Cross-Substrate Phenomenal Comparison: A Typed Transformation-Transport Framework under Existential Uncertainty

Comparing human, non-human animal, and artificial experience requires distinguishing whether a target has phenomenal experience from which aspects of its experience would be comparable if it does. Multidimensional profiles, behavioral similarities, and mechanistic correspondences provide important evidence, but do not by themselves settle measurement semantics, information loss, or the scope of cross-system inference. This paper proposes a typed transformation-transport framework whose basic comparison unit is a system-in-regime undergoing a specified intervention. Claims are distinguished by their targets: phenomenal existence, character, valence, perspectival organization, continuation, and token multiplicity. No universal human-centered phenomenal coordinate system is required, although each comparison requires an explicit local relational interface. The principal methodological object is a transport certificate separating observable causal correspondence, conditional phenomenal interpretation, and evidential updating about existence. Four propositions establish conditional non-identification under observational equivalence, a fiber criterion for query-preserving abstraction, guarded composition of set-valued constraints, and error propagation for metric interfaces. An exhaustively checked eight-state example shows that exact interventional correspondence can preserve one candidate phenomenal query while concealing a distinction relevant to another. A held-out intervention reveals the resulting model disagreement, but cannot empirically adjudicate it without an appropriate measurement connection. Bounded research protocols and a twelve-case conceptual regression suite operationalize the framework for human–animal–AI comparisons. The contribution is an integrated method for specifying and auditing transport claims, not a new sufficient condition for consciousness. In particular, the framework neither treats non-entailing evidence as worthless nor mistakes a formally valid conditional for an empirically established fact about experience.

TA-TR-2026-15, version 1.0. English-only theoretical and methodological preprint. Human author of record and responsible depositor: Hongju Liu. Substantial ChatGPT assistance in literature retrieval, formalization, checking, drafting, code, and publication preparation. Not peer reviewed; no separate final human line-by-line review or institutional endorsement is claimed.

This is adjacent, first-party, non-amending scholarship. It neither defines nor validates nor changes the Trinity Accord. The finite checks are constructed mathematical illustrations, not empirical evidence of consciousness or a measured comparison of species. Focused literature review does not certify global originality.

CC BY 4.0 applies to newly written material to the extent rights are held. Third-party sources retain their rights.