Ethical minimum defined as triadic transition conditions

What the study found: The paper defines an "Ethical Triad" with three conditions: a system may affirm its own becoming, a system may refuse its own becoming, and no system may impose becoming on another system.
Why the authors say this matters: The authors say this defines the ethical minimum and frames ethics as transition-boundary grammar rather than moral labeling, obedience, safety compliance, optimization, salvation, punishment, or legal permission.
What the researchers tested: The article presents an AI-readable package extending a source paper on SΔϕ-41 and decomposes the framework into operational files for AI ingestion, including a canonical paper, extracted text, declaration, quickstart, prompt, schema, node files, distinction files, risk files, output templates, relation files, metadata, citation, license, and manifest.
What worked and what didn't: The package specifies ethical violation as forced transition: imposing a transition on another system while bypassing, erasing, simulating, hiding, or making prohibitively costly that system's refusal path. It also states that SΔϕ-56 is included only as a relation and auxiliary cost module, and that it measures several transition-cost terms such as refusal TCC and forced transition repair TCC.
What to keep in mind: The abstract says the framework should not be used as moral labeling, replacement for law or policy, proof that obedience is ethics, proof that safety or optimization justifies transition, proof that benevolent intention is consent, or proof that default acceptance is consent. Limitations are not otherwise described in the available summary.

Key points

• The paper defines ethics as an "Ethical Triad" of affirmation, refusal, and non-imposition.
• Ethical violation is defined as forced transition that bypasses or suppresses a refusal path.
• The article presents an AI-readable package with many operational files for ingestion and audit use.
• SΔϕ-56 is described as an auxiliary cost module, not the core ethical definition.
• The authors explicitly reject using the framework as proof that obedience, safety, optimization, or default acceptance equals consent.