I am working on a functional methodology under the general title “Architecture of the Break.” Within it, I have set myself the task of examining and systematically arranging—along a scale of weights—“human representations of reality,” which, in the framework of my approach, I refer to collectively as “ideas.”

A key part of my approach is a functional description of the methods for weighting “ideas” (including the creation of a mathematical model). This allows one to quickly and easily determine—using this toolkit—the level of significance, accuracy, productivity, and universality of any given “idea.”

Why this matters to me: everything I had encountered before was either too complicated or too entrenched within a specific paradigm of truth (political or ideological). The approaches I studied did not meet the criterion of universality, because within them the paradigms in which they were created are treated as ideal, while everything else is considered fake. I did not like this, because it contaminates the lenses through which I am trying to achieve “clarity of understanding.”
My approach also allows one to work with pure speculations and even make certain predictions regarding the fate of a speculation—specifically, whether it can grow into a level of necessary truth. But that is for later; for now I offer the core of my system for discussion. (I could easily add two more pages of justification, but this seems to be a different format.)

The core of my approach is a system for ranking any “idea” by its weight across three criteria:

1. Universality — Scope of Applicability
A measure of how broadly a given idea X can functionally regulate different domains.
Universality prevents “Niche Blindness” (when an idea applies only within a narrow area while ignoring others).

2. Accuracy — Verifiability and Predictive Power
A measure of how precisely idea X corresponds to testable consequences (both empirical and deductive).
Accuracy allows us to diagnose conflict at the lowest level. If an idea we rely on is inaccurate, it cannot serve as a foundation for rational action.

3. Productivity — Generative Power
The ability of idea X, once adopted as a law, to generate new, logically necessary, nontrivial consequences that could not have been derived from prior experience.

The proposed hierarchical model looks as follows:

Level 1. Axioms (Foundation of Being)

Weight: Highest
Determined by: Maximum Universality
Essence: Ideas without which thought and the perception of causality are logically impossible (laws of logic, the existence of time and space). Their Accuracy is not discussed (though sometimes contested), and their Productivity is continuous—they constantly generate the very possibility of thought.
Ontological Status: Necessity

Level 2. Deductive Constructions (Constituting Principles)

Weight: High
Determined by: High Productivity
Essence: Ideas adopted as laws that generate new, necessary consequences (for example, mathematical theorems or a nation’s Constitution). Their strength lies in asserting a new order and being functionally necessary for the operation of a system.
Ontological Status: Functional Necessity

Level 3. Empirics (Experience and Facts)

Weight: Medium
Determined by: Maximum Accuracy and Low Universality
Essence: Ideas that have been validated by past experience and can be verified. Their weakness is that they describe only what has already happened (low Productivity) and apply only to specific conditions (low Universality).
Ontological Status: Demonstrated Contingency

Level 4. Models and Interpretations (Lenses)

Weight: Below Medium
Determined by: A combination of Universality and Accuracy
Essence: Philosophical and worldview systems. They are not facts (low Accuracy), but they offer a universal way of organizing facts. Their weight depends on how successfully they systematize incoming information.
Ontological Status: Methodological Optionality

Level 5. Speculations (Noise and Possibility)

Weight: Low
Determined by: The absence of all three criteria
Essence: Unverified hypotheses, fantasies, personal desires. They are inaccurate, non-universal, and lack proven productivity. Yet precisely here lies the seed of any future Deductive Construction, as these ideas are free from the burden of past experience (Empirics).
Ontological Status: Pure Possibility

I will not elaborate here on the mathematical model for distributing weights. Instead, I will analyze several “ideas” using this method:

1. “Theory of Crystalline Humans”

The fundamental nature of human consciousness and emotions is determined by crystalline structures in the brain that resonate with Earth’s energy fields.

Analysis:

Universality: Low. Cannot regulate physics, economics, law, etc.
Accuracy: Zero. Cannot be subjected to empirical observation or deductive verification (no scientific implications). At least at the current moment.
Productivity: Zero. Generates no new necessary laws or working technologies.
Conclusion: Speculation (Level 5)

2. “Increasing Centrifugal Force by 10% Doubles Bearing Wear”

Analysis:
Universality: Low. Applies only to this specific system of bearings and centrifugal force; cannot regulate, say, family relations.
Accuracy: Maximum. Highly verifiable.
Productivity: Low. Does not generate new fundamental laws; it describes a consequence of existing physical laws.
Conclusion: Fact (Level 3)

3. “Natural Rights of Man”

Universality: High. The idea was intended to regulate politics, law, economics (property rights), and ethics simultaneously.
Accuracy: Zero (in fact). It contradicted the empirical reality at the time of its emergence.
Productivity: Maximum. It generated entirely new, necessary consequences: separation of powers, democracy, market economy. It created a whole class of new solutions.
Conclusion: Constituting Principle (Level 2)

It is worth expanding on this. For a contemporary Westerner, this idea appears self-evident, natural, and universally correct. However, at the time of its creation, it was not so. Its architects (Locke, Rousseau, the Founding Fathers) performed an Act of Will, translating it into a Constitution, thereby forcing reality to conform to it. This is a paradigmatic example of a successful Architectural Act.

In this text, I will also not describe the mechanics of an “Idea” rising from Level 5 (speculation) to Level 2 (deductive construction).

I ask participants to evaluate and provide recommendations on this model. Critical remarks are welcome.

(P.S. I understand that the idea of “Natural Human Rights” may, for many readers, occupy the same role as “sunlight”—without which the world collapses. If that is the case for you, please do not spend time commenting. I fully acknowledge, respect, and accept your position.)