Beyond Paradigm Incommensurability: A Homeostatic Anchor‐Network Protocol for Cross‐System Efficacy Judgment in Global Integrative Medicine

Medical pluralism is a global consensus, and "using each system's strengths" is common policy and clinical language. Yet advantage itself has never been decided: every claim that a system excels in a given situation remains a historical assertion—lacking a neutral metric, falsifiable conditions, and a veto mechanism. This paper names this lacuna the decidability gap of integrative medicine. Building on the author's prior multi-track cognition / system-mapping framework [4], we propose protocol-based commensuration: paradigm incommensurability at the theoretical level is left intact, while outcomes become commensurable through measurable anchors. The decision mechanism is organized into three layers: measurement (a homeostatic anchor network with a measurable-anchor specification), computation (a bidirectional cross-validation efficacy protocol and contextual routing rules), and extension (an open access protocol admitting any qualified system). Convergent validity grounds the cross-system borrowing of anchors; three safeguards—the holistic-homeostasis veto, tiered anchor admission, and evidence weighting—constrain the mechanism itself, and every anchor entering the network carries three identity markers: veto eligibility, validity grade, and evidence weight. Three standardized theoretical demonstrations and a counter-intuitive-output check show that the mechanism yields adjudications with boundary conditions, nullification clauses, and granularity beyond experiential consensus. The framework supplies an operational basis for evidence-based evaluation, multi-system coordination, and personalized medical decision-making.