Boundary and Horizon

Current approved assessment

Evidence position

METHOD / BOUNDARY

Review depth

BASELINE SURVEY

Evidence movement

Initial observation — no prior comparable baseline linked

Keep the conceptual-boundary designation and suppress empirical truth scoring. Literature provides calibration, not confirmation of programme ontology.

Why it sits here

Philosophy distinguishes causal explanation, metaphysical explanation and activities of understanding, while disputing their relations [S43]. The demand that every fact have a reason is itself controversial [S44]. Cosmological clarification can therefore coexist with disagreement about whether actuality needs a final explanation [S45].

Principal uncertainty

The row does not define access, Horizon or ultimate grounding precisely enough to adjudicate transitions; this pass does not reconstruct missing commitments.

What would change the view?

Reconsider if a transition claims that expanding access, self-reference or causal closure entails ultimate grounding, or asserts that no eventual explanation is possible. Such an added claim changes scope.

Launch-v1 depth

Baseline-only public wrapper. No deeper evidence artefacts are fabricated.

Approved history