Morphology → information return

The body forgets.
The gate remembers.

We steered the body without ever looking at the information gate. The visible body split first. The causal-information split appeared later—after the morphologies had begun to converge.

39paired organisms
2,808new fixed-history probes
3post-feedback checkpoints
82%late target effect / remaining original gate gap
01 / The result

A morphology-only target became a later difference in causal responsiveness.

In the open starting state, expansive-versus-compact control made no clear gate-score difference when feedback ended. After 128 untouched steps, it did: +0.00530 [+0.00222, +0.00813].

+0.00530late open-state gate split+0.00530 [+0.00222, +0.00813]
+0.229 SDvisible body split at the same time+0.229 [-0.140, +0.604]
+0.00644remaining original open−closed gate memory+0.00644 [+0.00088, +0.01176]
+0.00590open−closed target interaction+0.00590 [+0.00214, +0.00944]

The late information difference is not a trivial readout of “how visually different were the bodies?” In the open state, organism-level morphology and gate effects were essentially uncorrelated at +128.

02 / The handoff

Visible form moved first. Information geometry followed on its own clock.

Visible expansive minus compact body

-0.8-0.2+0.3+0.9+1.5openclosed064128steps after morphology feedback

The controller created an immediate morphology split. By +128, the population interval includes zero.

Expansive minus compact gate score

-0.012-0.006+0.000+0.006+0.012openclosed064128steps after morphology feedback

The closed starting state shows an earlier transient tendency. The open starting state develops a clear difference only at +128.

03 / The older state is still there

The original information gate also decays slowly.

Untouched open minus closed gate score

-0.004+0.004+0.012+0.020+0.028open − closed064128steps after morphology feedback

The open–closed gate difference falls from +0.01681 to +0.00644, but remains visible after 128 release steps.

So the system carries at least two memories at once: the older developmental mode, and a newer target-dependent difference written by morphology feedback.

04 / One representative organism

The images converge before the causal response does.

Source 34 is mechanically closest to the panel mean in the late open-state body and gate effects. Top row: compact target. Bottom row: expansive target.

Source 34 compact · solid · round release step 1
compact · solid · roundrelease +1
Source 34 compact · solid · round release step 64
compact · solid · roundrelease +64
Source 34 compact · solid · round release step 128
compact · solid · roundrelease +128
Source 34 expansive · skeletal · elongated release step 1
expansive · skeletal · elongatedrelease +1
Source 34 expansive · skeletal · elongated release step 64
expansive · skeletal · elongatedrelease +64
Source 34 expansive · skeletal · elongated release step 128
expansive · skeletal · elongatedrelease +128
05 / The loop

Information geometry and form are taking turns carrying the organism’s history.

Early gatebiases what later actions become as the body develops
Morphology feedbackpushes the same state toward a requested body trajectory
Visible relaxationthe compact and expansive phenotypes begin to converge
Latent returnthe requested trajectory remains encoded in causal responsiveness

This is much closer to the phenomenon we came looking for: a hidden causal organization that precedes form, shapes form, and can itself be rewritten by the history of form-generating interactions.

06 / Next swing

Now test whether the returned information state changes the next body.

Give the late compact and expansive branches the same fresh action after their visible forms have converged. If their bodies diverge again according to the hidden gate difference, we have completed the causal loop: information → body → information → body.