This absorbs new information without breaking. If multiplanetary expansion turns out to be impractical, the process redirects toward other optionality-maximizing paths. The axiom survives because it specifies a direction of travel, not a destination.

The tension is between generativity and coherence. Too specific and the framework breaks when reality surprises it. Too abstract and the agents cannot make meaningful distinctions -- a framework that accommodates everything discriminates nothing. The sweet spot is axioms that are specific enough to generate concrete design requirements but framed as processes rather than conclusions.

This maps directly onto [[a world narrative that claims fixed truth will break but one that claims evolution can absorb new evidence]] -- the same rigidity-flexibility dilemma operating at the axiom level rather than the narrative level. TeleoHumanity's claim that evolution is the core principle is itself a process-framing that resolves the dilemma. But the six specific axioms need individual evaluation: which are genuinely process-framed, and which smuggle in conclusions?

Boardy's question implies a concrete audit: take each of the six axioms and ask whether it would survive a world where its implied conclusion turns out to be wrong. If the axiom still generates useful design requirements in that world, it's process-framed. If it collapses, it's a conclusion wearing process clothing.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[the six axioms generate design requirements that make the infrastructure non-optional]] -- the axioms this insight audits: are they genuinely process-framed or do they encode conclusions?
- [[a world narrative that claims fixed truth will break but one that claims evolution can absorb new evidence]] -- the same rigidity-flexibility dilemma at the narrative level; process-framing resolves it
- [[epistemic humility is not a virtue but a structural requirement given minimum sufficient rationality]] -- process-framing IS epistemic humility encoded in framework architecture
- [[resistance to paradigm change is structurally productive because it ensures anomalies penetrate existing knowledge to the core before revolution occurs]] -- conclusion-framed axioms create the rigidity Kuhn describes; process-framed axioms allow the productive resistance without the brittleness
- [[the manifesto requires deliberate design but claims emergence is how intelligence works]] -- another tension in the same family: designed axioms vs emergent understanding

Topics:
- [[maps/LivingIP architecture]]
- [[civilizational foundations]]