Authority-Level Priors: An Under-Specified Constraint in Hierarchical Predictive Processing

Abstract

Hierarchical predictive processing explains adaptive behaviour through precision-weighted inference. Explicit belief revision often fails to produce corresponding changes in stress reactivity or autonomic regulation. This asymmetry suggests the framework leaves under-specified a governance-level constraint concerning which identity-level hypotheses regulate autonomic and behavioural control under uncertainty. We introduce Authority-Level Priors (ALPs) as meta-structural constraints defining a regulatory-admissible subset (Hauth, a subset of H) of identity-level hypotheses. ALPs are not additional representational states nor hyperpriors over precision; they constrain which hypotheses are admissible for regulatory control. Precision determines influence conditional on admissibility; ALPs determine admissibility itself. This explains why explicit belief updating modifies representational beliefs while autonomic threat responses remain stable. A computational formalisation restricts policy optimisation to policies generated by authorised hypotheses, yielding testable predictions concerning stress-reactivity dynamics, recovery time constants, compensatory control engagement, and behavioural persistence. Neurobiologically, ALPs manifest through distributed prefrontal arbitration and control networks. The proposal is compatible with variational active inference and introduces no additional inferential operators, instead formalising a boundary condition required for determinate identity-regulation mapping. The model generates falsifiable predictions: governance shifts should produce measurable changes in stress-reactivity curves, recovery dynamics, compensatory cognitive effort, and behavioural change durability. ALPs are advanced as an architectural hypothesis to be evaluated through computational modelling and longitudinal stress-induction paradigms.