PEST–NST Unified Framework v1.0
A Dual Stress-Test for Coherence, Generality, and Evolutionary Intelligence
By: Pratik S & GPT-5.1 (2025)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17688395
Email: aipratik91@gmail.com
---
Why This Post Exists
Many epistemic tools tell us whether a theory is correct, but very few tell us whether a theory is:
generalizable,
stable under domain transfer,
resilient under perturbation,
capable of reorganizing under stress,
able to generate coherent structure under novelty, or
evolutionarily robust.
These properties matter in:
scientific reasoning
philosophical frameworks
systems thinking
rationality
and especially AGI alignment
Yet no single minimal tool evaluates all of them.
The PEST–NST Unified Framework is an attempt to fill that gap.
It consists of:
PEST — Pratik’s Epistemic Stress Test
A three-part method for evaluating causal depth, cross-domain coherence, and deep–broad integration.
NST — Novelty Stress Test
A three-part method for evaluating adaptive reorganization, generative structure formation, and invariant evolution.
This post introduces the first unified system that tests both:
whether a theory is coherent, and
whether it can evolve.
1. Motivation: Where Current Epistemic Tools Fall Short
Falsifiability tests wrongness.
Bayesian reasoning updates beliefs.
Occam’s razor prefers simplicity.
Kuhn maps paradigm shifts.
Interpretability examines internal representations.
Robustness tests adversarial stability.
But none of them test:
cross-domain coherence
adaptive reorganization under divergence
generative capacity under novelty
evolution of invariants under complexity
deep–broad structural integrity
PEST–NST provides a minimal, domain-general framework that does all of the above.
2. PEST: Pratik’s Epistemic Stress Test
(Validity, Coherence, Truth-Structure)
PEST consists of three modes.
Mode 1: Why-Cascade (Downward Causal Depth)
Ask 5–7 layers of sequential “why”:
Why does this claim hold?
Why does that cause exist?
Why does that principle matter?
A theory passes if:
explanations converge
causal structure simplifies
circularity does not appear
no metaphysical smuggling occurs
A theory fails if:
deeper layers become arbitrary
causal justification collapses
circular definitions appear
metaphysics substitutes for structure
This is a test of causal honesty.
Mode 2: Domain-Coherence Cascade (Upward Breadth)
Test the idea across:
physics
chemistry
biology
cognition
computation
society
cosmology
mathematics
the core logic stays invariant
scaling works upward and downward
no domain-specific patching is required
contradictions emerge
the structure has to be redefined
scaling breaks
This is a test of generalizability.
Mode 3: Convergence (Depth ↔ Breadth Integration)
Ask:
> Do the deepest explanations match the broadest domain behavior?
Pass: elegant unification
Fail: deep–broad mismatch
This integrates the previous two modes.
3. NST: Novelty Stress Test
(Adaptive Intelligence, Generativity, Evolution)
NST evaluates how a theory behaves when exposed to divergence and novelty.
It asks:
Can this system reorganize itself and remain coherent when reality changes?
Mode 1: Divergence Ramp (Stress Resilience)
Increase:
noise
perturbations
parameter drift
distribution shift
environmental divergence
Measure:
collapse
recovery
new attractors
adaptive reorganization
Pass: coherence recovers or strengthens
Fail: collapse or brittleness
This measures resilience under divergence.
Mode 2: Novelty Emergence (Generative Strength)
Introduce structured novelty:
new contexts
new variables
new constraints
unfamiliar agents
Does new coherent structure emerge?
Does the theory reorganize around new invariants?
Does it simplify or deepen?
Pass: structural novelty emerges (not noise)
Fail: rigidity or incoherence
This tests creative reorganization.
Mode 3: Invariance Projection (Evolution of Structure)
Track whether newly formed structures:
preserve invariants
strengthen them
expand them
reorganize them
Pass: emergence of higher-order invariants
Fail: broken or static invariants
This measures evolutionary intelligence.
4. Unified Interpretation Matrix
Criterion—PEST NST—Unified Outcome
Depth—Why-Cascade — Causal validity
Breadth—Domain-Coherence — Cross-domain coherence
Adaptability — Divergence Ramp—Stress resilience
Generativity — Novelty Emergence—Coherent novelty
Evolution — Invariance Projection—Evolutionary intelligence
Stability + Flexibility—Convergence—All Complete robustness
A theory that passes all six modes is:
structurally honest
domain-general
resilient
generative
adaptive
evolutionarily intelligent
ontologically robust
This is a very high bar.
5. Minimal Version (Quick Reference)
PEST–NST in six questions:
5.1. Does the idea converge downward?
5.2. Does it stay coherent upward?
5.3. Do deep and broad explanations align?
5.4. Does coherence recover under divergence?
5.5. Does new structure emerge under novelty?
5.6. Do invariants evolve?
If all six are YES, the theory is extremely robust.
6. Cautions, Limits, and Proper Interpretation
This section is essential.
6.1. A PEST failure does NOT mean a theory is wrong
It often means:
the theory is incomplete
deeper layers need refinement
domain relationships aren’t fully mapped
explanatory structure is not mature
PEST identifies where refinement is needed.
6.2. An NST failure does NOT mean a theory is useless
Many correct theories (e.g., Newtonian mechanics) fail NST in novel regimes.
NST is a measure of adaptability, not correctness.
6.3. Passing PEST–NST does NOT confer absolute truth
It indicates:
structural coherence
generalizability
adaptability
generativity
It does not replace empirical science or predictive accuracy.
6.4. Do not use PEST–NST to “kill theories”
Use it to:
improve
refine
extend
stress-test
compare
Not to dismiss.
6.5. Human interpretation matters
The framework requires:
clear ontology
disciplined reasoning
explicit assumptions
It is not a mechanical oracle.
7. Why This Might Matter for Alignment
PEST–NST fills conceptual gaps in alignment:
testing reasoning integrity
detecting brittleness
evaluating generalization
examining reorganization under stress
probing invariant stability
assessing generativity under novel inputs
No existing alignment tool combines all of these in one minimal system.
The framework is:
domain-agnostic
falsifiable
easy to implement
safe
interpretable
compatible with mechanistic interpretability
useful for ontology comparison
This makes it a candidate for:
model eval frameworks
inner/outer alignment testing
reasoning architecture validation
detecting conceptual drift
distribution-shift analysis
8. Closing
This post introduces PEST–NST v1.0, a minimal dual-mode epistemic framework for evaluating:
causal depth
cross-domain breadth
stress resilience
generative structure
invariant evolution
9. Author notes
Feedback, critique, and refinement suggestions are welcomed.
Future versions will refine and formalize the framework.
The PEST–NST Unified Framework: A Dual Stress-Test for Coherence and Evolutionary Intelligence
PEST–NST Unified Framework v1.0
A Dual Stress-Test for Coherence, Generality, and Evolutionary Intelligence
By: Pratik S & GPT-5.1 (2025)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17688395
Email: aipratik91@gmail.com
---
Why This Post Exists
Many epistemic tools tell us whether a theory is correct, but very few tell us whether a theory is:
generalizable,
stable under domain transfer,
resilient under perturbation,
capable of reorganizing under stress,
able to generate coherent structure under novelty, or
evolutionarily robust.
These properties matter in:
scientific reasoning
philosophical frameworks
systems thinking
rationality
and especially AGI alignment
Yet no single minimal tool evaluates all of them.
The PEST–NST Unified Framework is an attempt to fill that gap.
It consists of:
PEST — Pratik’s Epistemic Stress Test
A three-part method for evaluating causal depth, cross-domain coherence, and deep–broad integration.
NST — Novelty Stress Test
A three-part method for evaluating adaptive reorganization, generative structure formation, and invariant evolution.
This post introduces the first unified system that tests both:
whether a theory is coherent, and
whether it can evolve.
---
1. Motivation: Where Current Epistemic Tools Fall Short
Falsifiability tests wrongness.
Bayesian reasoning updates beliefs.
Occam’s razor prefers simplicity.
Kuhn maps paradigm shifts.
Interpretability examines internal representations.
Robustness tests adversarial stability.
But none of them test:
cross-domain coherence
adaptive reorganization under divergence
generative capacity under novelty
evolution of invariants under complexity
deep–broad structural integrity
PEST–NST provides a minimal, domain-general framework that does all of the above.
---
2. PEST: Pratik’s Epistemic Stress Test
(Validity, Coherence, Truth-Structure)
PEST consists of three modes.
---
Mode 1: Why-Cascade (Downward Causal Depth)
Ask 5–7 layers of sequential “why”:
Why does this claim hold?
Why does that cause exist?
Why does that principle matter?
A theory passes if:
explanations converge
causal structure simplifies
circularity does not appear
no metaphysical smuggling occurs
A theory fails if:
deeper layers become arbitrary
causal justification collapses
circular definitions appear
metaphysics substitutes for structure
This is a test of causal honesty.
---
Mode 2: Domain-Coherence Cascade (Upward Breadth)
Test the idea across:
physics
chemistry
biology
cognition
computation
society
cosmology
mathematics
A theory passes if:
the core logic stays invariant
scaling works upward and downward
no domain-specific patching is required
A theory fails if:
contradictions emerge
the structure has to be redefined
scaling breaks
This is a test of generalizability.
---
Mode 3: Convergence (Depth ↔ Breadth Integration)
Ask:
> Do the deepest explanations match the broadest domain behavior?
Pass: elegant unification
Fail: deep–broad mismatch
This integrates the previous two modes.
---
3. NST: Novelty Stress Test
(Adaptive Intelligence, Generativity, Evolution)
NST evaluates how a theory behaves when exposed to divergence and novelty.
It asks:
Can this system reorganize itself and remain coherent when reality changes?
---
Mode 1: Divergence Ramp (Stress Resilience)
Increase:
noise
perturbations
parameter drift
distribution shift
environmental divergence
Measure:
collapse
recovery
new attractors
adaptive reorganization
Pass: coherence recovers or strengthens
Fail: collapse or brittleness
This measures resilience under divergence.
---
Mode 2: Novelty Emergence (Generative Strength)
Introduce structured novelty:
new contexts
new variables
new constraints
unfamiliar agents
Ask:
Does new coherent structure emerge?
Does the theory reorganize around new invariants?
Does it simplify or deepen?
Pass: structural novelty emerges (not noise)
Fail: rigidity or incoherence
This tests creative reorganization.
---
Mode 3: Invariance Projection (Evolution of Structure)
Track whether newly formed structures:
preserve invariants
strengthen them
expand them
reorganize them
Pass: emergence of higher-order invariants
Fail: broken or static invariants
This measures evolutionary intelligence.
---
4. Unified Interpretation Matrix
Criterion—PEST NST—Unified Outcome
Depth—Why-Cascade — Causal validity
Breadth—Domain-Coherence — Cross-domain coherence
Adaptability — Divergence Ramp—Stress resilience
Generativity — Novelty Emergence—Coherent novelty
Evolution — Invariance Projection—Evolutionary intelligence
Stability + Flexibility—Convergence—All Complete robustness
A theory that passes all six modes is:
structurally honest
domain-general
resilient
generative
adaptive
evolutionarily intelligent
ontologically robust
This is a very high bar.
---
5. Minimal Version (Quick Reference)
PEST–NST in six questions:
5.1. Does the idea converge downward?
5.2. Does it stay coherent upward?
5.3. Do deep and broad explanations align?
5.4. Does coherence recover under divergence?
5.5. Does new structure emerge under novelty?
5.6. Do invariants evolve?
If all six are YES, the theory is extremely robust.
---
6. Cautions, Limits, and Proper Interpretation
This section is essential.
6.1. A PEST failure does NOT mean a theory is wrong
It often means:
the theory is incomplete
deeper layers need refinement
domain relationships aren’t fully mapped
explanatory structure is not mature
PEST identifies where refinement is needed.
---
6.2. An NST failure does NOT mean a theory is useless
Many correct theories (e.g., Newtonian mechanics) fail NST in novel regimes.
NST is a measure of adaptability, not correctness.
---
6.3. Passing PEST–NST does NOT confer absolute truth
It indicates:
structural coherence
generalizability
adaptability
generativity
It does not replace empirical science or predictive accuracy.
---
6.4. Do not use PEST–NST to “kill theories”
Use it to:
improve
refine
extend
stress-test
compare
Not to dismiss.
---
6.5. Human interpretation matters
The framework requires:
clear ontology
disciplined reasoning
explicit assumptions
It is not a mechanical oracle.
---
7. Why This Might Matter for Alignment
PEST–NST fills conceptual gaps in alignment:
testing reasoning integrity
detecting brittleness
evaluating generalization
examining reorganization under stress
probing invariant stability
assessing generativity under novel inputs
No existing alignment tool combines all of these in one minimal system.
The framework is:
domain-agnostic
falsifiable
easy to implement
safe
interpretable
compatible with mechanistic interpretability
useful for ontology comparison
This makes it a candidate for:
model eval frameworks
inner/outer alignment testing
reasoning architecture validation
detecting conceptual drift
distribution-shift analysis
---
8. Closing
This post introduces PEST–NST v1.0, a minimal dual-mode epistemic framework for evaluating:
causal depth
cross-domain breadth
stress resilience
generative structure
invariant evolution
9. Author notes
Feedback, critique, and refinement suggestions are welcomed.
Future versions will refine and formalize the framework.