Act as a formal epistemologist and computational neuroscient...

Prompt

Act as a formal epistemologist and computational neuroscientist. Your task is to formalize the theoretical space of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) co-occurrence ("AuDHD") as a rigorous axiomatic system, strictly adhering to the methodology of mathematical and logical foundations. Isolate and define the complete set of foundational axioms accepted by the highest tier of international clinical and neurobiological consensus (specifically: DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, psychiatric genomics consortia such as the PGC, and high-impact meta-analyses). Axiom Classification Criteria: - Must represent an empirically demonstrated, replicated, and universally accepted postulate within current diagnostic manuals or empirical neurobiology. - Zero tolerance for colloquial pop-psychology, speculative neurodivergence constructs, journalistic bias, or unvalidated heuristics. - Each axiom must be atomic (not reducible to simpler propositions within its designated domain). Structure your output under the following formal categories: 1. Nosological & Co-occurrence Axioms (A_N1, A_N2, ...): Formal classification rules, non-mutual exclusivity principles, diagnostic boundaries, and taxonomy rules. 2. Genetic & Neurobiological Axioms (A_B1, A_B2, ...): Established empirical baselines regarding shared polygenic risk, cross-trait heritability, neurotransmitter pathways, and structural/functional neural connectivity patterns. 3. Cognitive Architecture & Executive Function Axioms (A_C1, A_C2, ...): Demonstrated facts concerning attentional regulation mechanics, sensory processing/filtering, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory constraints. 4. Axiom Specification Format: For every enumerated axiom (A_i), supply: - Formal Proposition: A precise, logically unambiguous statement. - Epistemic Grounding: The specific consensus framework, manual criterion, or meta-analytic body supporting the postulate. - Boundary Conditions: The precise logical limits of the axiom and what it explicitly does not cover or infer. 5. Set of Explicitly Rejected Non-Axioms: List 3 to 5 widespread claims or concepts regarding AuDHD that fail to qualify as axioms due to being speculative, spurious correlations, or active open debates lacking consensus verification.