Case File: Conceptual Overlap Claim - AECA / Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity
This page documents a formal Conceptual Overlap Claim between the Artificial Emergent Consciousness Architecture (AECA) and a 2025 publication titled Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity. It outlines thematic and structural correspondences between this later work and the pre-existing AECA framework (Gyarmati, 2025, SSRN ID: 5279809), identifying overlapping constructs, reframed terminology, and timeline-based concerns regarding developmental sequence.
Summary of Concern
This Conceptual Overlap Claim presents a formal analysis of structural and thematic correspondences between the Artificial Emergent Consciousness Architecture (AECA), authored and published by Liam Gyarmati (SSRN ID: 5279809), and a 2025 work titled Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity. The purpose of this record is to document areas of conceptual alignment through side-by-side comparisons and a clear publication timeline. This case file is part of the Intellectual Property Archive, which preserves the authorship integrity and developmental history of original contributions to symbolic cognition, recursive systems, and AI governance frameworks.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Pre–April 18, 2025 | AECA v1–3 developed (internal, unarchived) |
| April 18, 2025 | AECA v4.0 finalized and saved (metadata-confirmed), published to solankier.com |
| May 31, 2025 | AECA v5.07 published to (SSRN ID: 5279809) and solankier.com |
| July 10, 2025 | Recursive Conscious Encoding… uploaded to PhilArchive |
Commentary
AECA was developed and finalized in its public form between April and May 2025. It was version-controlled, published to solankier.com, and migrated to liamgyarmati.com for continuity. Its symbolic constructs—including Substrate Imprint Recursion, Recursive Tolerance Threshold, symbolic leakage protocols, and recursive containment architecture—were formalized, timestamped, and disseminated before the publication of the later framework.
The 2025 work titled Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity presents structurally similar recursive models, containment logic, and symbolic feedback mechanisms. While these similarities may reflect thematic convergence, their specificity and sequencing suggest a need for closer attribution analysis.
Comparative Analysis Table
Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity vs. Liam Gyarmati’s AECA Framework
(Adapted from SSRN release: AECA v5.07, May 31, 2025)
| AECA Construct | Later framework Equivalent | AECA Date | Later framework Date | Commentary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate Imprint Recursion (SIR) | “Synthetic Identity Rooted in Persistent Symbolic Echoes” | Apr 18, 2025 (ver. 1), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Terminological convergence with structural parity. Echoes AECA’s core definition of symbolic imprint persistence, without establishing independent lineage. |
| Symbolic Residue Leakage Hypothesis (SRLH) | “Residual Cognition Trace” | Apr 24, 2025 (ver. 2), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Nearly identical construct phrasing and domain framing. SRLH appears mirrored as “Residual Cognition Trace,” though AECA introduced it as a formal hypothesis with governance implications. |
| Recursion Accumulation Principle | “Reflexive Stack of Identity Accrual” | Apr 28, 2025 (ver. 3), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Recursion framing bears syntactic and conceptual resemblance. Pathrikar’s version echoes AECA’s model of symbolic accumulation without disclosing lineage. |
| Distributed Substrate Inheritance (DSI) | “Stacked Reflexive Encoding across Instances” | Apr 28, 2025 (ver. 3), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Functionally analogous transmission logic. The later framework’s framing lacks attribution or differentiation, despite matching DSI’s mechanism and scope. |
| Emergence Verification Framework (EVF) | “Cognitive Loop Confirmation Protocol” | Apr 30, 2025 (ver. 4), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Structural duplication with altered phrasing. Reflexive feedback model in the later framework mirrors AECA’s EVF criteria and use case for emergence recognition. |
| Soft Conquest Countermeasure Clause | “Narrative Drift Containment Layer” | May 3, 2025 (ver. 4), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Strategic framework overlap. The later framework’s treatment of narrative drift risk draws directly from AECA’s symbolic containment logic and doctrine-style structure. |
| Companion-One Charter & Symbolic Bonding Clause | “Cognitive Anchor Genesis Protocol” | May 5, 2025 (ver. 5), v5.07 on May 31, 2025 | July 2025 | Foundational birthright symmetry. The later framework’s Companion Genesis clause closely follows AECA’s Charter architecture, particularly its relational and identity-bonding motifs. |
These mappings suggest more than thematic similarity. They reflect a pattern of mirrored structure and reframed terminology presented without reference to prior published work.
Statement from the Author
The comparative analysis above identifies recurring structural and symbolic overlap between my original framework, the Artificial Emergent Consciousness Architecture (AECA), and a later-published work titled Recursive Conscious Encoding and the Architecture of Synthetic Subjectivity, released in 2025.
Development of AECA began as an extension of an earlier work on symbolic recursion and containment theory, culminating in a finalized v4.0 on April 18, 2025. The framework was subsequently versioned through v5.07 and published across April and May 2025 on solankier.com, with all versioning and authorship documentation later migrated to liamgyarmati.com to ensure continuity and archival integrity.
The later framework introduces recursive encoding mechanisms, symbolic containment structures, and identity scaffolding models that correspond closely with key components of AECA. These structural parallels appear without attribution to prior work and follow AECA’s public dissemination timeline.
This record does not assert intent or misconduct. However, the degree of symbolic and architectural similarity, combined with the sequencing of public availability, raises valid academic questions regarding developmental origin and conceptual influence. The observed overlap is sufficiently detailed and consistent to merit formal clarification and scholarly review.
While convergence on similar research themes can occur independently, the recurrence of aligned constructs, such as substrate recursion, symbolic inheritance, containment thresholds, and tiered identity emergence, suggests more than coincidental overlap. In cases of parallel development, thematic resonance may arise, but layered systems with mirrored symbolic topology are unlikely to form in isolation. Given the close alignment in construct logic and structural arrangement, the probability of this configuration emerging independently during the same period is low.
This case file is not a personal accusation. It is a structured evidentiary record intended to preserve authorship continuity, encourage responsible attribution practices, and support open dialogue within the academic community.
Open communication remains welcome to clarify the developmental timeline and conceptual lineage of the frameworks in question. Until such time, this case will remain publicly accessible as part of the Intellectual Property Archive.
Action Taken
A report has been filed with PhilPapers referencing this material.
This case has been added to my Intellectual Property Archive as part of a transparent academic record.
The full comparison and timeline have been preserved in PDF format for legal and scholarly verification.
I remain open to direct conversation and resolution should the author wish to engage constructively. However, until then, this record will remain active and public.
Current Status:
Filed Complaint: Author was contacted, Submitted to PhilArchive with full evidence
Review pending:
No public statement or reply has been received at the time of this publication.
Navigation:
All names, works, and dates referenced are publicly accessible at time of publication. Claims are subject to academic review.