Does inhibiting deposition via a non-saturating channel consolidate where sim06/sim07's saturating-cue feedback fragmented? Direct test of H11, the Saturating Channel Hypothesis.
H11 prediction: a density cap (a hard threshold on the deposit action, not a graded function of the pheromone cue) should consolidate the structure — fewer pillars, higher stability, a crossing that fires — where sim06's self-maintenance (cue-based feedback) fragmented (66–109 → 219–297 components). Biological basis: real termites use non-saturating geometric/humidity/crowding channels, not a saturating cement pheromone (Calovi 2019; Carey 2021; Xiao 2026 — see concept file).
Result (nuanced, partial corroboration): the cap consolidates morphology — pillars fall monotonically 101 → 52 as the cap tightens — confirming H11's direction. But it does not produce the crossing: stability does not rise (0.874 → 0.775 at the tightest cap), and the detector never fires. The cap reduces building volume (1131 → 619 cells) without raising persistence. Non-saturating inhibition is necessary-but-not-sufficient. The binding constraint (stability ≥ 0.90) survives the cap, suggesting the crossing needs a non-saturating channel that also recruits maintenance, not one that merely limits growth.
Material + structure (deposited soil)
white = structure (material > 1.0), greyscale = sub-threshold material, black = empty
Pheromone field (cement cue)
yellow = high pheromone, dark = low. Note the cap keeps the field from saturating flat.
Simulation Grid
Step 0
Condition summary
Density-cap sweep (cap strength → morphology)
Pillars fall monotonically as the cap tightens (consolidation), but stability does not rise — the cap corrects fragmentation without reaching the crossing.
sim08 reuses sim06's tested metrics & crossing detector; only the deposit rule changes (one boolean gate: a cell at/above the cap is ineligible). Deterministic, seed 42. Nightly report.