I agree: that to which the expressions “Program level” and “Program perception” refer (what you’re talking about here) is not a metaphor, it is a matter of investigation. However, the reason I put the words “Program level” in quotation marks is because the expression “Program level” is a metaphor. The metaphor presupposes that the control processes in question correspond to expressions in applied mathematical logic a.k.a. programming languages. I doubt that presupposition. Some of my reasons for doubt are nearby in this topic. Note also that the human-readable code is transformed into machine code instructions which cause computer state changes, and that those instructions are grotesquely disanalogous to anything going on in the brain. A discussion of logic gates is posted here.
Ignoring the metaphorical character of the labels “program level” and “program perception” risks covertly inviting the metaphor to prejudice the investigation. Presuppositions are often sneaky, but this presupposition is quite explicitly baked into your demo, not sneaky at all.
Every perceptual input function can be represented by an *if … then … * expression (if {inputs} then perception). Facile translation into program-logic language obviously is inappropriate for PCT in this case. Abstraction makes it difficult to make the same kind of assessment about the presupposition that ‘Program control’ can be represented by the logico-mathematical structures of a programming language.
So how about you identify an example of program control in your own personal experience and model it. That means start with the phenomena instead of starting with the theoretical constructs provided by a computer program. Phenomena first.