diff --git a/elements/neuron/appunti/2026-07-06-logic-principles-of-the-expresion_v5.md b/elements/neuron/appunti/2026-07-06-logic-principles-of-the-expresion_v5.md
index 5b6c2f1..5c23a6b 100644
--- a/elements/neuron/appunti/2026-07-06-logic-principles-of-the-expresion_v5.md
+++ b/elements/neuron/appunti/2026-07-06-logic-principles-of-the-expresion_v5.md
@@ -1,7 +1,3 @@
----
-include_toc: true
----
-
 # The Logic of the Tripartite Synapse Model — v5
 
 *A synthesis of the principles the pseudocode enacts. The document is ordered why → what → how: it
@@ -11,6 +7,18 @@ principle (Part III). The why comes first because it is the reason everything el
 it, a reader could take the categories for a description of a synapse and miss that they describe a
 physics that writes itself.*
 
+*What changed in v5. The old "evaluation" phase is retired — it was always preparation aimed at
+the other scope. The ring is recut into three categories: ACTION, RECOVERY, PREPARATION. The
+obsolete subject-mapping (lateral/local/vertical) is dropped. New findings are folded in: the
+rhythm is (ACTION ⇄ RECOVERY) × many, then PREPARATION; every category spans all timescales; night
+PREPARATION replays the day ACTION with the same machinery; build and release compete within a
+component while material competes between components; there are two independent forgettings;
+collaboration by day versus competition by night follows from the rivalry of each scope's currency;
+behavior is legible and meaning is assigned by the reader not the signal; and the three categories
+are the three modulable dimensions of behavior. Nine categories are consolidated to six, a seventh
+is added (the four operations), and — new in this revision — the "why" (formerly a closing note) is
+corrected and promoted to the front as Part I.*
+
 ---
 
 # PART I — Why This Is Not a Model but a Way of Making Models
@@ -160,6 +168,30 @@ holds for the model as specified (irreversible, non-recurring, individuating); w
 tissue is secretly more regular, with statistics one could exploit, is an open empirical question,
 not something these principles can foreclose.*
 
+**The same no-privileged-vantage principle has a second face, in description rather than simulation.**
+The first face is simulative: there is no fixed model, only histories. The second is descriptive:
+there is no privileged object, only *cuts*. Nothing in the system is a bounded, persisting object one
+could isolate and make the whole story — the synapse is part of a neuron, the neuron of an assembly,
+the assembly of an organ, with no top and no bottom, only nested aligning projects. To describe it at
+all, an observer must *choose a cut*: a boundary, a timescale, and a scope, treating what is inside as
+the object and everything larger and smaller as context appearing at the boundary. Every cut is
+partial by necessity; none is the whole, for the same reason no computation is the model — there is no
+privileged, bounded, stable thing to be the whole. This is orthogonal to the reductive default of
+classical physics, which cuts at *static object-boundaries* and explains by *cause and effect between
+persisting objects*. Here the objects are active alignments continuously re-achieved, not persisting
+substances; the cut is a chosen boundary × timescale × scope, not a given; and the relations that
+matter are *constitution across cuts* (parts constitute an object; a level constrains the one below,
+emerges into the one above), not efficient causation between objects at one level. Within a single cut
+at a single timescale, ordinary cause and effect still works (this release causes that response); it
+is the *objects of interest* — synapse, alignment, assembly — that live at the intersection of cuts,
+where between-object causation is not the operative relation. There are affinities here with the
+scale-relative parts of modern physics — the renormalization group, non-equilibrium thermodynamics,
+effective field theory, all of which make descriptions depend on the scale of the cut — but those do
+not *solve* this system (see the acceleration survey: they lack the invariants it refuses to hold);
+they only point in the right *direction*, toward descriptions that are cut-relative rather than
+absolute. The descriptive consequence — that each real object is an object-under-a-cut, partial by
+construction — is developed in the companion document on the unexpressed objects.
+
 Everything below is what this self-writing physics *is* (Part II) and how it works, category by
 category (Part III).