SΔϕ-60 introduces the Utilitarian Subject-Splitting Index, USSI, within the Sofience-Δϕ Formalism. The paper examines whether utilitarian calculation merely evaluates the happiness of already-existing majorities and minorities, or whether such calculation can first produce the operational boundary between majority and minority by redistributing Transition Completion Cost, TCC. The document begins with the Sofience Subject Thought Experiment. A person is imagined as capable of detaching and reattaching any part of the body while the detached parts remain alive, neurologically connected, and physiologically active. Hair, nails, limbs, eyes, tongue, brain, and torso are progressively separated. The experiment asks which part remains closer to the original “I.” SΔϕ does not resolve this by locating the subject in a single organ, brain, memory, or bodily part. Instead, it shifts the question from “where is the subject?” to “where does cost return, and which coordinate can edit the path by which cost is attributed?” From this thought experiment, SΔϕ-60 defines subjecthood not as a directly measurable essence, but as an operational trace. The subject is not merely the one who thinks, feels, chooses, remembers, or is declared sovereign. The subject is the coordinate that can determine, redirect, authorize, refuse, stabilize, externalize, internalize, or re-enter the path of cost attribution. SΔϕ-60 therefore does not claim to measure subjecthood itself. It measures traces of cost-attribution path editing. The paper extends this definition from personal subjecthood to collective and political subjecthood. Majority and minority are not always prior subjects of ethical calculation. They may be produced by repeated cost-attribution patterns. A numerical majority may possess weak operational subjecthood if the TCC required to exercise its formal rights is unbearable. Conversely, a numerical minority may possess strong operational subjecthood if it holds capital, legal authority, technical infrastructure, platform control, administrative access, or discourse power sufficient to redirect cost onto others. SΔϕ-60 then introduces the Cost Attribution Path Editing Index, CAPEI, as a supporting index for detecting operational traces of subjecthood. CAPEI measures edit access, edit cost, edit authority, visibility, reversal capacity, re-entry access, burden shift, and closure risk. These dimensions do not identify the subject as a metaphysical essence. They identify whether a coordinate has left measurable traces of editing the path through which costs are distributed. The central index, USSI, evaluates whether a utilitarian diagnosis produces or strengthens subject-splitting. Its dimensions include TCC concentration, externalization asymmetry, re-entry inequality, closure risk, benefit-cost decoupling, CAPEI gap, and numerical-operational subject gap. A high USSI does not automatically refute utilitarianism. It indicates that a utilitarian calculation may be generating or reinforcing the very majority/minority boundary it claims merely to evaluate. The paper also applies this framework to democratic sovereignty. Democratic states may declare that the people are sovereign, yet operational subjecthood depends on whether citizens can actually edit the paths through which costs are attributed. A right that cannot be exercised without unbearable TCC is formally present but operationally weak. SΔϕ-60 therefore separates nominal sovereignty from operational subjecthood. Finally, SΔϕ-60 distinguishes types of civic organization. The existence of civic organizations does not by itself prove that civil society is operational. Civic organizations may enable genuine re-entry, function as nominal or state-aligned civic interfaces, perform diagnostic theater, become captured by power, or mobilize citizens without granting real editing authority. The document therefore treats civil society not as a label, but as a question of whether cost-bearing groups can re-enter institutional editing paths at bearable TCC. SΔϕ-60 incorporates the measurement safeguards established in SΔϕ-56 v1.1. Every USSI or CAPEI report should include Unmeasured Remainder, Observer Position, Exclusion Register, Measurement-Induced Cost, and Revision Path. Without such safeguards, a subject-splitting score may itself become another instrument of subject-splitting.
Sofience (Fri,) studied this question.