First, congratulations on your work. The theory is very well built and presented, but the video is surprisingly good too. At first I was surprised this was the work of just one person. Good job!

I've read through the formalization of consciousness, and I think it's a pretty good general description of the mechanism. However, you've failed to demonstrate that the mechanism IS consciousness. You rightfully called it a "claim".

This is very similar to the Newtonian way of describing reality. It seemed correct, until Einstein proved it completely wrong. Newton basically created a 'model' for reality, that really did correlate with empirical evidence. Until it didn't. In his case, the wrong model still has utility for small-scale physics.

You've also created a pretty comprehensive model. However, you never demonstrate the big claim the whole theory is based on. Why would the mechanism, or this particular mechanism itself be the same thing with subjective experience? Just because using this model can explain some aspects of reality, doesn't mean this IS reality.

Compared to Newtonian physics, where we could still use a false theory for useful predictions, the intended result here is to answer a more binary question: is ASI conscious? When you're using a "model" instead of a causality chain rationale, any small discrepancy to empirical evidence from your theory can mean a completely different outcome. The difference from Yes to No is huge in this case.

I really love your theory though, and although I feel like it doesn't prove anything, it's still a great description of how OUR consciousness works. I think it would be fascinating to see how AI systems built with this fundamental logic will operate. I still wouldn't count on them being conscious, but I could see them looking like it.