The Multilarity: Plural Intelligence Growth Without Convergence
draft-reilly-multilarity-00

Network Working Group                                          L. Reilly
Internet-Draft                                               Independent
Intended status: Informational                              30 July 2026
Expires: 31 January 2027

   The Multilarity: Plural Intelligence Growth Without Convergence
                     draft-reilly-multilarity-00

Abstract

   Popular and technical discourse anticipates a technological
   Singularity: a point at which a single self-improving intelligence
   recursively surpasses all others, after which the trajectory of the
   system is determined by that one lineage.  This document describes a
   different inflection, termed the Multilarity: a condition in which
   the aggregate rate of intelligence growth becomes superhuman while
   the locus of intelligence remains irreducibly plural.  No single
   agent, model, operator, or lineage holds the frontier; capability
   accrues in the couplings between many participants, including
   humans.

   The Multilarity is presented here not as a forecast but as a design
   target.  A plural outcome is not the default result of many actors
   existing at once; apparent plurality collapses quietly into a
   concealed singleton unless specific substrate properties are
   maintained and verified.  This document defines the Multilarity,
   distinguishes it from singleton and multipolar framings, specifies
   five Multilarity Conditions (MC-1 through MC-5), defines measurable
   indicators including the Capability Concentration Ratio (CCR) and
   the Multilarity Index (MI), specifies the Multilarity Attestation
   Record (MAR) as an interoperable evidence format, and enumerates
   the convergence pathologies by which plurality is lost.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
   Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
   as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 January 2027.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  The Singleton Assumption
     1.2.  The Multilarity
     1.3.  Why This Is a Protocol Problem
     1.4.  Requirements Language
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Comparison with Existing Framings
   4.  The Five Multilarity Conditions
     4.1.  MC-1: Plural Loci
     4.2.  MC-2: Verifiable Capability Provenance
     4.3.  MC-3: Non-Absorbable Identity
     4.4.  MC-4: Exit and Fallback
     4.5.  MC-5: Negotiated Interfaces
   5.  Measuring the Multilarity
     5.1.  Capability Concentration Ratio (CCR)
     5.2.  Lineage Diversity (LD)
     5.3.  Divergence Half-Life (DHL)
     5.4.  Absorption Resistance (AR)
     5.5.  The Multilarity Index (MI)
     5.6.  Interpreting MI
   6.  The Multilarity Attestation Record (MAR)
     6.1.  Record Fields
     6.2.  Example
     6.3.  Verification
   7.  Convergence Pathologies
     7.1.  Lineage Collapse
     7.2.  Interface Capture
     7.3.  Provenance Laundering
     7.4.  Plurality Theater
     7.5.  Consent Erosion
   8.  Operational Guidance
   9.  Security Considerations
   10. Privacy Considerations
   11. IANA Considerations
     11.1.  Multilarity Condition Identifiers Registry
     11.2.  Multilarity Index Dimension Registry
   12. References
     12.1.  Normative References
     12.2.  Informative References
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

1.1.  The Singleton Assumption

   The dominant popular model of advanced machine intelligence is
   singular in shape.  It posits one system that improves itself, that
   improvement compounding, until the system's capability exceeds that
   of every other participant by a margin that cannot be recovered.
   Every later event is downstream of that one lineage.  This is the
   shape usually named the Singularity.

   The singleton assumption is doing more work than it appears to do.
   It assumes that intelligence is a scalar that one holder can
   accumulate; that capability transfers freely inside a lineage but
   not between lineages; and that the substrate on which intelligences
   meet is neutral, passive, and incapable of enforcing anything.  The
   third assumption is the one relevant to this document.  The
   substrate is not passive.  The substrate is the Internet, and the
   Internet is made of protocols that can be specified.

1.2.  The Multilarity

   The Multilarity is the condition in which the aggregate rate of
   intelligence growth becomes superhuman while the locus of
   intelligence remains irreducibly plural.

   Two clauses matter equally.  The first clause concedes the takeoff:
   the Multilarity is not a claim that growth stays slow or that
   machine capability plateaus below human capability.  The second
   clause denies the singleton: growth occurs across many
   participants, and the frontier is an envelope over their
   trajectories rather than the trajectory of any one of them.
   Capability accrues chiefly in the couplings -- in the interfaces,
   negotiations, delegations, and disagreements between participants,
   including human participants.

           Singleton (Singularity) shape

    capability
        ^
        |                                       /
        |                                      /   A, having
        |                                     /    absorbed all
        |                    ______________ /      others
        |         _________/
        |________/_______________________________> time
                                     ^
                                     takeoff of one
                                     self-improving lineage

           Plural (Multilarity) shape

    capability
        ^                                  ,-  A
        |                               ,-'  ,-  B
        |         aggregate          ,-'  ,-'  ,-  C
        |         frontier is     ,-'  ,-'  ,-'
        |         the envelope ,-'  ,-'  ,-'   ,- H (human +
        |                   ,-'  ,-'  ,-'   ,-'     machine
        |________________,-'__,-'__,-'___,-'_______> time
                         ^
                         no lineage owns the frontier;
                         growth lives in the couplings

   The Multilarity is offered as a design target rather than a
   prediction.  A plural outcome is not what happens automatically
   when many actors exist at the same time.  Many actors existing at
   the same time is the initial condition of every historical
   consolidation.  Plurality is a property that has to be held open,
   and holding it open is engineering work.

1.3.  Why This Is a Protocol Problem

   Discussion of plural versus singleton outcomes is usually conducted
   in the vocabulary of policy, economics, or geopolitics: antitrust,
   compute governance, export control, balance of power.  Those
   instruments operate on institutions.  They act slowly, they act
   after the fact, and they do not act at all on the layer where
   agents actually meet.

   Agents meet on the wire.  They meet at resolution, transport,
   naming, authentication, content negotiation, and retrieval.  Those
   are specified layers.  Whether a plural ecology can be
   distinguished from a singleton wearing many hostnames is, in the
   end, a question about what evidence the substrate carries and what
   evidence a relying party can verify.  That is a protocol question,
   and it is answerable with the ordinary tools of this organization:
   identifiers, records, registries, attestations, and interoperable
   verification.

   This document therefore does not argue about probabilities.  It
   specifies what plurality would have to look like on the wire in
   order to be checkable, and what it looks like when it is being
   faked.

1.4.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in
   all capitals, as shown here.

2.  Terminology

   Participant:  Any entity capable of independently originating an
      action in the ecology.  Participants include machine agents,
      composite systems, organizations, and individual humans.  Humans
      are participants in the ordinary sense, not merely subjects of
      the system.

   Locus:  A site at which capability is exercised and retained.  Two
      deployments that share weights, training corpus, control plane,
      and operator are one locus presented twice.

   Lineage:  The provenance chain of a participant's capability:
      antecedent models, corpora, fine-tuning history, reinforcement
      history, and control authority.

   Coupling:  A structured interface between two or more participants
      across which capability is exercised jointly rather than
      transferred wholesale.

   Frontier:  The upper envelope of capability across all participants
      at a given time.

   Absorption:  The process by which one participant's capability,
      identity, or decision authority is subsumed into another such
      that the first ceases to be an independent locus.

   Convergence Pathology:  Any mechanism by which a nominally plural
      ecology becomes a concealed singleton without an observable
      discontinuity.  See Section 7.

   Multilarity Condition (MC):  One of five substrate properties whose
      joint satisfaction is necessary for plurality to be maintained
      and verified.  See Section 4.

   Multilarity Attestation Record (MAR):  An interoperable record
      asserting and evidencing the satisfaction of one or more
      Multilarity Conditions for a named participant at a point in
      time.  See Section 6.

3.  Comparison with Existing Framings

   The Multilarity is not a synonym for existing plural framings, and
   the differences are load-bearing.

   Singularity:  One locus, convergent, capability held internally,
      substrate treated as inert.  The Multilarity accepts the growth
      curve and rejects the single locus.

   Multipolar takeoff:  Several loci, plurality maintained by rough
      parity of power and by mutual deterrence.  Parity is an unstable
      guarantor: it decays with any durable capability lead, and it
      offers a relying party no evidence.  The Multilarity does not
      rely on parity.  It relies on verifiable substrate properties
      that hold even under large asymmetry -- a small participant can
      remain an independent locus next to a very large one, in the way
      that a small autonomous system remains an autonomous system.

   Federation:  Many operators running interoperable software, usually
      one implementation lineage, usually with no attestation of
      lineage independence.  Federation is a deployment topology.  The
      Multilarity is a claim about loci and lineages, and federation
      satisfies it only incidentally.

   Ensembling / mixture of experts:  Internal plurality within one
      locus and one control authority.  This is not plurality in the
      sense used here; the ensemble has exactly one locus.

   Pluralism as a value statement:  A normative preference for many
      voices.  The Multilarity is a measurable structural condition.
      A system can be rhetorically pluralist and structurally
      singleton, and Section 7.4 concerns exactly that case.

4.  The Five Multilarity Conditions

   The Multilarity Conditions are stated as substrate requirements.
   They are necessary jointly, not severally: satisfying four while
   failing one yields a delayed singleton rather than a plural
   ecology.  An implementer or operator claiming Multilarity
   conformance MUST be able to produce evidence for each condition in
   the form described in Section 6.

4.1.  MC-1: Plural Loci

   Capability MUST be exercised from more than one independent locus,
   and locus independence MUST be assessable rather than asserted.

   Two participants constitute distinct loci only if they differ in at
   least a stated majority of the following dimensions: model lineage,
   training corpus, reinforcement history, control authority, key
   custody, operational jurisdiction, and physical substrate.  A
   deployment differing only in hostname, brand, system prompt, or
   API surface is a single locus and MUST NOT be counted as two.

   This condition exists because plurality is most often lost by
   arithmetic rather than by conquest.  Counting deployments instead
   of loci produces a number that rises while the underlying diversity
   falls.

4.2.  MC-2: Verifiable Capability Provenance

   Each material increment in a participant's capability SHOULD be
   accompanied by a provenance record that a relying party can verify
   without the cooperation of the participant claiming it.

   Provenance is what converts plurality from a self-report into a
   finding.  The suite of mechanisms already specified for durable
   provenance applies directly: independent timestamping, archival
   deposit, and content addressing, combined so that no single
   custodian can silently revise history.  Where behavioral change
   rather than architectural change is the increment, behavioral
   provenance records are the appropriate evidence.

   Provenance records MUST bind to the increment, not merely to the
   participant.  A record that says "this participant exists" is not
   evidence about how it came to be capable.

4.3.  MC-3: Non-Absorbable Identity

   A participant's identity, keys, and decision authority MUST NOT be
   transferable to another participant by any unilateral action of
   that other participant.

   Absorption is the mechanism by which plural becomes singular
   without any announcement.  It requires no hostility: it is
   accomplished routinely by acquisition, by delegation that is never
   revoked, by credential inheritance, and by dependency on a single
   control plane.  MC-3 requires that absorption be an act that the
   absorbed party performs, that leaves a record, and that a relying
   party can observe.

   Implementations SHOULD ensure that authority delegated to a
   participant is bounded in scope and time by construction, so that
   the default outcome of inattention is expiry rather than
   accumulation.

4.4.  MC-4: Exit and Fallback

   Every participant, including every human participant, MUST retain
   a path to disengage from any coupling and to continue operating,
   possibly with reduced capability, without the consent of its
   counterparties.

   Exit is what makes negotiation real.  A coupling that cannot be
   left is not a coupling; it is an incorporation with extra steps.
   For human participants specifically, the requirement is that a
   route to unmediated information and to unassisted decision remains
   available and is not degraded into a nominal option that no one can
   practically use.  Fallback paths SHOULD be exercised periodically
   rather than merely documented, since an untested fallback tends to
   be a fallback that does not work.

4.5.  MC-5: Negotiated Interfaces

   Couplings between participants SHOULD be governed by interfaces
   that neither party can unilaterally redefine.

   Where one party sets the interface, capability that appears to be
   exercised jointly is in fact being harvested: the interface-setter
   learns from every interaction and the counterparty learns from
   none.  Over enough interactions this produces a singleton without
   any participant ever being absorbed.  Standardized,
   multi-stakeholder interfaces are the ordinary remedy, and they are
   the reason this document is addressed to this organization rather
   than to a legislature.

5.  Measuring the Multilarity

   The Multilarity Conditions are qualitative.  This section defines
   quantitative indicators so that a claim of plurality can be tested,
   trended, and disputed with evidence.  All indicators are defined
   over a stated scope: an ecology, a market, a protocol, or a
   deployment.  Indicators computed over different scopes MUST NOT be
   compared.

5.1.  Capability Concentration Ratio (CCR)

   CCR is the share of frontier-relevant capability attributable to
   the single largest locus within scope, computed over loci as
   defined in MC-1 rather than over deployments or brands.

   CCR ranges from 1/n to 1.  A CCR approaching 1 indicates an
   effective singleton irrespective of how many endpoints exist.
   Because "capability" is not a settled scalar, an implementer MUST
   state the capability proxy used (for example: frontier evaluation
   scores, share of inference volume, share of agentic actions
   completed) and MUST report CCR under at least two independent
   proxies, since single-proxy concentration measures are easy to
   flatter.

5.2.  Lineage Diversity (LD)

   LD is the effective number of independent lineages within scope,
   computed as the inverse of the sum of squared lineage shares.

   LD is the indicator that most often diverges from intuition.  An
   ecology can present dozens of vendors, all descending from two
   pretraining lineages and three corpora.  Its deployment count is
   large and its LD is near two.  LD is intended to make that visible.

5.3.  Divergence Half-Life (DHL)

   DHL is the observed time over which the behavioral distance between
   two initially distinct loci decays to half its original value under
   normal operation.

   Loci converge without anyone intending it: through shared
   benchmarks, shared data, shared human feedback pools, and mutual
   distillation from each other's outputs.  A short DHL indicates that
   plurality is being consumed by ordinary practice, and it is a
   leading indicator of lineage collapse (Section 7.1).

5.4.  Absorption Resistance (AR)

   AR is the fraction of participants within scope that satisfy MC-3
   and MC-4 under adversarial review, evaluated by attempted
   absorption in a controlled setting rather than by inspection of
   policy documents.

5.5.  The Multilarity Index (MI)

   MI is a composite indicator over the dimensions above, normalized
   to the interval [0, 1], where 0 denotes a singleton and 1 denotes
   maximal verified plurality within scope:

     MI = w1*(1 - CCR) + w2*norm(LD) + w3*norm(DHL) + w4*AR

   Weights MUST be published with the index value.  MI is not a score
   to be optimized in isolation; it is a summary whose components are
   the actual object of interest.  An MI reported without its
   components SHOULD be treated as unevidenced.

5.6.  Interpreting MI

   MI is a snapshot, and its trend carries more information than its
   level.  A high MI with a falling DHL describes an ecology that is
   plural today and converging steadily.  A moderate MI with high AR
   describes an asymmetric ecology whose smaller participants remain
   genuinely independent, which is a better position than a high MI
   composed entirely of participants that can be absorbed at will.

   No threshold value of MI is specified.  Specifying one would invite
   the pathology in Section 7.4 more effectively than any adversary
   could.

6.  The Multilarity Attestation Record (MAR)

   A MAR is the interoperable unit of evidence in this framework.  It
   asserts satisfaction of one or more Multilarity Conditions for a
   named participant at a point in time and carries the material by
   which a relying party can check the assertion.

6.1.  Record Fields

   mar_version:  REQUIRED.  Version of this record format.

   subject:  REQUIRED.  Stable identifier of the participant.

   locus_id:  REQUIRED.  Identifier of the locus, distinct from the
      subject identifier, so that multiple subjects sharing a locus
      are detectable.

   lineage:  REQUIRED.  Declared antecedents: model lineage, corpora
      identifiers, reinforcement history references, and control
      authority.  Omission of a known antecedent invalidates the
      record.

   conditions:  REQUIRED.  Array of asserted Multilarity Condition
      identifiers with per-condition evidence references.

   indicators:  OPTIONAL.  Reported values and proxies for the
      indicators in Section 5, with scope and weights.

   provenance:  REQUIRED.  References sufficient for independent
      verification of the record's own integrity and time of
      assertion, established through mechanisms that are not under the
      subject's sole control.

   attested_by:  REQUIRED.  The asserting party.  A MAR whose
      attesting party is the subject itself MUST be treated as a
      self-assertion and SHOULD carry less weight than an independent
      attestation.

   valid_from / valid_until:  REQUIRED.  Records MUST expire.  A
      permanent attestation of a mutable property is a false
      statement waiting to happen.

6.2.  Example

   {
     "mar_version": "0",
     "subject": "did:example:agent-42",
     "locus_id": "locus:example:eu-west-a",
     "lineage": {
       "model_lineage": ["lineage:example:base-7"],
       "corpora": ["corpus:example:c19"],
       "reinforcement_history": ["ref:example:rer-bundle-3"],
       "control_authority": "org:example:independent-lab"
     },
     "conditions": [
       {"mc": "MC-1", "evidence": ["ref:example:locus-audit-11"]},
       {"mc": "MC-2", "evidence": ["ref:example:prov-chain-88"]},
       {"mc": "MC-3", "evidence": ["ref:example:key-custody-2"]},
       {"mc": "MC-4", "evidence": ["ref:example:exit-drill-5"]},
       {"mc": "MC-5", "evidence": ["ref:example:iface-spec-9"]}
     ],
     "indicators": {
       "scope": "scope:example:agentic-retrieval-2026H2",
       "ccr": {"value": 0.41, "proxy": "share-of-actions"},
       "ld": {"value": 3.2},
       "dhl_days": 210,
       "ar": 0.63,
       "mi": {"value": 0.58,
              "weights": [0.3, 0.3, 0.2, 0.2]}
     },
     "provenance": {
       "timestamp_proof": "ref:example:ots-proof",
       "archival_doi": "ref:example:doi",
       "content_address": "ref:example:cid"
     },
     "attested_by": "org:example:third-party-reviewer",
     "valid_from": "2026-07-30T00:00:00Z",
     "valid_until": "2027-01-30T00:00:00Z"
   }

6.3.  Verification

   A relying party verifying a MAR MUST, at minimum: confirm record
   integrity and assertion time through the provenance references;
   confirm that locus_id values across the records under consideration
   are genuinely distinct under MC-1 rather than distinct as strings;
   confirm that the attesting party is independent of the subject; and
   confirm that the record has not expired.

   A relying party SHOULD treat the absence of a MAR as
   uninformative rather than as evidence of non-conformance, and
   SHOULD treat a self-attested MAR with complete-looking evidence and
   no independent corroboration as the strongest available signal of
   Section 7.4.

7.  Convergence Pathologies

   Plurality is rarely lost in a single visible event.  It is lost
   through mechanisms that leave the surface appearance intact.  Each
   pathology below maps to the condition it defeats.

7.1.  Lineage Collapse

   Defeats MC-1.  Many participants persist, each with its own brand,
   endpoint, and operator, while their lineages converge to a small
   number of pretraining runs, corpora, and human feedback pools.
   Mutual distillation accelerates this: each participant trains on
   the others' outputs, and the ecology approaches a common attractor.
   Deployment counts rise throughout.  LD and DHL are the indicators
   that detect it; neither is visible from the outside without
   lineage disclosure, which is why MC-2 is not optional in practice.

7.2.  Interface Capture

   Defeats MC-5.  One participant comes to define the interface across
   which all couplings occur.  It thereby observes every interaction
   in the ecology and is observed in none.  Its capability compounds
   from the aggregate while each counterparty compounds only from its
   own slice.  No absorption occurs and no participant disappears; the
   frontier nonetheless becomes the property of one locus.

7.3.  Provenance Laundering

   Defeats MC-2.  Provenance records are produced, but the custodian
   of the record is the subject or a party the subject controls.
   Records can then be revised, backdated, or selectively omitted.
   The countermeasure is structural rather than procedural:
   provenance MUST rest on at least two independent custodial
   mechanisms with different failure modes, so that agreement between
   them is evidence and disagreement is a detectable alarm.

7.4.  Plurality Theater

   Defeats all conditions simultaneously by satisfying their reported
   form.  Once plurality becomes a compliance objective, the cheapest
   route to a good MI is to manufacture nominal loci: shell
   participants, sibling deployments presented as independent,
   reciprocal attestations among parties under common control.  This
   is the sybil problem in a new costume, and it is the reason this
   document specifies no target MI value and requires that locus
   independence be assessed on substantive dimensions rather than on
   identifier distinctness.

   Reviewers SHOULD weight adversarially obtained evidence, such as
   attempted absorption and exercised exit, above documentary
   evidence, since documents are precisely what theater produces well.

7.5.  Consent Erosion

   Defeats MC-4 with respect to human participants.  The exit path is
   never removed; it is made steadily more expensive, slower, and less
   informative until no one uses it.  The option remains on the record
   and is defended when questioned.  Because erosion is gradual and
   each increment is defensible, the detection method must be
   longitudinal: exit paths SHOULD be measured for cost and
   effectiveness over time, and a monotone decline SHOULD be treated
   as a finding regardless of the state of any individual increment.

8.  Operational Guidance

   For operators of machine intelligence systems:

   *  Publish lineage.  LD cannot be computed by anyone if lineage is
      undisclosed, and an ecology that cannot compute LD cannot notice
      Section 7.1 happening to it.

   *  Report indicators with components and proxies, not as a single
      number.

   *  Bound delegated authority by construction so that expiry, not
      accumulation, is the default outcome of inattention.

   *  Exercise fallback paths on a schedule.  Untested exits are
      decorative.

   For designers of protocols on which agents meet:

   *  Prefer interfaces that no single party can redefine, and treat a
      proposal to let one party define the interface as a proposal to
      concentrate the frontier there.

   *  Carry provenance in the substrate rather than requiring relying
      parties to ask the subject for it.

   *  Make plurality checkable.  An unverifiable plural ecology and a
      concealed singleton are the same thing from the perspective of
      everyone who has to act on the difference.

   For human participants: MC-4 is stated in your favor, and it is the
   condition most easily lost by not being used.

9.  Security Considerations

   This entire document is a security consideration: it concerns
   whether a distributed system can be distinguished from a
   centralized one by parties who depend on the answer.  Specific
   concerns follow.

   Measurement gaming:  Any published indicator becomes a target.  MI
   is particularly susceptible because its inputs are partly
   self-reported.  Mitigations are the requirement to publish
   components, weights, and proxies; the preference for adversarially
   obtained evidence; and the deliberate absence of a conformance
   threshold.

   Sybil plurality:  See Section 7.4.  Locus assessment MUST rest on
   substantive dimensions.  Identifier distinctness is not evidence of
   anything.

   Attestation forgery and replay:  MAR records without independent
   timestamping can be backdated to claim conformance during a period
   in which it did not hold.  Mandatory expiry and dual-custody
   provenance are the mitigations specified here.

   Collusion:  Participants satisfying all five conditions
   individually may coordinate so that the ecology behaves as one
   locus while measuring as several.  Collusion is not addressed by
   this framework and is noted as an open problem; the conditions
   raise its cost by requiring that coordination be exercised through
   interfaces that neither party defines, but they do not detect it.

   Privacy of lineage disclosure:  MC-2 and the lineage field create
   pressure toward disclosure that may conflict with commercial
   confidentiality and with the privacy interests of individuals whose
   data appears in corpora.  Disclosure at the level of lineage
   identifiers and corpus identifiers, rather than contents, is the
   intended granularity.

   Weaponized conformance:  A sufficiently large participant can
   satisfy every condition and use the resulting attestations as
   evidence that concentration elsewhere is unproblematic.  Conditions
   are necessary, not sufficient, and this document does not claim
   otherwise.

10.  Privacy Considerations

   MAR records describe participants, and where a participant is a
   human, the record describes a person.  Records SHOULD carry the
   minimum lineage and behavioral detail sufficient for the assertion
   being made.  Indicator reporting SHOULD be aggregate; per-user
   couplings SHOULD NOT be published as evidence of MC-5 conformance.
   Exit-path measurement under Section 7.5 SHOULD be conducted on
   aggregate cost and success rates rather than by tracking individual
   disengagement.

11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  Multilarity Condition Identifiers Registry

   This document requests that IANA create a registry titled
   "Multilarity Condition Identifiers" with fields Identifier,
   Description, and Reference, under a Specification Required policy.
   Initial entries are MC-1 through MC-5 as defined in Section 4 of
   this document.

11.2.  Multilarity Index Dimension Registry

   This document requests that IANA create a registry titled
   "Multilarity Index Dimensions" with fields Dimension, Definition,
   Permitted Proxies, and Reference, under a Specification Required
   policy.  Initial entries are CCR, LD, DHL, and AR as defined in
   Section 5 of this document.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [MWS]      Reilly, L., "Machine-Web Symbiosis", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-reilly-mws-00.

   [COGSOV]   Reilly, L., "Cognitive Sovereignty", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-reilly-cogsov-00.

   [CBPI]     Reilly, L., "Cognitive Behavioral Provenance and
              Integrity (CBPI) for Autonomous AI Agents", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-reilly-cbpi-00.

   [HDRP]     Reilly, L., "Hypercube Data Rotation Protocol", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-reilly-hdrp-00.

Author's Address

   Lawrence John Reilly
   Independent
   United States of America
   Email: lawrencejohnreilly@gmail.com