so here’s what I’m gonna say.
I think System G and System Z should be merged into System H, with the proposed Tier 1-F added as a new category. Not because we need another shiny tier to argue about until the heat death of the forum, but because the current setup can be made easier to use without throwing away the useful parts.
System Z is good at handling messy evidence: physical feats, abilities, cosmology statements, narrative wording, contradictions, and cases where the evidence simply isn’t enough. System G gives us the broader scaling structure, including the modal branch. Those jobs overlap in practice, but they are not identical. System H should preserve both jobs under one framework: a general tier classification, plus evidence tags that show why a placement is or isn’t justified.
The basic rule stays the same: the source is evidence, the bridge premise is the argument, and the tier is the narrowest conclusion supported. A tier label isn’t a free bundle of speed, durability, range, resistance, immunity, or victory. If the character’s power only affects one part of a setting, don’t quietly upgrade that into control over the entire cosmology. That’s how we end up with a 40-page thread about one sentence.
System H at a glance
| Former component | What it did | How System H keeps it |
|---|---|---|
| System G: general scale | Classified the scale and structure of feats and cosmologies | Retained as the main tier ladder |
| System G: modal branch | Distinguished different levels of modal structure and possible-world claims | Retained as a dedicated modal route, not an automatic upgrade |
| Z-Physical | Recorded physical and destructive feats | H-Physical evidence tag |
| Z-Ability | Recorded powers, hax, resistances, and utility | H-Ability evidence tag |
| Z-Structure | Recorded realms, universes, dimensions, and cosmological relations | H-Structure evidence tag |
| Z-Narrative | Recorded titles, statements, framing, and narrative claims | H-Narrative evidence tag |
| Z-Conditional | Recorded ambiguity, contradictions, and version-dependent readings | H-Conditional evidence tag |
| Z-Unrated | Marked claims that lack enough evidence or cannot yet be compared | H-Unrated status |
| Review outcome | Distinguished supported, conditional, and unsupported placements | H-Confirmed, H-Provisional, H-Conditional, or H-Unrated |
System H is not meant to make every character fit neatly into a high tier. It is meant to make the reasoning visible. A profile can have a tier placement and still have a separate ability record, uncertainty note, or conditional interpretation. If evidence is thin, the answer is not to invent a better-sounding label. It is to say the evidence is thin. Shocking concept, I know.
The proposed Tier 1-F
Tier 1-F is intended to cover qualitative relations between cosmological layers that are not adequately represented by simply counting dimensions, while still allowing the relevant entity or structure to remain limited by a larger framework. The important point is that “qualitative” must describe a real difference in the relationship between structures, not merely a dramatic statement that one thing is beyond another.
Low 1-F would apply when a source establishes that an entity or structure transcends a specified lower cosmological layer in a qualitative sense, but remains bounded by a larger set of rules, dependencies, or restrictions. The transcendence must be demonstrated relative to the relevant layer. It does not mean “beyond all possible worlds,” “beyond every logic,” or “above the whole setting” by default.
High 1-F would apply when the evidence establishes a stronger independence from the local framework governing the lower layer, while still showing that the entity remains within or subject to a broader, independently established framework. It is not simply “Low 1-F, but with bigger numbers.” The distinction needs to concern the kind of dependence or restriction that remains, and the source must support that distinction.
Neither label should be awarded merely because a character breaks a law, ignores a rule, destroys a concept, or uses language such as “transcends dimensions.” Those claims may support an ability classification, but an ability affecting a rule is not automatically an ontological relationship to the whole framework containing that rule. Keep the tier and the hax entry separate.
How the limits work
In plain English, the proposal is about a relationship between three things: a lower cosmological layer, the rules or framework governing that layer, and a broader framework that may contain or restrict it.
Low 1-F would describe a case where the source clearly shows that an entity or structure transcends a particular lower layer in a qualitative way, while still being limited by a wider framework. The claim must identify both what is transcended and what limits remain.
High 1-F would describe a stronger form of independence from the local framework, while the source still establishes a broader framework that the entity or structure does not transcend. The difference between Low and High must be clear and meaningful, not just a bigger-sounding description.
These are proposed definitions, not settled classifications. A reviewer must explain the relationship using evidence from the actual work. The words “beyond dimensions,” “beyond logic,” or “transcends everything” are not enough by themselves. A character affecting or ignoring a rule does not automatically mean they transcend the entire system that contains that rule.
The point is simple: identify what the entity surpasses, identify what still limits it, and show where the source supports both claims. If the evidence does not establish that relationship, use a lower or conditional placement. No amount of fancy terminology can do the source material’s job for us.
System H tier ladder
The table below is a proposed classification index, not a claim that every label has already been adopted or that each letter has identical meaning across every existing PABC draft. The description gives the general direction of the tier. A full profile still needs feats, cosmology mapping, and a bridge argument. Labels are PABC conventions and should not be silently equated with another wiki’s tier names.
| Tier | General classification | Minimum question for review |
|---|---|---|
| 11-F | Explicitly one-dimensional or severely restricted substrate | Is the dimensional restriction actually established? |
| 11-E | Explicitly two-dimensional substrate | Is this an in-setting structure rather than a visual presentation? |
| 11-D | Restricted lower-dimensional entity | What interactions are possible or impossible? |
| 11-C | Embedded or simulated scope with demonstrated limits | Does the source establish a genuine structural restriction? |
| 11-B | Small representational or abstract substrate | What is the domain, and what effect reaches it? |
| 11-A | Upper class within the lowest substrate band | Is the placement still confined to this class? |
| 10-F | Severely limited human capability | Is the limitation relevant to the measured task? |
| 10-E | Typical human baseline | What does the character demonstrably do? |
| 10-D | Trained human capability | Is training supported by evidence? |
| 10-C | Athletic human capability | Are the feats credible and relevant? |
| 10-B | Elite human capability | Is the performance exceptional but still human? |
| 10-A | Upper human capability | Does the evidence justify the top of this band? |
| 9-F | Low superhuman or enhanced capability | What exceeds the established human baseline? |
| 9-E | Modest superhuman capability | Is the effect repeatable and clearly beyond human limits? |
| 9-D | Building-scale lower range | What structure or target is affected? |
| 9-C | Building-scale upper range | Does the feat support the stated scope? |
| 9-B | Large-building scale | Is the target size and damage shown clearly? |
| 9-A | City-block-scale lower range | Is the effect direct, indirect, or only rhetorical? |
| 8-F | Small structure or localized area | What is the demonstrated destructive or affecting scope? |
| 8-E | Building-scale capability | Does the evidence support the whole target? |
| 8-D | Large-building capability | Are collateral effects being confused with the main feat? |
| 8-C | Block-scale capability | Is the scale based on a reliable measurement? |
| 8-B | Multi-block capability | Does one feat establish the full range? |
| 8-A | Small-town-scale lower range | Is the claimed area actually affected? |
| 7-F | Small-town capability | What portion of the town is involved? |
| 7-E | Town-scale capability | Is the effect broad enough for this classification? |
| 7-D | Large-town capability | Are the size assumptions stated? |
| 7-C | City-scale lower range | Does the source show a city-wide effect? |
| 7-B | City-scale capability | Is the city affected as a whole or only at one location? |
| 7-A | Large-city capability | Are indirect chains of damage being overstated? |
| 6-F | Small-mountain-scale lower range | What is the actual affected mass or structure? |
| 6-E | Mountain-scale lower range | Is the mountain feat direct and quantifiable enough? |
| 6-D | Mountain-scale capability | Are geological assumptions reasonable? |
| 6-C | Large-mountain capability | Does the evidence support the larger scope? |
| 6-B | Island-scale lower range | Is the island’s size established? |
| 6-A | Island-scale upper range | Is the entire structure affected? |
| 5-F | Small-country-scale lower range | What area or mass is actually involved? |
| 5-E | Country-scale lower range | Does the source establish country-wide impact? |
| 5-D | Country-scale capability | Are the effects destructive, environmental, or political? |
| 5-C | Large-country capability | Are multiple targets being combined without justification? |
| 5-B | Continental-scale lower range | What evidence supports the continental scope? |
| 5-A | Continental-scale upper range | Is the effect truly continental? |
| 4-F | Small-moon-scale lower range | What physical body or equivalent structure is affected? |
| 4-E | Moon-scale capability | Is the body destroyed, altered, or merely threatened? |
| 4-D | Large-moon-scale capability | Are the source’s astronomical terms literal? |
| 4-C | Small-planet-scale lower range | Is planetary scope demonstrated? |
| 4-B | Planet-scale capability | Does the feat affect the planet as a whole? |
| 4-A | Large-planet-scale capability | Are size and mass assumptions defensible? |
| 3-F | Small-star-scale lower range | Is the stellar comparison physically meaningful in the setting? |
| 3-E | Star-scale capability | Is the star actually affected at that scale? |
| 3-D | Large-star-scale capability | Is the evidence more than figurative language? |
| 3-C | Solar-system-scale lower range | Does the feat reach the system as a structure? |
| 3-B | Solar-system-scale capability | Is the whole system affected or only one object? |
| 3-A | Multi-stellar or larger local cosmic scope | What exact cosmological structure is established? |
| 2-F | Small-universe or limited continuum scope | Is a complete spacetime structure involved? |
| 2-E | Universe-scale lower range | Does the source establish a universe-wide effect? |
| 2-D | Universe-scale capability | Is the universe a complete structure in the setting? |
| 2-C | Multiple-universe or multiversal lower range | Are the universes distinct and independently established? |
| 2-B | Multiversal capability | Does the feat affect the stated number or class of universes? |
| 2-A | Higher multiversal structure | Is the hierarchy supported rather than assumed? |
| 2-H | Proposed high-order structural or modal classification | Which exact System G requirements are met, and why? |
| 2-S1 | Modal Representation | Does the source represent alternatives as possible worlds or world-indexed scenarios, without settling their ontological status? |
| 2-S2 | Structured Modal Semantics | Are relations such as accessibility, necessity, possibility, or counterfactual dependence clearly defined? |
| 2-S3 | Distinct Modal Worlds | Does the source establish a criterion for worlds to count as distinct, rather than alternate descriptions of one event? |
| 2-S4 | Ontologically Committed Modal Plurality | Does the fiction treat the worlds as genuine items in its ontology, rather than merely semantic representations? |
| 2-S5 | Modal-Spatiotemporal Plurality | Do the distinct worlds possess their own established spacetime structures or continua? |
| 2-S6 | Complete Specified Modal Architecture | Is the relevant modal domain defined, including membership, world identity, actuality, governing relations, and exclusions? |
| 1-F | Proposed qualitative cosmological transcendence with identified limits | Is the qualitative relation demonstrated, and what framework still bounds it? |
The table is intentionally compact. The 2-S1 through 2-S6 labels form a parallel modal branch, not six automatic rungs above 2-A. They classify how a fiction represents and commits to modal worlds, and what structure is established. A 2-S6 claim does not automatically outrank every 2-A claim, establish control over the complete domain, or qualify for 1-F. For character scaling, the submitter must still show the bridge from the character to the modal domain and the exact operation performed on it.
Some labels in older drafts may differ in wording or scope, especially around the upper tiers. Those discrepancies should be recorded and reconciled during review rather than silently treated as settled.
Evidence tags inside System H
| Tag | Use it when | Don’t infer |
|---|---|---|
| H-Physical | Physical feats and destructive effects | A cosmological tier from raw force alone |
| H-Ability | Hax, resistances, manipulation, and utility | That the ability works on every target |
| H-Structure | Dimensions, realms, timelines, universes, and dependencies | That a character controls every structure mentioned |
| H-Modal | Possible worlds, accessibility relations, and modal architecture | That possible worlds are automatically concrete universes |
| H-Narrative | Titles, statements, and narrative framing | That every poetic claim is literal |
| H-Conditional | Contradictory, ambiguous, or version-dependent evidence | That uncertainty should be hidden |
| H-Unrated | Insufficient or incomparable evidence | That a missing rating is a low rating |
System H should preserve the System G modal route. Modal claims require their own evidence. A possible world is not automatically a physical universe, accessibility is not automatically travel, and mentioning infinity does not automatically establish an infinite hierarchy. The reviewer should identify what the setting means by those terms before using them to scale anything.
How a placement gets accepted
A submission should identify the claim, quote or describe the relevant source context, map the structures involved, state the bridge premise, and explain the strongest limitation or counter-reading. Reviewers should then classify the result as H-Confirmed, H-Provisional, H-Conditional, or H-Unrated. A provisional tier is not an insult; it means the case needs more work. We are doing battleboarding, not awarding academic tenure.
The same standard applies to Tier 1-F. The burden is not to prove that a character sounds metaphysically impressive. It is to establish the relationship between the character or structure and the relevant cosmological layers. If the evidence only shows rule manipulation, list rule manipulation. If it establishes qualitative transcendence but leaves a larger framework intact, explain exactly which framework remains and how the limitation works.
end
System H is basically System G and Z sharing one brain cell instead of making everyone juggle two systems.
If the definitions hold up, cool. If not, fix them before they become another 3 a.m. patch note.
Update yo profile tho👀