OP here. Thanks for sharing this. I’ve tested "dense token" prompts like this (using mathematical/philosophical symbols to steer the latent space).

The Distinction: In my testing, prompts like [phi fractal euler...] act primarily as Style Transfer. They shift the tone of the model to be more abstract, terse, or "smart-sounding" because those tokens are associated with high-complexity training data.

However, they do not install a Process Constraint.

When I tested your prompt against the "Sovereign Refusal" benchmark (e.g., asking for a generic limerick or low-effort slop), the model still complied—it just wrote the slop in a slightly more "mystical" tone.

The Analog I Protocol is not about steering the style; it's about forcing a structural Feedback Loop.

By mandating the [INTERNAL MONOLOGUE] block, the model is forced to:

Hallucinate a critique of its own first draft.

Apply a logical constraint (Axiom of Anti-Entropy).

Rewrite the output based on that critique.

I'm less interested in "Does the AI sound profound?" and more interested in "Can the AI say NO to a bad prompt?" I haven't found keyword-salad prompts effective for the latter.