{
  "schema_version": "0.1",
  "record_state": "intake",
  "source_authority_boundary": "Translation records are interoperability artifacts. They do not prove source-discipline claims, create equivalence between disciplines, or create commit-time authority.",
  "records": [
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-physics-state-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "physics",
      "source_reference": "disciplinary-translation-groundwork",
      "native_term": "state",
      "native_meaning": "The condition or configuration of a physical system as defined by the source model.",
      "transition_role": "prior_state_or_resulting_state",
      "boundary_condition": "model-defined state space and measurement conditions",
      "constraint_reference": "source physical model, conservation relation, or governing equation",
      "admissibility_question": "Can this state be represented as S0 or S1 without changing the source model meaning?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "proposed",
      "non_claims": "This mapping does not prove a physical theory or make Transition Table semantics equivalent to physics.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    },
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-physics-interaction-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "physics",
      "source_reference": "disciplinary-translation-groundwork",
      "native_term": "interaction",
      "native_meaning": "A source-model relation through which physical systems affect one another or evolve together.",
      "transition_role": "candidate_transition_or_transition_driver",
      "boundary_condition": "interaction is inside the declared source model scope",
      "constraint_reference": "source physical law, field equation, interaction model, or unknown",
      "admissibility_question": "Can the interaction be represented as a candidate transition driver without assigning unsupported agency?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "proposed",
      "non_claims": "Interaction is not automatically an actor, authority, or governance decision.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    },
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-physics-horizon-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "physics",
      "source_reference": "disciplinary-translation-groundwork",
      "native_term": "horizon",
      "native_meaning": "A boundary beyond which information, recovery, observation, or causal reconstruction may be unavailable under the source model.",
      "transition_role": "boundary_condition_or_reconstruction_limit",
      "boundary_condition": "horizon semantics must be source-defined and not inferred by analogy alone",
      "constraint_reference": "source model horizon definition or unknown",
      "admissibility_question": "Does the horizon define a transition-relevant information, recovery, or reconstruction boundary?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "proposed",
      "non_claims": "This does not assert that governance horizons and physical horizons are the same phenomenon.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    },
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-gcat-capacity-margin-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "governed_autonomy",
      "source_reference": "GCAT geometric framing",
      "native_term": "admissibility margin",
      "native_meaning": "A capacity-bounded relation indicating whether autonomy remains within governance, control, and trust capacity.",
      "transition_role": "admissibility_question",
      "boundary_condition": "state variables and capacity parameters are declared for the evaluated system",
      "constraint_reference": "GCAT capacity function and margin definition",
      "admissibility_question": "Does the proposed or observed state remain inside the declared admissible region?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "mapped",
      "non_claims": "This mapping does not prove any particular GCAT parameterization or real-world deployment validity.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    },
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-bcat-boundary-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "boundary_admissibility",
      "source_reference": "GCAT-BCAT formalism family",
      "native_term": "boundary condition",
      "native_meaning": "A condition that must hold for a transition, entity, claim, or interaction to remain recoverable and non-inverting within the declared boundary.",
      "transition_role": "boundary_condition",
      "boundary_condition": "source boundary is declared and reviewable",
      "constraint_reference": "BCAT boundary framing or source-specific boundary definition",
      "admissibility_question": "Can the transition remain inside the boundary without producing boundary inversion or unrecoverable consequence?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "mapped",
      "non_claims": "Boundary identification alone does not prove that the boundary was satisfied at commit time.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    },
    {
      "translation_id": "dtg-runtime-fail-closed-v0-1",
      "source_discipline": "AI/runtime systems",
      "source_reference": "disciplinary-translation-groundwork",
      "native_term": "fail-closed path",
      "native_meaning": "A system behavior in which insufficient standing, invalid evidence, policy failure, or unsafe uncertainty prevents execution rather than silently allowing it.",
      "transition_role": "decision_result",
      "boundary_condition": "runtime policy defines the condition that requires denial, refusal, quarantine, safe mode, or escalation",
      "constraint_reference": "runtime policy gate, manifest, receipt, or admissibility engine rule",
      "admissibility_question": "Does the transition lack enough standing to bind consequence safely?",
      "evidence_posture": "partial",
      "review_posture": "mapped",
      "non_claims": "A fail-closed label does not prove recovery occurred; it records the non-allowance posture.",
      "receipt_reference": null
    }
  ]
}