0029 The sign-relation has a triadic structure involving three elements: sign-vehicle, sign-object and sign-interpretant.  The formula for expressing a specifying sign-relation goes like this: A sign-vehicle (SV_s) stands for (or “specifies”) a sign-object (SO_s) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI_s).

Since Kull’s criteria can be observed and measured and since they are integral to each agent, then these four phenomena must belong to a specifying sign-object (SO_s).  This SO_s situates a sign-vehicle (SV_s) that corresponds to a content-level actuality.

0030 Well, that is a good first step.

But what about the specifying sign-interpretant (SI_s)?

Perhaps I can assign two of Kull’s four phenomena to the SI_s, as in the following figure.

A content-level actuality (SV_s) specifies (stands for) a goal (SO_s) in regards to an agent’s self governance operating on possible courses of action (SI_s).

0031 Now, I already mentioned that the judgment (as a triadic relation) unfolds into a single category-based nested form.  A normal context₃ brings actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁.  Thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness.  (See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.)

The specifying sign-relation is not so simple.  A SV_s stands for a SO_s in regards to a SI_s.  Both SV_s and SO_s belong to secondness, the realm of actuality.  But, they do so on different levels.  The SV_s is a content-level actuality.  The content level associates to firstness.  The SO_s is a situation-level actuality and therefore, virtually situates the SV_s. The situation level associates to secondness.

This leaves the SI_s as the normal context_3b that contextualizes the situation-level actuality_2b and the potential_1b that underlies the situation-level actuality_2b.  In other words, the SI_s is the situation-level normal context_3b operating on a situation-level potential_1b.

0032 Here is a picture of the specifying sign, within a two-level interscope.  (See A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Two-level interscopes are typical for sensible construction.)

0033 Now, I can apply Kull’s criteria characterizing semiotic agency as a noumenal overlay.

0034 Kull’s criteria transform into the stuff of phenomena and models.

0035 The situation level may be rebranded as the agent level.

The content-level can be labeled the event or sign-vehicle level.

An event can serve as a sign-vehicle.  People routinely confound the sign-vehicle with the sign-relation.  This makes sense, in so far as a sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object in regards to a sign-interpretant.  Therefore, the sign-vehicle and the sign-relation are inseparable.  The event-level contains a real actuality_2a (SV_s) that initiates a sign-relation containing another real actuality_2b (SO_s).  The event is semiotic.

0036 Here is a picture.

Note how I move the sign-object (SO_s) to the object in contiguity with a goal since the object and the goal each have their own labels.  For biosemiotic processes, the object is like matter and the goal is like form.  The contiguity is reserved for later discussion.  At the moment, suffice to say that the agent actualizes an object (SO_s) [in contiguity with] a goal_2b.  The agent₃ actualizes agency₂.

Also, the agent as interpretant says, “The normal context of self-governance_3b operates on the possibility of ‘courses of action’_1b.”

0037 I ask, “Does this sign-containing two-level interscope of agency or agent_b(event_a) qualify as a noumenal overlay?”

In section 1.1, the authors wonder whether this agency_b(semiotic_a) can serve as a subject of science.  The answer is affirmative, under the condition that the above noumenon manifests observable and measurable facets.  The resulting data may then be used, under the guidance of a disciplinary language, to produce mathematical and mechanical models.  Or, if not explicitly mathematical or mechanical, then models, nonetheless.

Then, in principle, each successful model can be set over this noumenal overlay, and we don’t have to worry about agent_b(event_a) anymore, until encountering section 1.3.