t1_holds
plain-language theorem explainer
The meta-principle is forced: no inconsistent boolean floor state can be selected at zero recognition-work cost. Anyone assembling the T0–T8 inevitability certificate cites this as the T1 link. The proof is a short term that feeds the absolute-floor T−1→T0 bridge into the T0→T1 corollary extractor and projects the T1 field.
Claim. The meta-principle is forced from the cost foundation: for every boolean floor configuration $\Gamma$, if $\Gamma$ is inconsistent then its recognition-work cost satisfies $C(\Gamma)>0$, and if $C(\Gamma)=0$ then $\Gamma$ is consistent. Equivalently, an inconsistent recognition-work state cannot be a zero-cost state.
background
In the unified forcing chain, every level T−1 through T8 is claimed as a forced inevitability from the Recognition Composition Law plus normalization and calibration. T1 is the meta-principle step: cost forbids selecting an inconsistent floor state as a zero-cost state ("nothing has infinite cost").
The payload is the structure asserting two dual facts on the boolean recognition-work cost $C$: inconsistent configurations have strictly positive cost, and zero-cost configurations are consistent. The module treats this as a corollary of T0 (logic forced by cost minimization), not an independent axiom.
Upstream, the T−1→T0 bridge packages the absolute boolean floor, its floor configuration and cost, and the recognition-work constraint. The T0→T1 bridge then turns any proof of T0 into a T1 witness via the corollary that inconsistent states cannot be zero-cost.
proof idea
One-line term proof. Start from the canonical T−1→T0 bridge certificate, extract the forced-T0 surface from that bridge, feed it into the T0→T1 bridge constructor (which applies the T1-as-corollary-of-T0 lemma), and project the .t1 field. No new algebra is done at this surface; the routing makes the corollary status explicit on the standalone theorem.
why it matters
This is the public T1 certificate inside the complete inevitability chain (T−1 absolute floor through T8). Downstream, the gravity master theorem packages it into the full T0–T8 holds bundle alongside the sibling level certificates. The companion audit equality shows the standalone certificate coincides with the corollary applied to the routed T0 surface, so the two presentation styles carry identical content.
In the primer landmarks this is the MP step of the forcing chain: after logic is forced from cost (T0), inconsistency is barred from the zero-cost locus. Later steps (discreteness, ledger, unique $J$, $\varphi$, eight-tick, $D=3$) sit on top of this consistency floor.
Switch to Lean above to see the machine-checked source, dependencies, and usage graph.