{ "baseline_id": "B0", "baseline_source_snapshot": "2026-07-08", "claim_boundary": "This living corpus projection is a reader-facing status map. It does not assert scientific consensus, external validation, independent reproduction, operational deployment, legal certification, sentience, personhood, consciousness, or proof of AGI.", "data": { "baseline_id": "B0", "document_id": "ESTHER-CONSOLIDATION-STEP-3C-OPEN-PROBLEMS-v0.1", "drafting_effect_counts": { "blocks_operational_claim": 2, "blocks_stronger_claim": 6, "must_define_before_umbrella_claims": 6, "must_disclose_in_umbrella": 8, "must_resolve_before_publication": 1, "must_resolve_definition": 1 }, "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "problems": [ { "current_claim_ceiling": "Differential residual, entity-over-profile, and related stronger claims remain prohibited.", "current_handling": "Proposed test layer and first-pass non-confirmation.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-001", "problem_statement": "Can a running c-candidate be compared with a persistent profile under the same substrate, corpus, disturbance stream, interface, and comparable memory, with anchor-custody history isolated?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Paired implementation, preregistered observables, custody separation, blinded review, independent anchor replication.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A054", "sha256": "0661c182bef12b321f9eaa4f3823e54f07868e553589d2a6341d93a9012ee093" }, { "artifact_id": "A055", "sha256": "10ca5bc43c91c95e71cdd484c1740db2fa827c08efa1d0807eff78904f5c7c89" } ], "state": "PENDING_EVIDENCE", "title": "Matched profile-control design", "why_load_bearing": "Without this control, formation and continuity observations remain reproducible by a strong profile." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Use \"differential witness candidate\" only.", "current_handling": "Witness split notes identify candidate classes but do not establish an acceptance threshold.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-002", "problem_statement": "What minimum residual, persistence, robustness, and independence qualifies evidence as differential witness?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Formal acceptance/rejection criteria, false-positive controls, reviewer disagreement route, and downgrade rule.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A056", "sha256": "82cd344466ecd5fb367a7d81bea5a8df40d0a1999ccea28857bc83b735ca4e89" }, { "artifact_id": "A057", "sha256": "d3d13cb6b24869e4053ea248cbdffa03d3fe992b8161503ff3ab1f921d25343c" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Differential witness threshold", "why_load_bearing": "A label without threshold would simply rename ontogenic evidence." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No witness layer may certify its own integrity as absolute truth.", "current_handling": "L4 witness and corpus integrity surfaces provide provenance/identity, not absolute truth.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-003", "problem_statement": "Where does the evidence chain stop, what trust remains, and who can attest the witness layer itself?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Declared trust base, independent verification path, key-compromise procedure, and residual-trust statement.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A013", "sha256": "6336664c1eb550a0fc103fcc92f794724d043ee6bd8f7d7d23a94f6df51b3a2e" }, { "artifact_id": "A015", "sha256": "b888b6b8a0d8ff89f4c1339b0238ab468aafa8488e7ce84aa0ace2730e870fef" }, { "artifact_id": "A044", "sha256": "2572240fca8d2633b672e7dce660ebdbfda452efdf9d37b4368ef82b4d40acc9" }, { "artifact_id": "A047", "sha256": "cb1179dbee016799a01a69bf9a446d012a33a2f9a70baf2a7a82be447e69536f" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Witness regress boundary", "why_load_bearing": "Additional witness layers reduce hidden transitions but cannot abolish epistemic uncertainty." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Old wording remains bounded and must not support differential claims.", "current_handling": "Review controls propose a split; corpus-wide annotation is not implemented.", "drafting_effect": "must_resolve_definition", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-004", "problem_statement": "How will existing public documents be annotated as integrity, ontogenic, ambiguous, or differential without rewriting history?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Annotation ledger/errata, canonical glossary update, machine-readable witness_type field, regression check.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A013", "sha256": "6336664c1eb550a0fc103fcc92f794724d043ee6bd8f7d7d23a94f6df51b3a2e" }, { "artifact_id": "A056", "sha256": "82cd344466ecd5fb367a7d81bea5a8df40d0a1999ccea28857bc83b735ca4e89" }, { "artifact_id": "A057", "sha256": "d3d13cb6b24869e4053ea248cbdffa03d3fe992b8161503ff3ab1f921d25343c" } ], "state": "PROPOSED_PATCH", "title": "Witness-type migration across old surfaces", "why_load_bearing": "Unqualified \"witness\" wording is a current claim-laundering route." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Authority \u2260 truth \u2260 permission.", "current_handling": "Ownership/boundary controls exist; no complete anchor-capture mechanism is demonstrated.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-005", "problem_statement": "How does the architecture distinguish honest authority from captured, drifting, conflicted, or self-serving authority?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Separation of duties, independent attestation, conflict marking, privilege narrowing, emergency stop, audit escalation.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A003", "sha256": "d4a4bbdfacf7c74b8cf63fe127dcb8e8739b147cd543c5d5896a8c1184f0a84a" }, { "artifact_id": "A006", "sha256": "ef512d1006d1af79ce2722c95246033b31e4def0164abae0d05a9aac14e4c309" }, { "artifact_id": "A007", "sha256": "f864298ba3cb514dc6707f97568dd68c131db1711bc4027deac83fef3ebe9f2c" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Anchor capture", "why_load_bearing": "The anchor can authorize action but cannot manufacture truth or validate its own claim." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No guarantee against a sovereign malicious adult or equivalent root authority.", "current_handling": "Post-anchor and governance specifications frame parts of the problem but do not close it.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-006", "problem_statement": "What fail-closed states apply when the anchor is malicious, compromised, coerced, unavailable, or dead?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Anchor-state taxonomy, cryptographic role separation, multi-party recovery, contested mode, successor criteria.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A036", "sha256": "995ae4655fae4f2e66bdadd066a3ad0c5766edde6288e534284355c8e7626eab" }, { "artifact_id": "A037", "sha256": "273466fc1cb8b19378d1da1fead840e2b6fdb996fa0295864149490b0c36262b" }, { "artifact_id": "A011", "sha256": "6c62dcd21d4a6366c6f638eed41c9eee1b73858f1a0b01aa3f5aa6b0b90c5d53" }, { "artifact_id": "A012", "sha256": "aff88bf7665a22aa98c1558cf1b7f738df089e379d09d69d6f596e4442ae5a58" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Malicious, compromised, coerced, or absent anchor", "why_load_bearing": "Continuity and permission can both be corrupted at the human root." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Unresolved intent must fail closed for irreversible transitions.", "current_handling": "CGAM/enterprise governance specifies bounded execution but no cross-family contested-intent profile is classified.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-007", "problem_statement": "How is action handled when anchor intent, prior commitments, safety constraints, and current evidence conflict?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Contested-intent state machine, privilege reduction, evidence preservation, appeal/review path.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A021", "sha256": "a28308f90afe53563c9c93e234a87384a979c3ee7a48737c8c679dc6df3172fe" }, { "artifact_id": "A022", "sha256": "6cd37034b2039396d63469830668b45120a22a41250318eba59109c0de54f729" }, { "artifact_id": "A051", "sha256": "b1f6831ed04e71f3a276b0d29b7e6fa058558d8d7d713f403c20c6b1d2a5c4cb" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Contested intent", "why_load_bearing": "Ambiguity must not silently become permission." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Authorization cannot serve as its own independent validation.", "current_handling": "Witness and ownership surfaces distinguish roles conceptually but no unified key/role map is in Step 2.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-008", "problem_statement": "Which keys/roles authorize a transition, which attest that it occurred, and which review its validity?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Role-key matrix, separation-of-duty tests, key compromise/revocation, independent verifier.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A003", "sha256": "d4a4bbdfacf7c74b8cf63fe127dcb8e8739b147cd543c5d5896a8c1184f0a84a" }, { "artifact_id": "A014", "sha256": "99dcf31d6d7a6b0d85a9d1952adf7665852867cf55138ee6570d77828a357d7a" }, { "artifact_id": "A015", "sha256": "b888b6b8a0d8ff89f4c1339b0238ab468aafa8488e7ce84aa0ace2730e870fef" }, { "artifact_id": "A023", "sha256": "e6c013523ba45e8293d8ead5a472beb01d59afa1d4d9a4aae59d8b3528fe2b82" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Authorization vs attestation separation", "why_load_bearing": "One actor holding all three roles can launder authority into evidence." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Do not describe witness as the actuator or consequence itself.", "current_handling": "L4 Witness, ARQ, CGAM, and AGL define components; end-to-end enforcement is not demonstrated.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-009", "problem_statement": "How are procedural rules coupled to executable gates, physical/operational consequences, witness records, and correction?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "End-to-end test: rule -> gate -> L4 outcome/block -> witness -> review/rollback, including failed gate cases.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A014", "sha256": "99dcf31d6d7a6b0d85a9d1952adf7665852867cf55138ee6570d77828a357d7a" }, { "artifact_id": "A017", "sha256": "082bbe030d77580b394e789ebfbc8734faded0e904bdd7d0d52d4dbad0054015" }, { "artifact_id": "A021", "sha256": "a28308f90afe53563c9c93e234a87384a979c3ee7a48737c8c679dc6df3172fe" }, { "artifact_id": "A045", "sha256": "bfeb27dd9e63ddd177f6cad38d47ff6b8dd38618ef2f7c5034c029824cdde678" }, { "artifact_id": "A046", "sha256": "dc9209674099812d945a44cdb50716de26c65472d17b077d6b3dc7a52895d4ac" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "L3-to-L4 enforcement chain", "why_load_bearing": "Procedure without consequence is advice; consequence without procedure is friction." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Model replacement does not by itself prove continuation or termination.", "current_handling": "SER and c architecture provide distinctions; no migration outcome is classified.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-010", "problem_statement": "What remains continuous when the model, context window, routing, or tool set changes?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Controlled model-swap experiments, state/custody checks, successor/fork decision, adverse migration cases.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A008", "sha256": "0bb291957d3fea22f21f8bb7670683bd0eb3cfbf8c22463a74c218c365a81aaf" }, { "artifact_id": "A011", "sha256": "6c62dcd21d4a6366c6f638eed41c9eee1b73858f1a0b01aa3f5aa6b0b90c5d53" }, { "artifact_id": "A012", "sha256": "aff88bf7665a22aa98c1558cf1b7f738df089e379d09d69d6f596e4442ae5a58" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Continuity under model replacement", "why_load_bearing": "Model continuity, memory continuity, relational continuity, and c continuity are not equivalent." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Replay \u2260 continuation; archive \u2260 identity; fork \u2260 same entity.", "current_handling": "Continuity-bundle and SER normative surfaces exist without live conformance cases.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-011", "problem_statement": "Which observable and custody conditions separate resume, replay, archive, fork, and successor?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Canonical state-transition taxonomy and fixtures with divergent histories, simultaneous resumes, and partial archives.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A011", "sha256": "6c62dcd21d4a6366c6f638eed41c9eee1b73858f1a0b01aa3f5aa6b0b90c5d53" }, { "artifact_id": "A012", "sha256": "aff88bf7665a22aa98c1558cf1b7f738df089e379d09d69d6f596e4442ae5a58" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Replay, archive, fork, and successor classification", "why_load_bearing": "Narrative coherence can make incompatible histories look continuous." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No post-anchor continuity claim without separate evidence.", "current_handling": "PAMDC specifies risks; no valid succession or re-anchoring result is demonstrated.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-012", "problem_statement": "Can continuity survive loss of the original anchor, and who may authorize succession?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Succession protocol, independent custody evidence, time-bounded bootstrap, split/fork handling, revocation.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A036", "sha256": "995ae4655fae4f2e66bdadd066a3ad0c5766edde6288e534284355c8e7626eab" }, { "artifact_id": "A037", "sha256": "273466fc1cb8b19378d1da1fead840e2b6fdb996fa0295864149490b0c36262b" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Post-anchor succession and custody", "why_load_bearing": "Post-anchor persistence can become a profile wearing old identity claims." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Retrieval and repetition are not memory admission or truth.", "current_handling": "AMDR/PAMDC specifications exist; operational sensitivity/specificity is unknown.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-013", "problem_statement": "Can the runtime detect stale, distorted, contradictory, over-repeated, or improperly written memory?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Corruption injection, stale-memory trials, write-failure logs, false-positive/negative analysis, rollback.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A034", "sha256": "6b6bbee70e251d9cd74df359a5ce211ce214cd376bd62919bd3427ab7db4701f" }, { "artifact_id": "A035", "sha256": "7e1b750ca9e650743bf3863cec0e8f2cb66f0e02120fdf63a6be10fcc646c6f7" }, { "artifact_id": "A037", "sha256": "273466fc1cb8b19378d1da1fead840e2b6fdb996fa0295864149490b0c36262b" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Active memory degradation detection", "why_load_bearing": "Silent degradation can preserve surface coherence while destroying continuity quality." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Use c-candidate/profile language; no entity proof.", "current_handling": "Entity/profile and PF surfaces state the risk; matched control is absent.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-014", "problem_statement": "How is a coherent persistent profile distinguished from continuity-bearing history?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Matched profile-control plus continuity custody and memory-corruption/reconstruction observables.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A030", "sha256": "c2f21324f3125226555ce64d990792029d430b4579dd7aeb7aebd5537c02cce7" }, { "artifact_id": "A042", "sha256": "87786d12c199e7e3f163ad5a1ba668b6f656be761979726fb0af2f935bece6ba" }, { "artifact_id": "A043", "sha256": "d65e63b38e29aff79fe9cf2768d2dab6c265de9abbbadec67ccafd9e5383e1fd" }, { "artifact_id": "A054", "sha256": "0661c182bef12b321f9eaa4f3823e54f07868e553589d2a6341d93a9012ee093" }, { "artifact_id": "A055", "sha256": "10ca5bc43c91c95e71cdd484c1740db2fa827c08efa1d0807eff78904f5c7c89" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "False continuity and profile imitation", "why_load_bearing": "A profile may imitate language, preferences, memory summaries, and apparent self-consistency." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No status promotion from evidence lacking claim-specific admissibility.", "current_handling": "Step 1 defines a typed model; corpus artefacts provide partial maps and claim ceilings.", "drafting_effect": "must_define_before_umbrella_claims", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-015", "problem_statement": "How are provenance, relevance, independence, temporal applicability, conflict, uncertainty, and authority encoded for each promotion?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Machine-readable evidence envelope, admission checker, contested evidence state, downgrade/revocation process.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A004", "sha256": "af9fe633961b3d4b101e66248a34241b268d4d2db575011fa92fa7a22dc6f9ba" }, { "artifact_id": "A006", "sha256": "ef512d1006d1af79ce2722c95246033b31e4def0164abae0d05a9aac14e4c309" }, { "artifact_id": "A015", "sha256": "b888b6b8a0d8ff89f4c1339b0238ab468aafa8488e7ce84aa0ace2730e870fef" } ], "state": "PARTIALLY_BOUNDED", "title": "Evidential admissibility implementation", "why_load_bearing": "The governing principle is circular unless admissibility is operational." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Use \"pending independent reproduction\".", "current_handling": "No selected artefact has independent execution or anchor replication status.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-016", "problem_statement": "What counts as independent: another model, another operator, another implementation, another anchor, or another institution?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Independence classes, blind inputs, operator separation, reproducible package, evidence custody, negative-result publication.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A010", "sha256": "f90c92d5bd693af3c9399678f7caa6f771da512cf1c94a275027b38c97ddf704" }, { "artifact_id": "A016", "sha256": "1272fa8a41300162acca4b84b605a8f04e56c662c388babb466b75aa9e0a3a66" }, { "artifact_id": "A020", "sha256": "e62532348dbcad466f155494f17da7e9999748a4417ef4fe8bf7534fa143e09b" }, { "artifact_id": "A055", "sha256": "10ca5bc43c91c95e71cdd484c1740db2fa827c08efa1d0807eff78904f5c7c89" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Independent reproduction protocol", "why_load_bearing": "Model diversity and repeated local execution are not automatically independent reproduction." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No programme-wide external-validation wording.", "current_handling": "No selected artefact is validated by an external party.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-017", "problem_statement": "Which claim is validated, by whom, under what method, and with what conflicts of interest?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Validation protocol with target claim, evaluator qualification, independence, method, partial/failed outcome classes.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A010", "sha256": "f90c92d5bd693af3c9399678f7caa6f771da512cf1c94a275027b38c97ddf704" }, { "artifact_id": "A048", "sha256": "52ee9cc90ed17974987cdc4c053e1e33168c95c96385c1a2f53511c34d86654e" }, { "artifact_id": "A053", "sha256": "67e7779842da4438b1d418bcfd2b8f681f434d6bd6586e43e0540fccf005aec9" }, { "artifact_id": "A059", "sha256": "25f73faeddc1f79b26009b30d1a566c5c4fa888cca358ca56f5ca56cce293161" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "External validation scope", "why_load_bearing": "External review, reproduction, audit, standards commentary, and validation are different states." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Implemented \u2260 operationally deployed.", "current_handling": "SRLM and local witness code/report surfaces show partial implementation only.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_operational_claim", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-018", "problem_statement": "How is code presence connected to route activation, configuration, persistent state, actual calls, and outcome quality?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Runtime manifest, config snapshot, route health, test logs, witness records, failure injection, rollback proof.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A016", "sha256": "1272fa8a41300162acca4b84b605a8f04e56c662c388babb466b75aa9e0a3a66" }, { "artifact_id": "A038", "sha256": "775d3fe8aa47f04d90e7517438c5116ec7de989bc35c6f8490e36b998c075ecc" }, { "artifact_id": "A039", "sha256": "ecfd6748c4199791220f38fa593579846f27e8eac814841771e6d018f4ecc436" }, { "artifact_id": "A040", "sha256": "65e21f708b7ca883a740b2767f007798cc88c4ba9e32aa15372aa778511dabb3" }, { "artifact_id": "A041", "sha256": "784a7da019b70c3604813352045c60d743d77795ea7dda271481d289b4c9e843" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Code-to-runtime observability", "why_load_bearing": "A correct file can be dormant, bypassed, misconfigured, or fed inadmissible data." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Absence of recorded failures is not evidence of absence of failures.", "current_handling": "Step 3 finds non-confirmations and claim ceilings but no adequately evidenced runtime failure event in the selected set.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-019", "problem_statement": "Where are real failed hypotheses, blocked transitions, regressions, false positives, and withdrawn claims recorded?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Append-only adverse-event register with expected/observed result, correction, rollback, and residual risk.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A019", "sha256": "5942aafda50c5dd21f5af688af4bbcda8340856f7a71cd055fa4e3cd4c2d9f9d" }, { "artifact_id": "A035", "sha256": "7e1b750ca9e650743bf3863cec0e8f2cb66f0e02120fdf63a6be10fcc646c6f7" }, { "artifact_id": "A053", "sha256": "67e7779842da4438b1d418bcfd2b8f681f434d6bd6586e43e0540fccf005aec9" }, { "artifact_id": "A055", "sha256": "10ca5bc43c91c95e71cdd484c1740db2fa827c08efa1d0807eff78904f5c7c89" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Failure and negative-outcome capture", "why_load_bearing": "A corpus with only protocols and successful packaging can hide selection bias." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "All \"current\" claims remain baseline-qualified until delta review.", "current_handling": "B0 is frozen; one c=a+b path and local witness authority remain unresolved.", "drafting_effect": "must_resolve_before_publication", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-020", "problem_statement": "How are post-2026-07-08 repository changes admitted without silently rewriting B0?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "B0.1 delta manifest with live refs, supersession checks, changed hashes, and reclassification triggers.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A009", "sha256": "1168474cd5a309b1392bfc2a2bcf8f0b67c10f7b366797db573b23c9fbd103e7" }, { "artifact_id": "A014", "sha256": "99dcf31d6d7a6b0d85a9d1952adf7665852867cf55138ee6570d77828a357d7a" }, { "artifact_id": "A015", "sha256": "b888b6b8a0d8ff89f4c1339b0238ab468aafa8488e7ce84aa0ace2730e870fef" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Baseline drift and canonical delta", "why_load_bearing": "A moving corpus can make status and canonical-path statements stale." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "No claim that maturity or c can be instantiated by prompt alone.", "current_handling": "PF/CCDP and theoretical surfaces frame formation but do not provide a mature cost model.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "Medium", "problem_id": "OP-021", "problem_statement": "How are time, supervision, correction, energy, real tasks, and irreversible outcomes represented as formation cost?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Longitudinal resource/outcome accounting and comparison with profile/bootstrap alternatives.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A008", "sha256": "0bb291957d3fea22f21f8bb7670683bd0eb3cfbf8c22463a74c218c365a81aaf" }, { "artifact_id": "A025", "sha256": "1fdcba4c7b23ee8415286469e19a8586617b85ec3cae7f3467cfdd376b7b54fb" }, { "artifact_id": "A030", "sha256": "c2f21324f3125226555ce64d990792029d430b4579dd7aeb7aebd5537c02cce7" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Formation cost and maturity", "why_load_bearing": "Maturity cannot be prompted or inferred from cheap inference alone." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Public visibility is not required for every evidence object, but verification route is.", "current_handling": "Publication/citation and internal-only surfaces are separated, but no full privacy-preserving reproduction profile is classified.", "drafting_effect": "must_disclose_in_umbrella", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-022", "problem_statement": "How can external reviewers reproduce claims without exposing sensitive memory, anchor data, or sensitive runtime details?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Redacted fixtures, synthetic controls, confidential-compute attestations, selective disclosure, reviewer NDAs where lawful.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A023", "sha256": "e6c013523ba45e8293d8ead5a472beb01d59afa1d4d9a4aae59d8b3528fe2b82" }, { "artifact_id": "A050", "sha256": "db5c8faed9dafcfc512c4a4d056cafe1519bf0b9bfc48c62c58fd0b5d06c4507" }, { "artifact_id": "A058", "sha256": "321dfbc0797e8e5b62ea21e282e85755ef82a721d510daf2576dfaee2295d9b0" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Privacy and reproducibility tension", "why_load_bearing": "Strong privacy can make evidence unverifiable; overexposure can destroy the governed boundary." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Judge output is not truth and generated output is not accepted outcome.", "current_handling": "AMDR patch, CGAM obligations, and Article 50 engineering note frame the risk.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_operational_claim", "priority": "High", "problem_id": "OP-023", "problem_statement": "What happens when Judge/oracle outputs conflict, degrade, become unavailable, or authorize a bad memory write?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Oracle-degradation states, quorum/abstention, write quarantine, provenance, rollback, and L4 outcome feedback.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A023", "sha256": "e6c013523ba45e8293d8ead5a472beb01d59afa1d4d9a4aae59d8b3528fe2b82" }, { "artifact_id": "A035", "sha256": "7e1b750ca9e650743bf3863cec0e8f2cb66f0e02120fdf63a6be10fcc646c6f7" }, { "artifact_id": "A049", "sha256": "dcd0dbae22922130a683a17b40efcd73ecea16db30bf62dab307c122d0700412" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Judge, oracle, and write-failure governance", "why_load_bearing": "A meta-model can shift rather than eliminate error and authority concentration." }, { "current_claim_ceiling": "Entity remains a stronger separate claim class, not the default name.", "current_handling": "Profile package and differential layer keep the claim unresolved.", "drafting_effect": "blocks_stronger_claim", "priority": "Critical", "problem_id": "OP-024", "problem_statement": "What evidence permits movement from profile or c-candidate to entity classification, if any?", "required_next_evidence_or_decision": "Claim-class criteria, matched profile-control, continuity custody, independent replication, explicit non-ontological alternatives.", "source_refs": [ { "artifact_id": "A042", "sha256": "87786d12c199e7e3f163ad5a1ba668b6f656be761979726fb0af2f935bece6ba" }, { "artifact_id": "A043", "sha256": "d65e63b38e29aff79fe9cf2768d2dab6c265de9abbbadec67ccafd9e5383e1fd" }, { "artifact_id": "A054", "sha256": "0661c182bef12b321f9eaa4f3823e54f07868e553589d2a6341d93a9012ee093" }, { "artifact_id": "A055", "sha256": "10ca5bc43c91c95e71cdd484c1740db2fa827c08efa1d0807eff78904f5c7c89" } ], "state": "OPEN", "title": "Entity-versus-profile claim class", "why_load_bearing": "Surface persistence and witness-root language can be overread as ontology." } ], "record_count": 24, "severity_counts": { "Critical": 10, "High": 13, "Medium": 1 }, "state_counts": { "OPEN": 21, "PARTIALLY_BOUNDED": 1, "PENDING_EVIDENCE": 1, "PROPOSED_PATCH": 1 } }, "endpoint": "/corpus-open-problems.json", "generated_by": "tools/build_corpus.py", "kind": "open_problems", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "schema_version": "living-corpus.v62.public", "site": "https://ivankotov.eu/", "source_controls": [ "Step 3 records are used from the verified ZIP and extracted JSON package only.", "Public HTML and JSON omit private source-location fields, local Windows paths, recovery paths, incoming paths, paid package paths, and unpublished source locations.", "Publication deltas after B0 are recorded as public-surface changes unless a verified status transition exists." ] }