"Integrative" solutions are widely praised but rarely defined: we lack an operational way to tell a genuine integration -- one that makes the world cheaper to describe -- from a tidy re-description. Building on the lineage that treats creativity and intelligence as compression, we give such a criterion for creative integration (CI): the resolution of a real conflict between A and B is CI if and only if, under a fixed description language, the description length strictly shrinks (C = L_pre/L_post > 1), with the reduction located in the conflict itself. We make the judgment decidable through four binary, conjunctive gates, and we fix its extension through a taxonomy of pseudo-integration that names and rejects the look-alikes. We back the criterion with a curated, multi-domain corpus and -- crucially -- validate it not by human inter-rater agreement but by four falsifiable tests it could fail: an independent computational check, discrimination against hard negatives, out-of-sample prediction, and description-language robustness; all pass with margin. The contribution is not "creativity is compression" but its decidability, discrimination, and corpus: on this account, what makes a move genuinely creative -- rather than merely novel -- is that it compresses a conflict, with novelty and value as downstream symptoms; whether all creativity is so constituted we state as an explicit conjecture. We claim only the sign of C-1; we judge, not generate. The result is a citable primitive for a broader program.

翻译：“整合性”解决方案广受赞誉却鲜有明确定义：我们缺乏一种操作化手段来区分真正的整合——即让世界描述成本降低的整合——与巧妙的重新描述。基于将创造力与智能视为压缩的理论谱系，我们提出了创造性整合（CI）的判定准则：在固定描述语言下，当且仅当描述长度严格缩减（C = L_pre/L_post > 1），且缩减发生在冲突本身时，A与B之间真实冲突的解决即为CI。我们通过四个二值合取门实现该判定的可计算性，并通过伪整合分类体系命名并排除其近似替代项，从而固定准则的外延。我们以跨领域精选语料库支撑该准则，并关键性地——不依赖人类评分者间信度，而是通过四项可证伪测试验证：独立计算校验、对困难负例的区分能力、样本外预测能力、以及描述语言鲁棒性；所有测试均以显著余量通过。本文的贡献不在于"创造力即压缩"这一论断，而在于其可判定性、鉴别力与语料库：据此，真正创造性举措——而非仅具新颖性——的核心在于压缩冲突，新颖性与价值仅是下游表征；至于是否所有创造力皆如此构成，我们将其作为明确猜想提出。我们仅断言C-1的符号判断，而非生成过程。研究结果为更广泛的研究纲领提供了可引用的基元。