This paper develops a conceptual framework for investigating conscious experience—especially extraordinary conscious experience—under the constraint of physical causal closure. Rather than proposing a new mechanism of consciousness, the framework clarifies how physical organization, phenomenality, behavioral report, and epistemic interpretation relate to one another without conflating causal explanation with ontological description. Phenomenality is treated as an ontically real but non-causal aspect instantiated by certain forms of constraint-organized physical systems, particularly those exhibiting autonomous, viability-regulating dynamics. A multi-level architecture is introduced that distinguishes physical substrate, organizational regime, phenomenal articulation, and behavioral report. Many persistent disputes in the study of consciousness are traced to unrecognized transitions between these levels rather than to genuine empirical disagreement. Extraordinary experiences—such as those described as timeless, unbounded, or non-local—are analyzed as lawful variations in phenomenal organization rather than as evidence of altered causal structure. The framework distinguishes between phenomenologically extraordinary states (unusual qualitative organization) and epistemically extraordinary claims (purported access to information beyond ordinary channels). This separation allows such experiences to be acknowledged as real without presuming either metaphysical significance or pathological dismissal. Dreaming is examined as a model case demonstrating that immersive experiential worlds can arise endogenously within a closure-respecting organism, illustrating that vivid phenomenality does not entail external referential accuracy. Claims that extraordinary experiences convey veridical information are not excluded in principle but are treated as empirical questions requiring independent corroboration consistent with physical closure. The resulting account reframes the explanatory gap as a boundary between compositional and organizational explanation rather than a failure of physical science. By specifying what physical closure constrains—and what it does not—the framework provides a disciplined conceptual environment in which empirical research, phenomenological analysis, and philosophical inquiry can proceed without metaphysical inflation or reductive dismissal. The proposal is best understood as a coordination architecture intended to reduce cross-disciplinary fragmentation while remaining neutral regarding the ultimate ontology of consciousness.