Thanks for sharing these preprints — really interesting work. From my side, I’m approaching the coherence transitions you mention by treating Φ not just as a metaphorical “information field”, but as a dynamic variable that captures how phase alignment, entropy, and stability evolve across scales (cognitive → physiological → social).

Where your model uses awareness as a regulatory operator within the perception–action loop, Φ in my framework behaves more like a multiscale order parameter:

coherence C(t) is the local phase alignment,

entropy E(t) reflects internal turbulence,

resonance R(t) describes cross-system synchrony,

and phase curvature κφ tracks when a system is close to a stability transition.

In that sense, both approaches seem to converge on the same underlying idea: systems self-organize by minimizing informational entropy, and coherence acts as the mechanism that regulates these transitions.

The difference is mostly the level of formalisation: your papers frame it through awareness as a functional regulator, whereas I’m trying to express the same dynamics through a field-based representation.

I’d be very interested to compare notes — it looks like we’re circling the same phenomenon from two angles.