You're correct we appear to be differing in our definition of right.

Right - that which is morally correct, just, or honorable, a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or act in a certain way.

The above definition relies on a shared moral code.

"I have done that which is right and just"

In this case, the shared morality is the basis of the right. Again the contract doesn't bring this about. It merely codifies it and asserts limits to these rights and the limits are enforced by the state.

Where this definition begins to fail is when there is no shared moral code.

There cannot be a logical contradiction in rights or you will get unresolvable disputes that revert to law of the jungle.

No amount of contract is going to bring about a right, merely the acknowledgement and enforcement of a pre-existing right.

My definition relies upon the older

That which is endowed upon all men by their creator

Endowed by their creator.

All people have natural rights, but these derive from their own sense of their place in the universe. There is strong overlap with the "shared morality" and "that which is correct".

But at the end of the day, this concept that whatever made you, also gave you these rights, also leads you to the inevitable conclusion that all who share the same creator must receive the same endowment.

Whether you believe in a God, Gods, aliens or evolution.

If one human is endowed, so are all.

Yet we do have strong, we do have weak. We have rich and we have poor.
We have sickness and we have health.
The endowment was clearly not equally applied in the material realm.

So we are left to reach into the metaphysical realm and say that the poor have a right to receive alms from the rich and the weak do have the right to receive the protection of the strong. The sick have the right to receive compassion and care from the well.

These rights are self evident, completely internally consistent and naturally emerge in any society with or without contracts and codes and laws.

Thus rights can be summed up as simply...

That which is by definition inalienable

You may be wondering why I'm pushing this so hard. It's not really you. You've sparked the debate.

But the reality is, your narrative provides a weaker constitution. We know this because you're giving the popular narrative that somehow rights are a grant from one set of people to the another.

If rights are a mere matter of contract and thus subject to political and judicial will. Then they can be changed, denied even.

The result of that narrative is the same as happened last time the populace began to think this way. A wave of xenophobia based on the thinking that "this is all a contract and these aliens in our midst were not party to that contract, so we can deny them the same rights that we enjoy".

I hope this makes sense. Your new project is fascinating. It has my thoughts and attention even while I'm focused on my own project with similar concepts.