Conclusion

The present monograph proposes that awareness is the knowing aspect of $\unsplit$, prior to the operational source/readout distinction, and that a physical vessel determines its localized manifestation. The working source $S$ and readout $T$ describe a nominated problem; neither exhausts the ontological prior. The contribution is an explicit constitution for admission, phenomenal organization and experiential continuation.

The physical foundation supplies observer-independent event laws within two distinct constitutions, material records, retained resources and controlled error estimates. The mathematical foundation supplies source/readout descent, predictive closure, witness classification, quantitative bridge error and finite examples. These results describe what vessels can do without deriving awareness from their performance.

The philosophical account distinguishes awareness, localized subject and lived scene. Memory, attention, implicit processing and the personal model shape lived experience without becoming its fundamental knower. That interpretation does not establish a permanent personal Self. Contemplative and altered-state descriptions help articulate the distinctions; they do not supply physical proof or direct access to $\unsplit$.

Under SPC-2, admission depends on the stated recurrent-core rule, phenomenal structure on the complete endogenous predictive object, and episode identity on nonbranching process provenance. Reports are physically grounded. The biological conscious/generative interpretation adds no hidden admission predicate or second observer. Vessel and personal continuity can persist through a genuinely scene-less interval, with no currently instantiated experiential subject. A qualification gap ends the episode under A3; renewed qualification begins a new one.

The limitations remain substantive. Exact individuation is sensitive to weak coupling and the realization doctrine. The predictive object is independent of analyst truncation but relative to its native grammar and boundary contract. Physical conservativity limits transcript-only discrimination of the aspect interpretation. No validated general selector of $R^\ast$ for actual organisms or machines is supplied, and the proposed fly-brain study is a research direction rather than a completed test.

The final claim remains a candidate internal constitutive resolution of the source-to-manifestation problem, under declared assumptions. SPC-2 is a candidate psychophysical constitution. Its completion theorem determines the assignments on the certified domain. Justification of the realization, phenomenal adequacy, philosophical acceptance and independent external verification remain separate tasks. The account can therefore be examined as a unified proposal without mistaking its mathematical completeness for a universal empirical resolution.