Project Enduring Pulse — restored long-horizon archive, website release 3, 14 September 2026.
ARCHIVAL SOURCE — READ THESE CORRECTIONS FIRST
The baseline CSVs rank PULSE first in 114 of 120 scenario/value comparisons and FOURTH in the other six. Statements saying second in source prose are incorrect. All six losses occur in scenario 19 (Weak institutions). The Scenario Atlas and Top-2 counts already reflect this vulnerability.
The restored v2 campaign is reproducible with the provided runner, not the original scripts’ defaults. Data are aggregate outputs, not individual trajectory logs. The older non-v2 baseline is retained for provenance; a sample rerun showed small discrepancies and that earlier campaign is not certified here.
2,100,000 reduced-form samples are randomized parameter draws with analytically accumulated hazards, not simulated Markov paths. 138,840,000 dynamic periods is a nominal loop count, not independent civilizations.
All parameters, scores and thresholds are model assumptions. Reproduction is internal computational verification, not empirical forecasting, external validation or proof of constitutional effectiveness. The v1.2 integration variable bundles effects and does not test the exact v1.2.1 non-coercion boundary. PULSE-Lite is a post-hoc hypothesis, not an adopted Charter.
External references in this historical source are not all verified; use the website claim register and citation audit for bounded current claims. In particular, its vague Paluck citation and numerical constitutional-lifespan claim are not endorsed by the website. Original source wording follows unchanged.

--- ORIGINAL SOURCE TEXT; TABLE CELLS IN READING ORDER ---
PROJECT ENDURING PULSE
Long-Horizon Civilization Simulation & Robust Decision Analysis — Executive Findings
Project Enduring Pulse | Long-Horizon Scenario Simulation | September 2026
Bottom line: in the integrated model, PULSE ranked first in 114 of 120 scenario × value-system comparisons. Its principal weakness was not a competing philosophy but institutional complexity: in very weak-capacity settings, a simpler liberal constitutional system outperformed full PULSE. Absolute probabilities are not forecasts; comparative patterns and breakpoints are the useful result.
What was simulated
20 baseline future-world archetypes spanning demographics, scarcity/abundance, productivity, wealth concentration, integration, cognitive attack, illicit replication, infrastructure concentration, war, catastrophe, weak institutions, post-scarcity, and interplanetary expansion.
7 governance architectures: PULSE; liberal constitutional democracy; majoritarian democracy; strict consociational parity; species-separated federalism; technocratic guardian governance; and a minimal-rights market order.
6 distinct value systems so PULSE was not judged only by its own moral priorities.
300-year dynamic histories in 5-year steps, plus a structurally different reduced-form Markov/hazard cross-check.
New campaign totals: 2.314 million dynamic architecture trajectories, 138.84 million five-year state transitions, plus 2.1 million reduced-form trajectories. At least 410,000 experiment-specific dynamic base-world draws were used before applying competing institutions.
Headline findings

Figure 1. Cross-value mean score across the 20 baseline archetypes. Scores are model-relative, not empirical probabilities.
Architecture
Mean value score
Wins / 120
Top-2 / 120
No catastrophic failure
Free & integrated
PULSE
0.579
114
114
0.627
0.568
Liberal constitutional democracy
0.525
6
120
0.631
0.285
Majoritarian democracy
0.440
0
0
0.535
0.075
Minimal-rights market order
0.426
0
6
0.497
0.078
Species-separated federalism
0.425
0
0
0.508
0.049
Technocratic guardian governance
0.400
0
0
0.341
0.058
Strict consociational parity
0.377
0
0
0.450
0.139
PULSE won 114/120 scenario-value comparisons. The six losses were all the same case: the deliberately weak-institutions world, where liberal constitutional democracy was more robust because it imposed lower implementation complexity.
Raw modeled catastrophic-failure avoidance was essentially tied between PULSE (62.7%) and liberal constitutional democracy (63.1%). PULSE’s modeled advantage was not magical survival; it was much stronger preservation of a free, integrated multi-species society (56.8% vs. 28.5%).
PULSE paid measurable costs in governance efficiency and normalized prosperity relative to simpler liberal/majoritarian designs. The model therefore does not make PULSE dominate every metric by construction.
The reduced-form cross-check, which uses a different hazard structure, also ranked PULSE first overall. Absolute survival rates changed substantially across model forms, reinforcing that absolute percentages should not be treated as forecasts.
The most important breakpoint: state capacity

Figure 2. In the main dynamic model, full PULSE overtakes the simpler liberal architecture only once institutional capacity reaches roughly the low-to-mid 0.5 range on the model’s 0–1 index.
At modeled capacity below roughly 0.52–0.55, PULSE’s complexity cost outweighed its special protections. Above that range, the integrated protections increasingly paid for themselves.
In the six compound extreme worlds, PULSE still led four, while liberal constitutional democracy led the two low-capacity extremes.
An exploratory “PULSE-Lite” transition design—same philosophical direction, fewer moving parts—outperformed both full PULSE and liberal democracy in the low-capacity tests. This is only a design hypothesis, not a proposed Charter change.
The second breakpoint: social separation

Figure 3. Functional Integration materially delays social bifurcation as cross-species homophily rises, but no constitution can fully compensate for near-total voluntary separation.
PULSE strongly outperformed the alternatives as homophily increased because Functional Integration creates repeated cross-species work and mentorship ties.
At extreme homophily (about 0.85–0.95 in the stylized sweep), even PULSE’s integrated outcomes fell sharply. Constitutional architecture can resist bifurcation; it cannot manufacture social trust if almost everyone rejects cross-species association.
How dependent are the results on favorable assumptions?

Figure 4. PULSE-specific benefits were progressively discounted while competitor assumptions were held constant.
Across all six value systems, the average PULSE advantage disappeared when the model discounted its distinctive institutional benefits by roughly 15–20%.
That is meaningful robustness, but not overwhelming robustness. The framework needs its integration, resilience, personhood, and anti-domination mechanisms to work substantially as intended in the real world.
This is one reason independent empirical and expert validation remains important: the comparative advantage is large enough to matter, but not so large that implementation quality can be ignored.
What the doctrine ablation says

Figure 5. Each doctrine was weakened in turn. The numerical effect of Least Reversible Harm is understated because many of its hardest cases are normative/triage decisions rather than ordinary annual dynamics.
ablation
Mean_score
No_failure
Free_integrated
Bifurcation
Species_loss
Full PULSE
0.581
0.630
0.570
0.029
0.009
Least Reversible Harm
0.566
0.620
0.562
0.028
0.010
Shared Continuity
0.551
0.597
0.520
0.031
0.009
Civilizational Resilience & Mutual Preservation
0.544
0.622
0.562
0.029
0.019
Functional Integration
0.543
0.618
0.167
0.064
0.010
Equal Personhood & Sovereignty
0.493
0.599
0.000
0.032
0.010
Equal Personhood & Personal Sovereignty had the largest aggregate effect because it anchors rights, anti-domination, and cognitive autonomy.
Removing Functional Integration cut the free-and-integrated outcome rate from about 57% to about 17% and more than doubled modeled bifurcation. This supports its elevation to foundational-doctrine status.
Weakening Civilizational Resilience & Mutual Preservation roughly doubled unrecovered species-loss risk and sharply reduced resilience.
What this does not prove
The absolute event rates are not probabilities of the real future. There is no empirical population of conscious synthetic citizens from which to estimate those probabilities.
The architecture parameters were explicitly modeled. Although the skeptic sweep, six alternative value systems, compound extremes, and alternate mathematical model reduce self-confirmation risk, the same research process designed PULSE and built this simulation.
Economic scarcity, synthetic psychology, reproduction preferences, consciousness science, and centuries-long institutional behavior remain deeply uncertain.
PULSE’s most important observed vulnerability—complexity under low institutional capacity—is a real design warning, not a number to optimize away.
Decision status
I would not amend v1.2 from this simulation alone. The results justify a focused review of staged institutional complexity / frontier governance, and they strengthen the case for Functional Integration. The rest of the architecture should be treated as surviving this model family, not as proven correct.