Closure Nodes by Pairings

This page provides a specific hypothesis map: which neural systems most plausibly act as closure nodes for key DEF pairings.

Boundary conditions:

This is not a claim of one-to-one localization.
“Closure node” means: a system that is plausibly responsible for stabilizing, gating, or integrating the pairing under perturbation.
Mappings are expected to be task- and state-dependent.

Pairing ladder (structural dependency)

DEF uses the following dependency ladder:

S + R → World Model (stable “what is where / what relates to what”)
D + X̂ → Action Space (what can be done / updated / routed)
(S+R) ↔ (D+X̂) → Possibility Space (coherent affordances: what could happen if…)
+ (V + Ref) → Preferences (directed relevance: what matters about what)
+ (M + N) → Meaning / Narrative Coherence (stabilized interpretation over phase traversal)

Each step requires the previous steps to be closure-stable.

1) S + R (World Model) — “configuration closure”

DEF role

Stable relational scaffolding and addressability.
Persistence of “handles” for binding later processes.

Closure responsibility hypothesis

Systems that stabilize relational structure across time and context.

Plausible closure nodes (systems)

Posterior association cortex (parietal/temporal/occipital association systems) as distributed representational scaffold.
Hippocampal–medial temporal system as a stabilizer for relational binding and re-instantiation of structured context.

Failure signature (structural)

intact local processing but unstable global coherence (“fragmented world model”),
difficulty maintaining consistent reference frames across perturbation.

2) D + X̂ (Action Space) — “control-and-exchange closure”

DEF role

Controlled transformation (D) and routed interaction/transfer (X̂).
Gating, switching, and update pathways.

Closure responsibility hypothesis

Systems that gate, select, and route action/update policies under constraint tension.

Plausible closure nodes (systems)

Frontostriatal loops / basal ganglia gating motifs (generic selection/gating archetype).
Frontal control systems (task-dependent routing, rule enforcement).
Cerebellar coordination motifs (as a generic stabilizer of transformation precision and timing).

Failure signature (structural)

preserved world model but impaired selection, switching, or controlled update (“action space collapse”),
unstable policy routing or runaway exchange.

3) (S+R) ↔ (D+X̂) (Possibility Space) — “affordance closure”

DEF role

Coherent binding between configuration and controllable change: what is possible, given what is stable and what can be done.

Closure responsibility hypothesis

Systems that integrate representation and control into a coherent, stable affordance field.

Plausible closure nodes (systems)

Frontoparietal coordination (binding representational scaffolds to control policies).
Thalamo-cortical integration motifs (global coordination scaffold; state-dependent).

Failure signature (structural)

SR and DX remain partially intact in isolation, but coupling is unstable:
- “I perceive, but I cannot robustly act on it” or
- “I act, but it is poorly grounded in stable context”.
In DEF terms: Crisis occurs, but Resolution into a coherent possibility space becomes unreliable.

4) + (V + Ref) (Preferences) — “valuation closure”

DEF role

Valence (V): directed relevance / polarity of exchange.
Reference (Ref): stable target binding.
Together: preference structure (“what matters about what”).

Closure responsibility hypothesis

Systems that bind valence to reference and stabilize preference under perturbation.

Plausible closure nodes (systems)

Ventromedial / orbitofrontal prefrontal systems (value integration / preference stability across contexts).
Amygdala and related salience/valuation motifs (rapid valence tagging and relevance modulation).
Ventral striatum / dopaminergic modulation motifs (reinforcement/update of preference gradients).
Hippocampal interaction (binding value to referenced context).

Failure signature (structural)

intact possibility space but unstable preference binding:
- “everything feels equally relevant” or
- “valence floats without stable targets” or
- “reference is stable but lacks directed relevance”.

5) + (M + N) (Meaning / Narrative) — “interpretation closure”

DEF role

Meaning (M): closure-stable binding of preference (V↔Ref) to the possibility space.
Narrative (N): phase-ordered continuity of meaning across transitions.

Closure responsibility hypothesis

Systems that stabilize interpretation over time and maintain coherence across Entry→Crisis→Resolution cycles.

Plausible closure nodes (systems)

Default-mode network motifs (integration of self-/model-level interpretation; state dependent).
Medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate hubs (as coordination centers for narrative-level coherence).
Hippocampal–MTL system (temporal stitching; re-instantiation of meaning across episodes).

Failure signature (structural)

preferences exist but cannot be stabilized into coherent meaning over time:
- discontinuous narrative,
- unstable interpretation after perturbation,
- “resolution without continuity”.

Phase connection (Entry → Crisis → Resolution)

A compact operational reading:

Entry stabilizes SR and initializes DX routing.
Crisis stresses SR↔DX coupling and engages valuation (V↔Ref) under tension.
Resolution corresponds to successful closure at the highest engaged layer: possibility → preferences → meaning/narrative.

Breakdown can occur at any layer; higher layers often fail first under perturbation.

Expected dissociations (structural)

The value of the pairing ladder is that it predicts specific dissociations: lower layers may remain intact while higher closures fail.

Below are common dissociation patterns expressed in DEF terms. They are structural expectations, not diagnoses.

A) SR intact, DX degraded — “stable world, unstable agency”

Preserved

World model scaffolding remains coherent (S+R closure holds).

Impaired

Action-space gating/routing becomes unreliable (D+X̂ closure weakens).

Typical phenomenology (broad)

preserved perception and context, reduced controllability or policy stability,
difficulty selecting, switching, or sustaining actions.

Neural expectation

relative preservation of posterior representational scaffolds,
disruption in control/gating motifs (frontostriatal / frontal control).

B) DX intact, SR degraded — “active updates, unstable world model”

Preserved

Control/updates continue (D+X̂ remains active).

Impaired

Stable addressability and relational coherence degrade (S+R weakens).

Typical phenomenology (broad)

actions/updates occur but are poorly grounded,
context drift, unstable reference frames, inconsistent “what relates to what”.

Neural expectation

relatively intact control signals but reduced stability in representational scaffolds,
weaker hippocampal/context reinstatement.

C) SR and DX intact, but SR↔DX unstable — “broken affordance binding”

Preserved

SR closure holds (world model)
DX closure holds (action space)

Impaired

Cross-kernel binding fails: (S·R) ↔ (X̂·D) becomes unstable.

Typical phenomenology (broad)

perception and agency exist, but are not coherently coupled:
- “I see what is there, but cannot act meaningfully on it,” or
- “I can act, but it does not track stable context.”

Neural expectation

dissociation between representational and control networks,
reduced frontoparietal and/or thalamo-cortical coordination episodes.

D) Possibility space intact, but V↔Ref unstable — “flat or floating preference”

Preserved

coherent affordance field exists (SR↔DX is sufficiently stable)

Impaired

valence cannot bind to stable targets (V↔Ref weakens)

Typical phenomenology (broad)

reduced directed relevance (“everything is equally important”),
or unstable, rapidly shifting relevance (“valence floats”),
or stable targets without motivational weight (“reference without pull”).

Neural expectation

disruption in valuation/salience binding motifs (vmPFC/OFC, amygdala, ventral striatum),
weakened coupling between valuation and contextual reference scaffolds.

E) Preferences intact, but M↔N unstable — “meaning without continuity”

Preserved

preferences exist and bind to references (V↔Ref holds)

Impaired

stabilization of interpretation across phases fails (Meaning/Narrative closure weakens)

Typical phenomenology (broad)

momentary meaning without coherent temporal stitching,
discontinuous narrative across perturbations,
“resolution without continuity”.

Neural expectation

reduced integrity of narrative-level integration motifs (DMN hubs),
weakened hippocampal temporal stitching and re-instantiation.

F) Crisis without Resolution — “prolonged high-tension integration”

Preserved

coupling escalation occurs (Crisis onset mechanisms active)

Impaired

closure-restoring resolution becomes unreliable

Typical phenomenology (broad)

sustained instability, difficulty settling into coherent global configuration,
increased variability or fragmentation

Neural expectation

persistent high coupling attempts without stable re-closure signatures
reduced late stabilization markers (e.g., P3b-like profiles in paradigms where applicable)

G) Over-Resolution / collapsed diversity — “trivial attractor”

Preserved

a stable pattern exists

Impaired

diversity of admissible compositions collapses (non-degeneracy threatened)

Typical phenomenology (broad)

rigid, repetitive stabilization
reduced flexibility of possible states

Neural expectation

overly synchronized or overly stereotyped patterns,
reduced metastability and switching structure.

DEF expects dissociations to be state- and task-dependent.
The ladder provides a structured way to interpret profiles: which closures remain intact, which fail, and where phase traversal breaks.

Scope

This mapping is intended to be:

specific enough to guide discussion and experiment selection,
conservative enough to avoid identity claims.

The purpose is to provide a shared reference for later pages on:

P300 and access stabilization,
perturbation profiles (sleep/anesthesia/psychedelics),
and AI architecture analogies (routing, gating, valuation, narrative continuity).