A rough architecture of consciousness

I've been trying to separate several concepts that tend to get bundled together whenever we talk about consciousness: experience, motivation, self-awareness, intelligence, and agency. I ended up with a rough architecture: Prime Directive ↓ Felt Purpose ↔ Experience ↓ Self-Model ↓ Intelligence ↓ Agency By Prime Directive, I mean the underlying biological imperatives of an organism: maintaining itself, homeostasis, survival, reproduction, etc. None of this necessarily requires consciousness. A biological system can regulate itself without needing to experience that regulation. Felt Purpose is where things become strange. Instead of merely detecting a state and responding to it, states seem to acquire significance: good/bad, desirable/undesirable, approach/avoid. That's why I've connected Felt Purpose with Experience rather than simply putting experience somewhere in the chain. Experience without significance could conceivably be something like a kaleidoscope: sensations occur, but there's no reason for the system to prefer one state over another. Felt Purpose gives experience direction. From there comes a Self-Model: not merely "damage has occurred," but "this is happening to me." Intelligence then seems less like consciousness itself and more like a processing tool. It allows the system to model possibilities, predict outcomes, solve problems, and choose increasingly sophisticated responses. Finally, Agency is what the whole architecture makes possible: an experiencing system that can act according to what matters to it. The interesting part is that I don't think this explains why experience exists. Evolution can give us a plausible explanation for why an organism would avoid tissue damage. It can explain why increasingly sophisticated self-regulation, modeling, and decision-making would be advantageous. But why should tissue damage hurt? Why should any physical information-processing system have an experience associated with what it's doing rather than everything simply happening "in the dark"? I don't know. So I'm not proposing this as a theory of where consciousness comes from. I'm wondering whether it might instead describe what consciousness looks like once embedded in an acting organism. In other words, maybe we can map the architecture right up to the explanatory ceiling without pretending we've broken through it. I'm curious where people think this architecture fails. In particular: Can you remove Felt Purpose, self-modeling, intelligence, or agency and still meaningfully say that consciousness remains? *This post was AI assisted and reflects all the core ideas ive wrestling as of late. I do apologize if my use of AI upsets some of you.*