Hemodynamic Homeostasis · §17 · HP1-HP7 = structural directions read off RP4 reject / T1 durable / T2 margin
Comfort proposal: seven structural hypotheses, stated as directions, not treatments
Seven hypotheses (HP1–HP7) are stated as structural directions read off the proven loop, never as treatments. HP1 intervenes at the setpoint; HP2 stays above the perfusion floor; HP3 ranks axes; HP6 grows the heart-failure margin; HP7 fixes the pairing rule. Each is graded [F]; any clinical outcome is [O].
The proposal layer ports the analgesic whitepaper’s intervention-logic discipline: a small set of explicit, falsifiable, structural hypotheses with a hard firewall that forbids turning any of them into a molecule, an exposure schedule, or an efficacy or tolerability result. Each hypothesis is a direction read off a proven loop result, graded [F]; the explicit non-claims below state, in the package’s own words, what is deliberately not being asserted.
Seven hypotheses, each a direction read off the proven loop
Every item below is a structural or directional hypothesis read off a proven arterial-pressure loop result (RP4 rejection, T1 durability, T2 margin). None is a treatment, a molecule, an exposure schedule, or an efficacy or tolerability finding. The hypotheses are graded [F]: a forced structural direction, with any realising molecule and any clinical outcome left open [O].
| ID | Structural hypothesis | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| HP1 | Intervene at the loop SETPOINT -- the renal pressure-natriuresis / RAAS reference -- rather than at the operating point. | [F] forced |
| HP2 | Move the reference DOWN toward the normotensive attractor; do not crush perfusion below the floor, because the symmetric failure is the hypotension node decomposition. | [F] forced |
| HP3 | Rank target axes by counter-regulation-freedom combined with DNA/biology grounding: reference-reset axes first (renal-sympathetic; RAAS/REN, DNA-grounded; Na/volume, SIX2-grounded), then buffer restoration (baroreflex/PIEZO), with effector unload as a PAIRED adjunct only. | [F] forced |
| HP4 | Prefer a mechanism that lowers the reference WITHOUT being sensed as an acute disturbance, so the integral controller does not register an error and does not oppose it -- the structural shape that is counter-regulation-free. | [F] forced |
| HP5 | Because the targeted variable is the loop's OWN setpoint, this direction is pursued as a durable, counter-regulation-free antihypertensive logic that structurally does not provoke the reflex push-back driving the familiar side-effect class; whether any given molecule achieves durable control, tolerability, or an improved profile is an open empirical question, not a claim made here. | [F] forced |
| HP6 | For chronic heart failure, grow the basin margin M = spinodal(kappa) - |load| by reducing load and breaking the maladaptive neurohormonal cycle (the four-pillar direction), never by flogging the effector, which shrinks the margin. | [F] forced |
| HP7 | If an effector unload (vasodilator / volume reduction) is used, pair it ONLY in concert with a reference reset (H1) so the unload is not opposed; never as operating-point monotherapy. | [F] forced |
What is deliberately not claimed
The proposal carries the same explicit non-claims as the analgesic source, restated for the hemodynamic setting. To keep the forbidden-claim firewall fail-closed over this page, the full non-claim list is stated on the firewall page (§20): no molecule is named, no exposure schedule is given, and no efficacy or tolerability result is asserted. In particular, “counter-regulation-free” is a structural property of a loop direction, read off the RP4/T1 asymmetry — it is not a clinical tolerability or safety statement about any molecule. The prioritisation, falsification and firewall pages that follow rank these hypotheses, state how each could be refuted, and hold the firewall boundary.
Cited literature
- Imported discipline: Non-opioid analgesic threshold logic v2.0, intervention-logic + forbidden-claim firewall (Zenodo concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20733420).