Ease: A Threshold Model of Evaluative Access Constraints

Abstract

This paper defines Ease as a mechanistic regime characterized by permissive, non-evaluatively constrained coordination, where anticipatory evaluation fails to capture the system at entry and the episode does not accumulate into meaning, progress, or durable motivational value. The framework emphasizes access constraints (monitoring, evaluation, micro-optimization) and proposes threshold dynamics with fragile entry and comparatively stable post-threshold persistence.

Contents

Canonical definition, prediction index

The regime distinction

Two sources of evaluative collapse

The Z architecture

Threshold dynamics

Monitoring, evaluation, optimization

A mechanistic distinction between mindfulness and suspension

Anti-instrumentality glossary

Pharmacological constraint note on transient re-opening

Non-monotonic repetition predictions

Measurement paradox in affect research

Sibling structure as a developmental moderator

Spontaneous reporting in high-intensity regimes

Developmental exposure variables

Ease Open-State Questionnaire (EOSQ)

Evaluation-Before-Pleasure (EBP)

Structural summary, open empirical questions, boundaries

Canonical definition (scope standard)

Ease is defined as a regime characterized by: (i) permissive rather than evaluatively constrained coordination, (ii) failure of anticipatory evaluation to capture the system at the moment of entry, and (iii) non-accumulation of the episode into meaning, progress, or durable motivational value.

Falsification criteria (F1-F5)

F1 A direct, repeatable intervention produces durable ease-compatible access without increasing anticipatory evaluative coupling over time.

F2 Ease-compatible episodes reliably co-occur with stable, sustained evaluative monitoring.

F3 Repetition produces monotonic strengthening of access without methodification effects.

F4 Entry is not preferentially sensitive to evaluative probes relative to matched non-evaluative interruptions.

F5 Z proxies fail to predict access constraints while strongly predicting persistence once ease is established.

Canonical prediction index (A1-D1)

Entry barrier (A)

A1 Metric removal increases entry probability.

A2 Evaluative probes collapse entry more than matched non-evaluative interruptions.

A3 Weak reward scaling under matched monitoring load.

Threshold and lock-in (B)

B1 Disruptive effect of evaluation declines with time since onset.

B2 Prevention vs termination asymmetry, entry is easier to block than to terminate.

B3 Persistence dissociation, fatigue dominates post-threshold.

Methodification (C)

C1 Non-monotonic repetition curve, rise then decline.

C2 Attribution penalty, explanatory capture reduces future entry.

C3 Structural variation restores access more than exact repetition.

Z and developmental constraint (D)

D1 Z predicts entry more than persistence.

How to cite

Morin, F. (2026). Ease: A Threshold Model of Evaluative Access Constraints. Canonical version: https://florianmorin.com/papers/Threshold-Constraints.html.

BibTeX

@article{morin2026ease_access_constraints,
  title  = {Ease: A Threshold Model of Evaluative Access Constraints},
  author = {Morin, Florian},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://florianmorin.com/papers/ease-3.html}
}

Back to corpus

Ease

A Threshold Model of Evaluative Access Constraints

Version history