diff --git a/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/ocr.md b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/ocr.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f0e783f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/ocr.md
@@ -0,0 +1,468 @@
+# OCR Results
+
+## frame_00001.jpg
+
+```
+O
+How diverse is intelligence?
+What are the limits?
+How do we find out?
+M. Levin, 10.1002/aisy.202401034
+```
+
+## frame_00002.jpg
+
+```
+"Intelligence is a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it."
+— William James
+Does any goal count?
+Are any means allowed?
+Does anything fall outside this definition?
+```
+
+## frame_00003.jpg
+
+```
+Biological Theory
+https•J/doiorg/10.1007/s13752Q505234
+ORIGINAL ARTICLE
+Mind Everywhere: A Framework for Conceptualizing Goal-
+Directedness in Biology and Other Domains—Part One
+Michael Levin12(tY • David B. Resnik
+Received: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 22 November 2025
+@Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2025
+Abstract
+What makes a system—evolved, engineered, or hybrid—describable by teleological and mentalistic terms such as intel-
+ligent, goal-directed, cognitive, and intentional? In this two-part article, we review classical thought on teleology in the
+life sciences and defend a new approach to goal-directedness that stems from an emerging field—diverse intelligence. This
+field seeks to characterize what all active agents, regardless of their composition or provenance, have in common. Our
+approach emphasizes: (l) empirical testability (not philosophical commitments to linguistic categories). (2) fecundity in
+discovery of new capabilities (not just reductive mechanistic explanations of results after they are made, but worldviews
+that facilitate and enable novel research), (3) operationalization of terminology by reference to conceptual and empiri-
+cal toolkits shown to be effective for a given system (cognitive and teleological claims are really hypotheses of optimal
+interaction protocols), and (4) continuity of human goal-directedness with our unicellular origins (which implies a need
+for models of scaling of cognition). In Part One, we review historical and contemporary debates about teleology in biol-
+```
+
+## frame_00004.jpg
+
+```
+Physics of Life Reviews 47 (2023) 35-62
+Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
+Physics of Life Reviews
+journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/plrev
+ELSEVIER
+Review
+Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things
+a.b.c.*
+Dalton A.R. Sakthivadivel e
+Karl Friston a-c, Lancelot Da Costa
+Conor Heinsc f g, Grigorios A. Pavliotis b, Maxwell Ramstead LC, Thomas Parra
+The free energy principle (FEP) describes a simple relationship between the dynamics of a
+random dynamical system and a description of its behaviour as engaging in inference. The FEP
+originated in neuroscience as an attempt to describe brain function and behaviour (Friston et al.
+2006) and has since been extended to describe several kinds of things in the biological and
+physical realms (Friston 2013; Friston et al. 2021) through a special kind of mechanics—a
+Bayesian mechanics—that shares the same foundations with quantum, statistical, and classical
+mechanics (Friston 2019; Friston et al. 2022). This paper is part of a series of technical papers
+describing the FEP in progressively simpler and more qualified terms (Friston, 2013; Friston,
+2019; Friston et al., 2022).
+```
+
+## frame_00005.jpg
+
+```
+Inert particles
+with no acuve states
+Active particles
+with active states
+Conservative particles
+with classical dynanucs
+Strange particles
+with hidden active states
+External states
+s
+Sensory states
+s
+a
+q, (11)
+Active states
+Internal states
+Ihi - v p
+A causal sink .
+violates Newton's
+3rd Law
+Fig. 2
+```
+
+## frame_00006.jpg
+
+```
+Physics first, intuitions later ...
+How do we guarantee that this interaction
+respects all physical symmetries?
+We want the generic case, that describes
+any interacting systems, regardless of
+scale or structure.
+```
+
+## frame_00007.jpg
+
+```
+Answer: Start with the generic case
+U, an isolated system
+(no environment,
+no interaction)
+The internal dynamics "PU must respect Newton's 3rd Law everywhere.
+No sources, no sinks — because U has no environment.
+QU conserves momentum, energy, information (so is unitary).
+```
+
+## frame_00008.jpg
+
+```
+An isolated (no environment) U is a productive assumption.
+This gives us conservation of information, so unitarity, so linearity.
+Hence is a linear operator on the state space , a Hilbert space.
+In background time t, we can write TU(t) = exp((-i/h)Hu(t)), where
+h is an action and HU is a Hamiltonian (energy) linear operator on YLJ.
+A finite value of h 4-+ no singularities.
+This is quantum theory (QT). "Isolation is all you need."
+```
+
+## frame_00009.jpg
+
+```
+Because everything in sight is linear, we can do a linear decomposition.
+Boundary "B
+U =AÄ, HU = HA + HÄ + HAÄ. HAÄ is the interaction between A and Ä.
+This is the generic, symmetry-preserving interaction we wanted.
+```
+
+## frame_00010.jpg
+
+```
+Without loss of generality,
+HAÄ = kBTkEINßk(oz, zki)
+where k = A or Ä, Oz is a
+z-spin operator, and
+System A
+zki is a local z reference
+frame.
+This makes "B an N-qubit
+holographic screen.
+4
+Prepare
+Measure
+(Oz, z 1)
+Measure
+Prepare
+Prepare
+Measure
+Prepare
+Measure
+Measure
+(Oz, z 2)
+Prepare
+Measure
+(Oz, z N)
+Prepare
+System Ä
+(Oz, Z
+Boundary
+```
+
+## frame_00011.jpg
+
+```
+HAÄ tells of how A and Ä act on each other.
+We want it to tell us how they influence each other.
+These are the same if but only if A and Ä have conditionally-
+independent states.
+So we need to require that II...J> = IAÄ> = This is state
+separability = absence of entanglement.
+Separability requires weak (or sparse) coupling. Formally, the
+dimension of HAÄ is small: dim(HAÄ) << dim(HA), dim(HÄ).
+Intuitively, the evolutions of A and Ä are almost independent.
+```
+
+## frame_00012.jpg
+
+```
+Minimal physics .....................+ FEP
+If A and Ä are separable, dim(HAÄ) << dim(HA), dim(HÄ):
+• HAÄ fully describes information exchange between A and Ä;
+• The boundary "B functions as a Markov Blanket;
+• Variational free energy (VFE) measures interaction strength;
+• Minimizing VFE is keeping HAÄ weak while allowing
+thermodynamic exchange;
+• Predictability = constrained interaction.
+A and Ä maintain their identities as distinct systems only while
+their boundary "B remains intact — no rips, no explosions!
+```
+
+## frame_00013.jpg
+
+```
+"Intelligence is a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it."
+— William James
+Does any goal count?
+>> There's always at least one: continuing to exist as an entity.
+Are any means allowed?
+>> Whatever the internal dynamics HA and HÄ are capable of.
+Does anything fall outside this definition?
+>> No, it's completely generic.
+```
+
+## frame_00014.jpg
+
+```
+We have a generic, symmetry-preserving description.
+It is consistent with and even explains the FEP.
+But is the behavior that counts as "intelligent" interesting?
+Are there limits on what kinds of systems can exhibit interesting
+behavior?
+How do we find out?
+```
+
+## frame_00015.jpg
+
+```
+What is interesting behavior?
+• Surprising, unpredictable in practice
+• Only approximately predictable (only predictable if coarse-grained)
+• Unpredictable in principle
+• Learns from experience
+• Memory-dependent
+• Context-dependent
+• Distributions of outcome values violate Kolmogorov, outcome
+probabilities undefined in principle
+```
+
+## frame_00016.jpg
+
+```
+Operationally,
+State transition probabilities derived from finite observations
+do not converge to predictive adequacy.
+Induction from finite data doesn't work.
+19th Century "mechanical" expectations are violated.
+We know Life violates them. What else does?
+```
+
+## frame_00017.jpg
+
+```
+Hint: Moore's theorem (1956):
+Finite input-output experiments cannot uniquely determine the
+"machine table" (internal state-transition probabilities) of a generic
+classical Black Box.
+Example: Box with an internal clock, e.g. time bomb.
+```
+
+## frame_00018.jpg
+
+```
+Hint: Conway-Kochen "free will" theorem (2006, 2009):
+Special relativity and quantum theory together rule out local
+(past light cone) determinism.
+"If experimenters make choices, electrons do too."
+```
+
+## frame_00019.jpg
+
+```
+Hint: QT from singularity removal (Tipler, 2014):
+The simplest formal removal of singularities from classical
+physics reproduces Bohm's "quantum potential."
+(N. Gisin: Newton-Laplace physics wasn't singular because
+it wasn't local. Einstein introduced strict locality.)
+```
+
+## frame_00020.jpg
+
+```
+These all suggest:
+Generic systems (can) display interesting behavior.
+How do we make this precise?
+How do we understand it?
+How can we use it to explain and/or predict?
+```
+
+## frame_00021.jpg
+
+```
+The setting:
+A's measurements
+and action choices
+are computed by HA
+(In FEP, A's GM).
+Observations
+Boundary 'B
+and actions (1/0)
+live here, on "B.
+dim(HAÄ) << dim(HA), dim(HÄ)
+Inputs and outputs are much less complex than the computations that
+generate them.
+```
+
+## frame_00022.jpg
+
+```
+This dimensionality/complexity difference immediately tells us:
+Recurrence of I'B> does not imply recurrence of IÄ>.
+Behavior generically depends on "hidden" internal states, i.e. on
+Ä's memory or internal context.
+We can represent this formally as an internal "geometric" or Berry phase.
+Chris Fuchs: all physical systems have "interiority."
+```
+
+## frame_00023.jpg
+
+```
+Geometric phase changes are
+introduced by transports along
+curves in state spaces. These
+are "holonomy" operations.
+E.g. Blattner (2026):
+1
+7
+2
+3
+6
+5
+4
+Hidden regenerative state in planarians:
+A geometric model of bioelectric memory using Tangential
+Action Spaces
+Nlarcel Blattner
+```
+
+## frame_00024.jpg
+
+```
+Why is this important?
+Non-trivial geometric phase dependence — non-trivial holonomy — is
+a sufficient resource for universal quantum computation.
+It constructs a map: I'B> 1B IÄ' > for arbitrary I'B'>.
+• Zanardi, P. and Rasetti, M. Holonomic quantum computation. Phys. Lett.
+A 264 (1999), 94-99.
+• Pachos, J. and Zanardi, P. Quantum holonomies for quantum computing.
+Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 15 (2001), 1257-1286.
+```
+
+## frame_00025.jpg
+
+```
+What is physically implemented computation?
+Input ....................+ Output
+Input -.......................+ Output
+"P(t) implements fon Input if and only if these diagrams commute.
+The "interpretation" is a projection/inverse embedding: = 8-1.
+```
+
+## frame_00026.jpg
+
+```
+Why is this important?
+Embeddings are injective: one to many.
+Polycomputation is generic.
+Indeed, managing thermodynamic flow requires that "informative"
+sector projections are proper samples of We never look at
+everything the computer is doing.
+```
+
+## frame_00027.jpg
+
+```
+We can think of computation as "scattering" in data-structure space
+(CF et al., 2509.19772).
+An ideal classical computer implementing an algorithm for f looks like:
+"Ready" state
+Input
+Output
+"Ready" state
+This is a useful coarse-graining, but the observed "Ready state"
+(a proper projection of does not pick out a unique machine state
+IÄ>. This is Moore's Theorem from 1956, updated.
+```
+
+## frame_00028.jpg
+
+```
+Even a classical OS
+accumulates internal
+state changes as it
+executes.
+"Side projects" are
+inevitable in generic
+systems.
+' 'Ready"
+State
+Input 1
+Input 2
+Input N
+Output 1
+Output 2
+Output N
+Final
+state
+```
+
+## frame_00029.jpg
+
+```
+We can also represent geometric phase changes as reference frame
+changes:
+(Oz, )
+Holonomy
+If Ä exhibits non-trivial holonomy, how it acts on 'B will change.
+```
+
+## frame_00030.jpg
+
+```
+Why is this important?
+(Oz, ) and (Oz, don't commute! (Oz, )( Oz,
+Non-commuting QRFs generate non-causal context dependence.
+In this case, joint probability distributions on observational
+outcomes are undefined (violate Kolmogorov).
+Fields and Glazebrook, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62 (2023) 159
+```
+
+## frame_00031.jpg
+
+```
+All of these "interesting" kinds of behavior are generic!
+• Surprising, unpredictable in practice
+• Only approximately predictable (only predictable if coarse-grained)
+• Unpredictable in principle
+• Learns from experience
+• Memory-dependent
+• Context-dependent
+• Distributions of outcome values violate Kolmogorov, outcome
+probabilities undefined in principle
+They all result from separability: big systems with small boundaries.
+```
+
+## frame_00032.jpg
+
+```
+O
+QT provides a precise,
+general, strongly empirically
+validated foundation for
+Diverse Intelligence.
+It tells us that intelligence
+and persistent observability
+go hand in hand.
+M. Levin, 10.1002/aisy.202401034
+```
+
+## frame_00033.jpg
+
+```
+Thank you
+Questions?
+Thanks to Jim Glazebrook.
+```
diff --git a/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase2.log b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase2.log
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..76e6ac3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase2.log
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Phase 2 Keyframes for C:\projects\manual_slop\conductor\tracks\video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621\artifacts\video.mp4
+  OK: kept 33 frames
diff --git a/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase3.log b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase3.log
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..93fdffea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/conductor/tracks/video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621/artifacts/phase3.log
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Phase 3 OCR for C:\projects\manual_slop\conductor\tracks\video_analysis_generic_systems_fields_20260621\artifacts\frames (winsdk)
+  OK: OCR'd 33 frames in 1.9s