UP-005 · The Locus · STATED CHECKABLE RUNNABLE EXECUTED STAGED

Continuity Through Reconstruction

A locus continues across a replacement only if a minimal, causally established support set for each declared capability is retained.

Standing

STATED CHECKABLE RUNNABLE EXECUTED STAGED PUBLISHED REPRODUCED

Last checked

2026-09-11 15:25:45 UTC

Source

scripts/emb-support.mjs @ 92d99bf0f69f · bytes 7a8b6a2f444c3970…

Limit

Rests on cell 30 (capability heredity), whose status is missing — the tree has not established that a reconstructed locus may inherit anything. Stage 5 (Inheritance) has never been reached, and no sentence here is in the present perfect.

Next rung

live_local — Cell 30 ruled either way. Until then this pattern's basis is a question, and the page says so rather than rounding it up.

Intent

When a carrier is gone and something is rebuilt from what survived, the rebuilt thing is either a continuation or a new being, and the difference is testable: does it retain the declared capabilities under the declared replacement contract, and is the support that carries them causally established rather than merely inherited? Reconstruction from durable facts is continuity when that test passes. Nothing in this tree has passed it yet.

Problem

'Reload the weights and it is the same agent; swap the model and it is a different one.' Both are wrong in the direction that matters, because neither asked what was retained. A successor that keeps the name and loses the capability is a new being wearing a label; a successor that keeps the capability from different support is a continuation the old definition could not see.

Solution

Declare the capability and the replacement contract before the replacement. Generate candidate support sets from lineage, then establish support by ablation of the set under test, intervention, runtime dependency or replacement replay. Compute kernels over sets. Refuse when monotonicity is falsified. Report observed kernels as observed and synthetic ones as synthetic.

Real-world analogy

A ship rebuilt plank by plank is the same ship if what made it seaworthy was carried across, and you find that out by removing planks, not by reading the nameplate.

Structure — on the surface

An illustration on a compute surface: loci above, carriers below. Press Play or Step; the takeaways collect as you go. Nothing here is evidence — the witness section is.

The chapter in WRL — and the chain so far

Chapter 5 of 32 — the fragment _patterns/wrl/chain/continuity-through-reconstruction.wrl, sealed alone by wrl.js

; CONTINUITY THROUGH RECONSTRUCTION — a configurable locus whose state is RE-ESTABLISHED by a claim at
; epoch 2 (SetRotor, receipt Applied). ct_in is the entry; in the chain the core router of chapter 3 feeds it.
[relay:ct_in]{sig_in, sig_out}
[spinner:ct_locus](w=16, n=8, rotor=quarter_turn_z, configurable){sig_in, socket}
[orb:ct_view]{pose}

[ct_in] --sig--> [ct_locus]
[ct_locus] --socket--> [ct_view]

Its test bench _patterns/wrl/chain/continuity-through-reconstruction.bench.wrl — drives the entry for this chapter's own film; never part of the chain

; TEST BENCH — drives this chapter's entry alone; the chain replaces it with a wire from an earlier chapter
[pulser:ct_bench](every 1){sig_out}
[ct_bench] --sig--> [ct_in]

module + bench seal to → sem-bf7bdf27dbc86cfc315f9db25aacfdb8b2cbe8d81848844038e7761203013e61

Run inputs — a ScenarioV1, the forge's own document, bound to this world's id and never part of it (D3) · ScenarioDigest scen-f7d7fbc248e75950382… (the run inputs' own identity, computed by the forge)

Reduced by the native reducer (ic32); the reference reducer reproduces every epoch's film hash (39.472s).

Receipts in the last epoch's Film

receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied

FILM v0.7
t=1
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00b5,0000,0000,00b5,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=0100,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=0,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=0,nxt=0
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0

FILM v0.7
t=2
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00ff,0000,0000,0000,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=0100,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=1,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=0,nxt=1
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0
claim:w=1,s=1,digest=e0,pkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,payload=SetRotor:ct_locus:255.0.0.0
receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied
recognition:w=1,s=1,state=unambiguous

FILM v0.7
t=3
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00ff,0000,0000,0000,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=00ff,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=1,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=1,nxt=1
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0
claim:w=1,s=1,digest=e0,pkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,payload=SetRotor:ct_locus:255.0.0.0
receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied
recognition:w=1,s=1,state=unambiguous

FILM v0.7
t=4
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00ff,0000,0000,0000,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=00fe,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=1,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=1,nxt=1
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0
claim:w=1,s=1,digest=e0,pkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,payload=SetRotor:ct_locus:255.0.0.0
receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied
recognition:w=1,s=1,state=unambiguous

FILM v0.7
t=5
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00ff,0000,0000,0000,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=00fd,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=1,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=1,nxt=1
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0
claim:w=1,s=1,digest=e0,pkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,payload=SetRotor:ct_locus:255.0.0.0
receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied
recognition:w=1,s=1,state=unambiguous

FILM v0.7
t=6
spinner:ct_locus:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,rotor=00ff,0000,0000,0000,socket=ct_view,config=configurable
orb:ct_view:policy=forge_motor_widemac_tz_sat_v1,quat4,w=16,n=8,pose=00fc,0000,0000,0000,controller=ct_locus,fault=0
pulser:ct_bench:mode=periodic,p=1,phase=0,armed=0,done=0,nf=1
relay:ct_in:cur_out=1,next_out=1
wire:w__ct_bench__ct_in:cur=1,nxt=1
wire:w__ct_in__ct_locus:cur=1,nxt=1
admit:policy=admit_candidate_min_firstreceipt_v1,fact_capacity_fault=0,receipt_capacity_fault=0,capacity_fault=0
claim:w=1,s=1,digest=e0,pkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,payload=SetRotor:ct_locus:255.0.0.0
receipt:w=1,s=1,accepted=e0,apkey=0.0.255.0.0.0,epoch=2,outcome=Applied
recognition:w=1,s=1,state=unambiguous

Composes with the 4 chapters before it

The chain through this chapter — every earlier fragment, this one, and the links — seals to sem-f19a7a71ee9dc9b61d141f1f3606a9c634d7cfe38a1a45b7cc6b59d6df265ff9: 15 objects, 14 edges (was 12 / 11; every earlier object and edge is still present — checked, or the build refuses).

Links only the chain carries

[lc_core] --sig--> [ct_in]

The board so far: one band per Part, signal flowing left to right; relays that fan out are routers, doors are switches, pulsers are clock domains. Hover an object — or click the board and walk it with the arrow keys — for its role, its Part and what it is wired to. This board is the chain’s sealed shape; no Film drives it, so it has no state to report, and the whole board in the conclusion is where every object’s state is read epoch by epoch. Wheel zooms · drag pans · double-click fits.

Syntax — quoted from the tree at build time

The definition, verbatim (AGENCY.md §5b) AGENCY.md:333

> A continuity kernel is a **minimal causally established support set** sufficient to retain a
> declared capability under a declared replacement contract.

The two refusals the engine makes before computing anything scripts/emb-support.mjs:29

 * THE TWO REFUSALS, which are the reason this file is worth more than the algebra:
 *
 *   1. A support set backed only by PROVENANCE is refused. Lineage says B descended from A. It
 *      does not say c still needs A: the competence may have been copied into weights, recompiled,
 *      or independently rediscovered while the edge survived. Cuts computed from lineage would
 *      name artifacts to destroy on evidence that does not reach the claim.
 *   2. A capability whose observations FALSIFY monotonicity is refused. Interference is the
 *      ordinary failure mode of accumulated context, and a kernel computed over a non-monotone

Forces

Ablation is expensive and lineage is free, so provenance will always be the evidence at hand. The obligation 'capability extends' is satisfied by equality — a total no-op satisfies it — so the test has to be about support topology, not capability. And the natural way to write the machinery puts a lineage edge in the causal chain, which the tree already refused once on review.

Applicability

Model substitution, factory lineages, restarts of long-running agents, migrations between runtimes — anywhere 'the same' is claimed across a discontinuity.

Transformations

A refusing transformation is not one that is discouraged: it is one that, applied, makes the invariant above false. The word is the tree's, and it is the same word the join uses.

Consequences

Identity across replacement becomes an experiment with a receipt. The cost is that every 'the agent resumes where it left off' sentence is banned until the experiment runs — a cost this stack has already paid in retracted copy.

Failure mode it answers

Replica Theater — Calling independent mutable copies 'the same thing'. Paid for at: CLAUDE.md: the served box-and-box copy is a MANUAL COPY and nothing syncs it

Witness

Source identity: scripts/emb-support.mjs · shape side-effect · evidence kind constructive_witness · rung in_tree (engine runs; 4 capabilities, 4 synthetic, 0 observed (AGENCY.md §5b))

Execution identity: 2026-09-11T15:25:45.592Z on PX13 · bytes 7a8b6a2f444c3970… · repo HEAD 92d99bf0f69f

Not staged on this site: the page cannot run this witness. It runs from the command line: node scripts/emb-support.mjs in ..

Counterexample

No counterexample shipped (required only when WITNESSED).

What to take away

1. from the animationThe successor was built from K, and K became a kernel only after ablation showed c was lost without it.
2. from the syntaxKernels are minimal support SETS under a declared contract; the dual with revocation cuts needs monotonicity, which is a hypothesis with a falsifier.
3. from the literatureOrthogonal persistence's reconstruction, Erlang's code change, and the ship of Theseus — all about what is carried, none about the name.
4. from the witnessemb-support.mjs runs today: 4 capabilities, 4 synthetic, 0 observed. Both refusals fire. Heredity is unwitnessed and the page says so.

Invariant basis — and how each piece bears

Satisfying a basis is local. Nothing here implies global adequacy unless a theorem or a composition rule says so.

Prior art — and what is not claimed

Novelty not claimed. Persistence and restoration are both old. Nothing here is written in the present perfect: stage 5 (Inheritance) has never been reached, and the cell this pattern rests on (30, capability heredity) is status missing.

Realizations in the tree

• AGENCY.md §5b
• mosaic/embodiment.json

Relations with other patterns

Descent Is Not Dependence WITNESSED · Orthogonal Persistence STATED