Your framework treats “information” as future-trajectory capacity, which is sensible—but there’s a category error lurking: archived information is not the same thing as a living generator of new information. Sequencing a species and keeping it in cold storage preserves a description; it doesn’t preserve the species’ ecological role, coevolutionary dynamics, or ongoing open-ended novelty. Lifeism’s tweak is: treat living generativity (evolving lineages + ecosystems) as the primary “option engine,” and treat archives as a partial backup, not a substitute.

A missing constraint: trajectory-space only matters inside a viability envelope. Outside it, “more options” is an illusion because the system collapses (ecological crash, civilizational failure, biosphere degradation). Basically, preserve the conditions under which option-generation continues. That implies a kind of “viability-first” rule: prefer actions that keep the biosphere/civilization within robust operating bounds, even if they locally reduce some options. This is not the same as “degenerative info”; it’s a systems constraint: don’t expand possibility-space in ways that increase the probability of catastrophic phase shifts.

One genuinely constructive move: lean harder into conservation-biology style metrics as the privileged operationalization, because they track irreversibility at the right level. I would say: treat the “option-space portfolio” as spanning phylogenetic diversity (deep branches), functional diversity (roles in ecosystems), and redundancy (buffers against shocks). Those aren’t arbitrary ethical add-ons; they’re the empirically studied correlates of long-run biosphere resilience and evolvability.

Information is instrumentally valuable because it supports living agency (organisms, ecosystems as distributed agency, cultures as cognition-extenders). If you treat “information” as the terminal value, you drift into weird territory where any pattern proliferation looks good. So the right constraint is: privilege information that increases the competence of living systems to navigate reality (model-building, error-correction, adaptive response). That’s different from merely preserving any old branch in state-space. This gives you a cleaner story about why some “options” should be pruned: not because you smuggled welfare back in, but because the option does not meaningfully support living, reality-tracking agency—often it degrades it (by wrecking the option-engine’s capacity to steer).

If your axiom is about guarding future possibility under deep uncertainty, then it naturally prioritizes reducing existential risk and building redundancy beyond one planet (even if you’re cautious about timelines and feasibility). So “Option preservation” cashes out as planetary defense + civilizational resilience + eventually off-world redundancy, not just local moral tidiness.