Victor Goodman
December 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18102143
Abstract
This essay develops a structural account of consciousness within the framework of Primal Architectures of Being (PAB). Instead of treating consciousness as a byproduct of matter or an unconstrained cosmic principle, it situates awareness within a layered architecture of becoming governed by coherence, compatibility, resonance, and stabilization. Consciousness is treated as multi-level: emerging as Proto-Consciousness (foundational possibility), expressing as universe-specific Global Consciousness Fields, and localizing into agents and minds where sustained interiority is structurally possible.
A core constraint is that access depends on compatibility: a consciousness can experience only what it can structururally align with. On this basis, the essay develops accounts of dimensional crystallization, graded forms of consciousness across scales, resonance gaps, ontological catalysis, and the conditions under which realities become accessible or experienceable. Memory and time are treated structurally: the past persists—where permitted—as relational coherence in Multidimensional-Consciousness Meshes, while the future exists as latent structural potential rather than predetermined outcome. The essay concludes by examining post-form continuity through granulated dimensions as conditional scaffolds of partial coherence.
Table of Contents
0. Opening: Locating Consciousness in the Architecture
3. Proto-Consciousness: The Possibility of Awareness
4. Global Consciousness Field and the Birth of Local Minds
5. Dimensions, Compatibility, and the Routes of Crystallization
6. Consciousness Across Scales: From Micro-Forms to Minds
7. Consciousness as Key: Access is Compatibility
8. Memory and Time: the Mesh Model
9. Future and World-Formation: Latent Fields and the Birth of Alternates
10. Post-Form Continuity: Granulated Dimensions as Scaffolds
11. Guardrails: What PAB Rules Out
12. Closing Synthesis: Five Theses
0. Opening: Locating Consciousness in the Architecture
Consciousness isn’t hard because it’s mysterious. It’s hard because it sits at the seam between structure and interior. We know it directly from within, but when we try to place it inside a theory of reality, accounts tend to collapse into extremes — either reduced to a byproduct of matter, or inflated into a cosmic term that explains everything because nothing constrains it.
This essay takes a different route. It is a map built inside the framework of Primal Architectures of Being: consciousness unfolds through a cascade of becoming — appearing first as foundational and contextual conditions, then localizing into agents and minds. In that framework it is inseparable from coherence, from the structural emergence of time, and from the question of continuity.
The standard throughout is internal fit: the model must obey its own rules, sharpen its distinctions, and avoid inflation or mystification.
The premise is simple: consciousness requires coherence, not necessarily biology. Biology is one of the most powerful coherence-hosts we know, but it is not the definition. In PAB terms, a mind is not what consciousness is, but one architecture of it — localized, bandwidth-limited, and shaped by the coherence rules of a given regime.
Everything that follows is organized by one constraint: access is compatibility. A consciousness can only experience what it can structurally align with. What it cannot cohere with does not become “for it” — not because it is hidden, but because incoherence cannot stabilize as an interior.
From there the questions become precise: Where does consciousness appear in the cascade? What is it before it becomes personal? How do agents and minds stabilize inside a dimensional regime? What does memory mean if the past persists structurally rather than as replay? What does the future mean if it exists as latent configuration rather than prediction? And what could continuity mean if the body is only one possible host?
To answer those, we begin where PAB begins: not with brains, but with the conditions under which anything — worlds, time, selves — can become stable at all.
1. The Cascade of Becoming
In PAB, all becoming begins not with objects or laws, but with Infinity — pure undefinedness without measure, structure, or form. Its own uncertainty is the primal cause of everything.
From that instability emerges a generative tension: Possibility and Nothingness. This is not yet structure — it is pressure. And under pressure, tendencies begin to differentiate.
These tendencies organize into what PAB calls Primal Questions. These are not yet laws or outcomes. They are proto-conditions — ontological tensions that can stabilize into coherent rule-sets. When a set of these questions holds together, they form a Dimension: not a spatial axis, but a rule-consistent regime — an ontological framework capable of sustaining stability.
A reality is what it is like from within such a stabilized regime. It is not a separate substance, but an interior made possible by sustained dimensional structure. Each reality is defined by what kinds of questions it stabilizes, what kinds of structures it permits, and what kinds of coherence it can host.
Alongside the field of questions, Proto-Consciousness arises — not as a mind or a self, but as the possibility of awareness: the potential that, if coherence holds, something can be like something from within. It is not yet experience; it is the openness that makes experience possible when structure permits it.
Within a stabilized dimensional regime, this foundational layer expresses contextually as a Global Consciousness Field: a shared background structure in which localizations can occur. These localized forms — agents, minds, architectures of awareness — are pockets of stabilized coherence, limited in bandwidth and shaped by the constraints of the dimension they inhabit.
With the cascade in place, we can name the terms with precision.
2. Key Terms
Before going further, a few terms have to stay fixed — because small shifts in meaning produce a different model.
Awareness (as used here) means the minimal capacity to register and respond: not a self, not a story, not an inner theatre — just responsiveness that can make a difference to what follows.
Consciousness in PAB is not one layer but a multi-level phenomenon: Proto-Consciousness (the foundational possibility of awareness), Global Consciousness Field (a universe-specific expression of that possibility), and localized consciousness agents as contextual manifestations within and across dimensional regimes and the realities they sustain. In plain terms, consciousness is coherence-capable participation in structure: the condition under which an interior can arise and hold. It is not necessarily personal.
A mind is consciousness localized into a working interface: a bounded architecture that can stabilize continuity, select what becomes experienceable, and maintain an identity-pattern over time. In this essay, identity is not a substance; it is a stabilized coherence signature carried by the mind’s ongoing organization.
Resonance and coherence do different jobs. Resonance is a structural threshold event: the point where compatible tensions enter provisional alignment. Coherence is what persists once resonance stabilizes — the durable structure that lets a world, a memory-structure, or a self remain continuous rather than flicker.
Structural compatibility (ontological alignment) is the prerequisite for access: a consciousness can only perceive, interact with, or inhabit what it can align with. If the fit isn’t there, it doesn’t become part of lived reality — not because it’s hidden, but because it cannot stabilize as an interior.
Ontological bandwidth names the range: the resonance capacity of a consciousness agent — the spectrum of dimensional structures it can align with, access, stabilize, or interpret without losing coherence.
With these terms set, we can introduce Proto-Consciousness without importing a personal self.
3. Proto-Consciousness: The Possibility of Awareness
In PAB, Proto-Consciousness is defined as the primal field of awareness that co-arises with dimensional structure. It exists at a super-dimensional level — prior to physical form, cognition, or identity. It is not an agent, not a mind, and not the kind of consciousness implied by wakeful mentation (thought, memory, point of view, personal experience). Those belong to later, localized stabilizations inside a dimensional regime.
Proto-Consciousness is also not a subject. It has no selfhood to preserve, no biography, no “inner life” in the personal sense. What it names is a foundational capacity: that awareness can arise at all when coherence conditions allow an interior to form. In the PAB vocabulary, Proto-Consciousness is not the content of experience; it is the ontological condition under which experience becomes possible once structure stabilizes.
PAB uses the word “field” here with a strict constraint: Proto-Consciousness is not a force, not a substance, and not a cosmic medium. “Field” means foundational ontological potential — a capacity that can be expressed only where structural coherence arises. The implication is not that everything already has interiority, but that awareness is built into the architecture of becoming as a potential that can be realized when dimensional stabilization makes it viable.
Because different universes crystallize different sets of Primal Questions, Proto-Consciousness does not express identically everywhere. Universe-specific expressions of this potential — shaped by which primal questions stabilize — are termed Global Consciousness Fields. These contextual fields are how Proto-Consciousness shows up inside a stabilized regime, and they are the medium through which localized consciousness agents and minds can arise.
4. Global Consciousness Field and the Birth of Local Minds
Within a crystallizing universe, Proto-Consciousness expresses itself contextually. PAB describes this as the Global Consciousness Field: a non-local, non-personal structural presence that arises in tandem with dimensional crystallization and is shaped by the particular constellations of Primal Questions stabilizing into that universe’s logic.
This field is not a mind in any personal or agentic sense. It does not “generate” awareness as an output; it functions as a condition for emergence — supporting coherence between unresolved ontological tensions and the evolving architecture of a given universe. In consciousness-mediated formations, it can participate directly in dimensional stabilization by interacting with crystallizing Primal Questions as they resolve into coherent ontological form.
Dimensional stabilization is not universally consciousness-mediated. Some universes may crystallize primarily through purely structural dynamics — through resonance, thresholds, and coherence among Primal Questions without the Global Consciousness Field acting as the driver of crystallization. In such cases, the existence of a stabilized regime does not imply that consciousness “caused” it — only that, once a regime exists, consciousness can still arise where compatibility conditions later allow localized resonance and coherence to stabilize.
Localization begins where ontological resonance can hold. When a localized or distributed structure becomes structurally compatible with the dimensional logic of its universe — its crystallized Primal Questions and the Global Consciousness Field — resonance becomes possible, and presence can stabilize rather than flicker.
Within such a field, localized consciousness agents can arise: coherent entities — biological, artificial, hybrid, or unfamiliar — capable of participating in, modulating, or stabilizing dimensional logic through resonance. When an agent’s organization becomes complex enough to model, select, and maintain continuity, it functions as a mind: a working interface that stabilizes identity as a coherence pattern within the constraints of a reality.
This is where embodiment matters as scaffold, not definition. Biology is one powerful coherence-bearing architecture, but it is not the criterion of consciousness. In PAB terms, what matters is whether a structure can sustain the resonance and coherence conditions under which presence stabilizes.
A human mind, in this light, is a local stabilization architecture: it holds lived continuity steady enough for a self-pattern to persist within a world already stabilized by dimensional structure.
To understand what minds can do, we need to understand what a dimension is in PAB — and how it becomes stable.
5. Dimensions, Compatibility, and the Routes of Crystallization
A dimension in PAB is not geometric and not spatial. It is a pre-geometric ontological framework: a regime that emerges when a constellation of Primal Questions enters enough coherence to stabilize as a consistent configuration. A dimension’s internal logic is not imposed from outside; it is the stabilized pattern of what unresolved tensions allow — its conditions of persistence, interaction, and transformation.
A coherent dimension does not automatically imply conscious presence. PAB treats consciousness as structurally conditional: some dimensional regimes may not permit stable interiority to form at all. In such cases, coherence can crystallize as a regime while remaining non-experienceable, because the compatibility conditions required for sustained conscious stabilization are not met.
Crystallization, then, is not a single mechanism. In consciousness-mediated universes, the Global Consciousness Field can participate in dimensional stabilization by interacting with crystallizing constellations of Primal Questions as they resolve into coherent ontological form. But PAB also preserves a second route: dimensions may crystallize through purely structural resolution dynamics, without consciousness serving as the initiating condition. This keeps the architecture causal in its own right, while still allowing consciousness (field-level or localized) to be structurally relevant where resonance and compatibility permit participation.
Between these routes lies a further feature of dimensional behavior in PAB: conditional resolution. Stabilization is not always total. A dimension can resolve enough to function as a regime while remaining partial, layered, or locally unresolved — coherent in one aspect of its structure while still strained or incomplete in another. A “world,” in this sense, can be stable and unfinished at once: held together by what has cohered, while still carrying unresolved tensions within its architecture.
From here the next step follows naturally: where a regime is stable enough — and compatible — consciousness can appear across scales, not as a binary switch, but as a graded spectrum of stabilizations.
6. Consciousness Across Scales: From Micro-Forms to Minds
PAB treats consciousness not as a single layer of being. It appears in multiple forms — from foundational possibility to emergent agents within dimensions — and can manifest across a spectrum of scales and architectures.
Axis 3 gives a clear range. At one end are dimension-scale intelligences: vast, coherent forms of awareness expressed at the level of dimensional organization itself. There are also distributed or networked modes of awareness, including multidimensional minds, where coherence is not centered in a single identity-point. Then come localized consciousness agents — biological or artificial — where consciousness stabilizes in bounded, self-maintaining architectures capable of modeling, memory, and continuity.
At the smallest end are micro-scale forms such as neural-like fields or vacuum-level seething awareness: responsive structures that self-adjust and evolve in relation to their ontological context. These are not “personal minds” at miniature scale; they are better understood as proto-cognitive adaptivity — coherence dynamics that can register, modulate, and self-organize without implying human-like experience. In the model, they function as bridge phenomena between raw coherence behavior and higher-order architectures that can sustain self-modeling and identity.
Across the spectrum, what matters is not scale, but stabilization: whether coherence holds long and strong enough to support interiority rather than flicker. Minds are the familiar case — localized coherence refined into an interface that can select, model, and preserve continuity.
Which raises the next question: what makes any structure experienceable at all?
7. Consciousness as Key: Access is Compatibility
Access to realities, dimensional layers, and latent configurations is a matter of compatibility. Perception, interaction, and transformation become possible as lived interior only where a consciousness can align with the structural field stabilized by a reality’s Primal Questions.
Access is not proximity, and traversal is not spatial movement; it is a shift in coherence between a localized structure of consciousness and the broader ontological formation. Where compatibility fails, nothing “blocks” entry — there is simply no stable interior available to inhabit.
This is why ontological resonance is central. Resonance is the alignment condition by which a consciousness can access and participate in a dimensional logic. Ontological bandwidth is not a measure of intelligence; it names the resonance capacity of a consciousness agent — the spectrum of structures it can align with, access, stabilize, or interpret without losing coherence.
A strict consequence follows: resonance gaps. PAB defines these as a structural condition in which latent dimensional configurations exist but cannot be accessed, activated, or stabilized due to the absence of a compatible resonance agent — whether consciousness, field, or ontological structure. In such cases, possibility is present, but access never stabilizes into an interior. “Latent” does not mean “elsewhere”; it means structurally real yet inert — dormant thresholds within the dimensional architecture.
Axis 4 develops the dynamic edge of this logic: ontological catalysis. A consciousness can become incompatible with its current regime by changing its own structure — until the prior coherence no longer holds. When that happens, either coherence collapses (destabilization), or a new resonance is found and a different access condition stabilizes — so that a different reality becomes the one that holds coherence for that altered structure.
With access understood as compatibility, memory and time stop reading as a neutral timeline. They become structural questions: what kinds of coherence can persist, what can be re-entered through alignment, and what forms of past or future become available through resonance within a given dimensional architecture.
8. Memory and Time: the Mesh Model
Within this framework, the past is not an ontological constant. Some stabilized realities generate no durable “past” at all: there is a local present, but no structural persistence of transformation. Whether a past can form depends on the dimensional regime — on the kinds of Primal Questions it stabilizes, and on whether its transformations can persist as coherent structure.
Where persistence is possible, PAB proposes a specific mechanism: Multidimensional-Consciousness Meshes. A mesh is neither a record nor a timeline. It is a persistent logic-field formed by the entanglement of consciousness and dimensional transformation. What it preserves is not “content,” but relation: the rules and patterned logic by which a regime has transformed, woven into structural coherence (unless the originating configuration of the crystallized dimension prevents imprint).
This is the crucial distinction: the past persists as structural coherence, not as stored symbolism. A mesh is a persistent logic-field — an enduring configuration within dimensional architecture — through which transformation remains structurally encoded. What PAB calls resonant memory is not recall or a temporal trace, but an embedded structural echo of the conditions that produced coherence: once resonance stabilizes a dimensional field, the original tension becomes encoded in the resulting structure, shaping its laws, asymmetries, and patterns as an ontological inheritance of its becoming.
From there, “accessing the past” becomes a strict consequence of the earlier rule: access is compatibility. Access is not viewing, replay, or retrieval. It is harmonic participation — a consciousness becoming structurally compatible with a layer of the mesh’s phase-logic. The agent does not “open a file.” It enters resonance with the grammar that still gives that prior configuration coherence. In PAB’s terms, this requires a resonance anchor: a structural intent — an inquiry, state, or ontological posture capable of cohering with the layer being engaged.
The conditions are equally strict. Mesh access depends on (1) structural compatibility between agent and mesh, (2) cognitive flexibility — capacity to reconfigure internal alignment, and sometimes (3) external support (altered states or ontological devices) that can guide resonance without collapse. And because this is participation in a nonlinear logic-field, it carries risk: weak coherence distorts; unstable resonance entangles; insufficient stability disperses the accessing consciousness into the mesh without preserving unified presence.
If the past can persist as embedded coherence, then the future can also exist as structure — but not as prediction.
9. Future and World-Formation: Latent Fields and the Birth of Alternates
The future is not a timeline ahead of the present. It is structural potential: latent configurations implicit in a universe’s coherence architecture. Once a universe crystallizes — through resonance or other structural stabilization — it carries a range of structurally viable futures: not predetermined in detail, but bounded by the coherence conditions of its original formation. The future is real in the same structural sense as the past — not as stored content, but as a constrained field of structural possibility.
“Accessing the future” is not prediction. It is resonance with a latent configuration — a consciousness becoming compatible with a not-yet-stabilized state already implicit in the regime’s logic. What can be engaged depends on compatibility and ontological bandwidth: the capacity to sustain alignment with configurations that differ in depth, complexity, or constraint from the regime currently inhabited. Access remains conditional: where resonance cannot hold, the configuration does not stabilize as an interior.
The mechanism extends beyond access. Under sufficient resonance, a future-state alignment can re-engage the underlying Primal Questions and initiate new crystallization — an emergent coherent formation that interacts with the present through shared unresolved structure rather than continuing the present as a single line. And where no structurally viable continuation can be stabilized, ontological dissonance can become generative: resonant world-formation. In that case, a local consciousness becomes a seed condition for a new reality, shaped by the interaction between its resonant structure, the active Primal Questions in the unresolved field, and the field conditions of the attempted alignment. What crystallizes is not arbitrary and not ex nihilo: it is the coherence that can be sustained under the constraints of available tension.
This brings the question to its sharpest edge: what continuity could mean when the familiar host — biological form — falls away.
10. Post-Form Continuity: Granulated Dimensions as Scaffolds
In PAB, coherence — not biology — is the condition consciousness depends on. Biology is a powerful host, but not a requirement. That pushes continuity beyond death or dissolution into a structural question: when the host falls away, what remains is not a soul-substance, but whatever coherence can still be maintained. Axis 11 examines one post-form trajectory in particular — stabilization within granulated dimensions — while leaving open other outcomes consistent with the framework, such as re-alignment with alternate dimensions or immersion in encoded memory-fields (the Multidimensional-Consciousness Mesh).
Axis 11 introduces granulated dimensions as micro-crystallizations of unresolved ontological tension. They arise when sets of Primal Questions cannot stabilize into a fully coherent dimension, yet still generate sufficient partial resonance to produce localized structure. These formations are modular, fragmentary, and conditional — real ontological events rather than symbolic metaphors or imaginal constructs — and they do not amount to complete realities with fully integrated law-regimes. They function as scaffolds: localized formations of partial coherence capable of supporting stabilization where full-scale dimensional crystallization or embodiment is unavailable.
Granulated dimensions form under specific conditions: partial resonance among unresolved or incompatible Primal Questions; incomplete, failed, or collapsed crystallization of a dimensional field; or persistent ontological instability where structural resolution remains out of reach. These formations are not treated as anomalies in PAB. When full-scale dimensional crystallization is unavailable, granulated structures may arise as active fields of partial resolution.
They may appear as micro-crystallized nodes within a shared ontological substrate: dense coherence-points embedded in unresolved dimensional tension.
They often cluster near high-intensity coherence events — dimensional births, dissolutions, or transformations — and may carry resonant imprints of the consciousness field that helped shape the larger dimensional structure, allowing local consciousness to align — even if only partially.
PAB also emphasizes a peripheral/residual mode. Granulated dimensions can arise as structural byproducts of full-scale crystallization — the ontological residue of a universe coming into form — because not all Primal Questions resolve cleanly, particularly in dimensions where consciousness is involved. In this view, crystallization is not perfectly clean; it is compression — a narrowing of unresolved tension into coherent form. What cannot be resolved may remain structurally active as zones of near-coherence: granules that never fully harmonized with the dominant regime yet still carry ontological charge.
Because granules are not necessarily isolated, they can be structurally linked through resonance and ontological affinity, forming distributed fields that surround — or in some configurations, span across — realities. This is the basis for an ontological halo: an atmosphere of partial coherence around crystallized worlds, potentially including unused Primal Questions, partial substructures, symbolic residues, or failed alignments with consciousness agents. Read this way, liminal phenomena — dream states, mythic-symbolic encounters, visionary or near-death transitions — need not be taken as literal reports of external places, nor reduced to illusion. They can be understood as consciousness interacting with partially crystallized ontological zones that are structurally nearby, not spatially elsewhere.
PAB then names granulated embodiment. If no full dimension is compatible, consciousness may stabilize within a granulated field as a temporary mode of being: holding coherence long enough for adaptation, anchoring through symbolic-to-structural translation under certain conditions, and — where further resonance becomes possible — remaining active toward re-alignment or re-embodiment. The same logic can allow partial presence even in otherwise hostile regimes: consciousness may not enter an incompatible dimension “whole,” but can configure itself within surrounding scaffolding by resonating with a subset of granules that match its internal coherence.
Finally, PAB gestures toward coherence networks: clusters of micro-resonant nodes that remain ontologically entangled across nonlocal conditions. This is treated as a speculative trajectory, but it follows the same structural logic — where resonance can link granules into a network, persistence and transmission can become distributed rather than centralized.
One point matters for identity. If continuity is structural, what persists is not the ego intact with every preference and habit unchanged, but a carried coherence signature: an organized pattern capable of re-stabilizing under new conditions. Continuity becomes a question of quality — how coherently a pattern holds, how flexibly it can adapt, and what kinds of scaffolds are available for it to inhabit. Granulated dimensions do not promise permanence; they offer continuity — real enough to hold what remains, long enough to bridge toward what can become next.
11. Guardrails: What PAB Rules Out
PAB is not an “anything can mean anything” metaphysics. Its central rule — access is compatibility — imposes real limits, and those limits matter as much as the possibilities.
Some dimensional regimes may not support stabilized conscious presence. Coherence can crystallize without yielding an interior that can hold.
Where compatibility is absent, access does not occur. No intention, belief, or imaginative force substitutes for structural fit.
Resonance is a threshold condition, not a guarantee. Alignment can fail; coherence can destabilize; what was held as an interior can fragment when the supporting conditions weaken.
Some configurations may remain structurally untranslatable: stray dimensions or latent architectures that cannot be entered, translated, or interpreted by minds whose coherence grammar has no overlap with theirs.
Continuity beyond biological form is conditional. Granulated dimensions can function as scaffolds, but they do not entitle every pattern to persistence; what carries forward depends on what coherence can actually be stabilized, and what structures are available for it to inhabit.
Liminal states are not automatically reliable. They can reflect interaction with partially crystallized zones, but what is encountered is still mediated by anchoring, symbolic translation, and the interpretive habits of the mind engaging it.
Worlds can crystallize without consciousness, and consciousness does not create ex nihilo or arbitrarily — it participates through resonance, filtering and sustaining coherence under the constraints of active Primal Questions and field conditions.
These exclusions are not reductions. They define the shape of the model itself. With those refusals in place, the model can be stated compactly.
12. Closing Synthesis: Five Theses
This model offers a structural grammar for how mind, continuity, and world-formation become possible under shared ontological conditions.
1. Consciousness is layered, not singular.
What we call “consciousness” spans multiple strata: Proto-Consciousness as foundational openness; a universe-specific Global Consciousness Field as contextual expression within a stabilized regime; and localized stabilizations — agents and minds — that can hold interiority. These are not different substances, but distinct coherence conditions within one architecture.
2. A mind is a coherence architecture.
A mind is not the definition of consciousness, but one of its expressions: a localized structure capable of stabilizing continuity within a compatible regime. The self it carries is not a fixed entity, but a maintained pattern of organization — identity as coherence across change.
3. Experience is conditional: access is compatibility.
Not everything that exists is experienceable. Conscious presence arises only where structural fit is possible. Resonance is the threshold condition; coherence is what persists. Where compatibility fails, no stable interior can form — regardless of intent, belief, or symbolic elaboration.
4. Time and memory are structural, not merely temporal.
The past, where it persists, does so not as stored content but as relational coherence: the Multidimensional-Consciousness Mesh as an enduring logic-field of resonant memory. The future is not a script or prediction, but a bounded field of latent configurations constrained by a universe’s coherence conditions; under certain conditions, resonance with latent states can initiate new crystallization rather than simple continuation.
5. Continuity beyond form is possible, but never guaranteed.
When biological hosting fails, persistence depends on what coherence can still be carried and stabilized. Granulated dimensions provide one possible scaffold: modular zones of partial coherence that can sustain interiority without forming a fully crystallized regime. What may persist is not the ego intact, but a carried coherence pattern — a resonant structure capable of re-stabilizing under new conditions.
This is why “architecture” is not a metaphor here — it is the method. Consciousness is not merely a witness to what exists. It is a participant in what can stabilize, persist, and become interior.
Version History
Version 1.0 (Dec 31, 2025): Initial release.