For reviewers

Please try to break it cleanly.

This site exists so serious readers can inspect the claims, identify overreach, demand definitions, propose baselines, and test whether the process-from-form idea survives contact with evidence.

How to critique the work

Separate definitions from hypotheses and implementation-backed claims.
Name where the framework infers cause from appearance too quickly.
Ask whether the claimed measurement object can be operationalized.
Demand negative controls, proof-negative cases, and AMCVA routing where appropriate.
Check whether the same claim survives when sequences, metadata, or baselines are missing.

What evidence would strengthen it

Versioned documents and reproducible code.
Stable synthetic baselines and inverse-morphology tests.
Library examples with trace files attached.
Proof-positive, proof-negative, and HOLD cases published side by side.
Explicit comparison against naive or random baselines.

What would weaken or falsify specific claims

If hidden generating parameters cannot be recovered from synthetic morphology better than chance.
If morphology family assignments collapse when modest domain shifts are introduced.
If AMCVA and HOLD do not reliably suppress overinterpretation in weak-evidence cases.
If the framework depends mainly on metaphor rather than measurable descriptors.

How to submit comments

If the public repository is live, use GitHub issues so critique stays attached to concrete files and versions. If it is not live yet, use the document versions and contact route on the site so critique can still be tied to specific claims and artifacts.