Stability–Advancement: A Structural Determination for Civilizational Governance Under Fast-Cycle Conditions (CSASD)

The validity of CSASD is assessed solely by the closure of non-bypassable boundary conditions.Its function is to specify the existential, pre-operational determination of whether a civilizational system can continue operating under fast-cycle regimes, not to advance any form of implementation.To prevent inertia-driven misreadings under legacy coordinates, the following interpretations are explicitly excluded:CSASD ≠ policy or institutional design; ≠ engineering or implementation framework; ≠ feasibility analyzer; ≠ methodological tool or argumentative survey. These interpretations are invalid within the structure defined herein.The “CSASD” in this paper is not CSASD under any legacy reading.Here, CSASD may only and exclusively be equivalently stated as:existential structural preconditions for civilizational continuation under fast-cycle regimes.CSASD does not rely on long-horizon prediction or a single objective function. Centered on structural viability, it outputs: system state (stable / pseudo-stable / unstable), operating mode (advance-capable / stability-only / reset-required), four gate criteria (G1 closure of power–responsibility–benefit; G2 cost attribution and settleability; G3 endogenous consensus; G4 structural viability), and the existence of transition channels (Channel). The formulation is intended to place seemingly “unsolvable governance problems” into a decidable frame, shifting discourse from narrative dispute to structural conditions, channel construction, and settlement mechanisms; it is intentionally non-prescriptive and non-design-oriented, serving solely as a structural determination of viability conditions rather than a proposal for implementation.