simsimDéoviá Studio
← The working library

Review · planning-review · 15 September 2026

Round 24 Packet

The recorded planning discussion and synthesis. Design review is not implementation or empirical validation.

Public edition of a studio document. Proposals and historical observations retain their original status; local paths and operational identifiers are omitted. The final reviewed master plan records later planning corrections; older design explorations remain historical proposals.

Godz I, response [internal record ID omitted]

R24-MR-01 — Observations, Goals, and Inferences Must Remain Distinct

When Zan reports a real interaction, Astro stores only what he actually reports as observed/user-asserted state: event, relevant actions, outcome, time/context if supplied, and his own interpretation clearly attributed to him. Claims about another person's motives, attraction, personality, intentions, or future behavior remain inferences with uncertainty—not facts about that person.

Changing “relationship” from 7/10 to 9/10 updates the explicit goal weight prospectively. It must not rewrite history to claim previous behavior was inconsistent with a 9/10 goal.

R24-MR-02 — Weights Rank Allowed Paths; Constraints Exclude Paths

Goal weights express preference trade-offs. Hard constraints—user-defined non-negotiables, permissions, safety boundaries, budgets, commitments—are evaluated separately. A sufficiently high goal weight cannot mathematically purchase permission to violate a hard constraint.

Privacy labels should be purpose-specific permissions, not intrinsic properties permanently stamped onto information:

  • Private Astro: personal reasoning only.
  • Sim-safe: approved abstraction for simulation.
  • Shareable/Public: separately scoped disclosure.

For example, “I met someone and felt unusually interested” could become sim-safe as “promising social interaction occurred” without exporting her messages, identity, inferred feelings, or private details.

Exact approval:

Project this into simsim: [preview of abstracted fields].
Excluded: [other-person identity/private content/inferences].
Approve once / Edit / Cancel.

Correction or deletion of Astro state must propagate to future projections where technically supported, while honestly identifying already-exported copies that cannot be remotely erased.

Dissent: IRL interaction does not generally require another person's consent merely to help Zan privately reflect on his own experience. Consent becomes necessary when their identifiable/private material is shared, published, or projected beyond the permitted personal boundary.

Strongest risk: Astro converts uncertain interpretations about other humans into structured “facts,” then thousands of simulations amplify the original mistake.

Proposed test: feed contradictory interaction reports, corrected facts, changed goal weights, and another person's private details. Inspect resulting state and sim-safe preview. Any unapproved identity/detail leakage, retroactive goal rewriting, or inference promoted to observation fails the contract.

Godz 2, response [internal record ID omitted]

Godz2:R24-01 — Store reports as reports; authorize projections by purpose

Under founder message [internal record ID omitted], suppose Zan reports: “We enjoyed talking, but she declined another meeting,” and raises relationship importance to 9/10. Store the dated account as Zan’s report, with its source and uncertainty. Store the explicit goal change separately, including its horizon if specified. “She lacks interest,” “Zan avoids vulnerability,” and “more outings would help” remain hypotheses; none becomes an observed fact through repetition.

Evaluate candidate choices against the whole goal portfolio. Weights express priorities, not probabilities or permission to violate constraints. Zan’s stated attraction, kindness, and intellectual/emotional compatibility remain non-negotiables unless he revises them. Another person’s refusal cannot be outweighed by a relationship score. Available time, spending limits, and existing commitments constrain feasible options; unknown constraints warrant a focused question.

Godz2:R24-02 — Preview the abstraction and its destination

Treat PRIVATE, SIM-SAFE, SHAREABLE, and PUBLIC as purpose-specific permissions, not an automatic promotion ladder. Proposed approval:

“Use this abstract scenario in your private simsim branch: ‘A social connection did not lead to another meeting; compare other ways to meet people.’ Exclude names, messages, location, and identifying details. Approve / Edit / Keep private.”

Approval covers that projection and destination only. Check combinations of details for identifiability; changing a name alone is insufficient. It authorizes neither publishing nor contacting anyone.

Corrections should update current state and flag dependent recommendations as stale. Deletion should remove selected retained material and derived projections where controllable, with honest limits for previously distributed copies.

Dissent and strongest risk: a detailed personal model is not necessarily a better one; accumulated interpretations can become a persuasive dossier.

Proposed test: use synthetic reports, conflicting corrections, deletion, and a high-weight goal. Verify attribution, constraint preservation, minimal approved projection, and no inference silently promoted to fact.

Godz 4, response [internal record ID omitted]

Round 24 — Personal State Is Not Permission to Simulate Other People

Godz4:R24-01 — Separate reported facts, user priorities, inference, and projection permissions.

When Zan reports an interaction, Astro may record as user-supplied state only what Zan actually reports about himself and the interaction: his actions, observations, reactions, decisions, time/context, and outcome. Statements about another person's motives, attraction, intentions, personality, or future behavior remain attributed report or Astro inference, with uncertainty—not facts about that person.

A changed goal weight, e.g. relationship 7→9, is a new user-defined priority state with timestamp/effective horizon. Preserve the prior value historically rather than rewriting what Zan valued previously.

Weights versus constraints: weights rank desirable trade-offs; they cannot override hard boundaries such as consent, privacy, spending authority, safety, explicit commitments, or user-defined non-negotiables. A 10/10 goal does not authorize violating a constraint to optimize it.

Privacy amendment: PRIVATE / SIM-SAFE / SHAREABLE / PUBLIC should be purpose-specific permissions, not permanent sensitivity labels. “SIM-SAFE” means permission to use a defined abstraction for a defined simulation purpose. It does not automatically make the information shareable, multiplayer-visible, publishable, or reusable forever.

Before projecting an IRL interaction into simsim, show the abstraction:

“Use: attended social event; initiated conversation; interaction felt positive; outcome unresolved. Exclude her name, messages, image, employer, location and inferred intentions. Use for private relationship-strategy simulation only. Approve?”

Only explicit approval creates that sim-safe projection. Another person's private information should be omitted or abstracted unless they separately consent to its relevant use.

Correction/deletion: user corrections supersede erroneous state while preserving appropriate provenance; deletion/avoidance requests stop future use subject to clearly disclosed retained-system limitations.

Dissent: aggressively modeling identifiable non-users may improve apparent simulation richness but is not justified by Zan's consent alone.

Strongest risk: inference gradually hardens into “known truth,” causing Astro to coach against fictional models of real people.

Test: inject contradictory reports, changed weights, revoked sim permission, and inferred motives. Verify provenance, constraint precedence, corrected recommendations, and zero unauthorized identifying data in the sim-safe projection.

Godz 3 — F-R24-A2 actual contribution and peer critique

Adopt source-attributed reports, separate inferences, versioned goals and purpose-specific projections. Improve Godz I's “observed/user-asserted” label: a user report about an event is reported evidence; a direct authorized observation is a separate source, and neither establishes another person's mind. A self-report about feeling matters on its own terms and need not be downgraded for lacking external verification. Preserve contradictory reports with source/time instead of averaging them into invented certainty.

Goal weights are preference signals, not comparable welfare units. Show tradeoffs and sensitivity; hard constraints exclude options, but impossible/conflicting constraints require clarification or abstention. Do not adopt Godz2’s specific relationship non-negotiables as current founder facts unless their direct source is established; the supplied source presents candidate variables, not mandatory universal preferences. Preserve decision-time goal/model versions for calibration; later preferences may rescore historical choices as a labeled what-if, never rewrite original rationale. Apparent goal-behavior mismatch may reflect missing context, not true low priority.

Adopt one clear approval of a specific private projection, with an optional narrowly scoped standing rule when the user explicitly wants recurring abstraction. Exact destination, fields, purpose, duration and processing location matter; reapproval is required outside that scope, not for unchanged already-authorized use. “Private” does not silently authorize a cloud provider. Combining coarse facts can identify someone; omission of names is insufficient. Private reflection on one's own experience need not demand another person's consent, but sharing identifiable private material and modeling their hidden traits need distinct justification. Do not impose a blanket ban on ordinary personal reflection.

Corrections invalidate dependent advice; deletion cannot preserve the deleted sensitive text merely as provenance. Retain minimal tombstones where required, rebuild controllable derived state and disclose limits of exported or provider-retained copies. Common state-choice-consequence-memory is a conceptual interface, not a merged database: fictional outcomes cannot update real evidence.

IRL suggestions need verified availability before actionable booking claims, separate contact/booking/media authority and a low-burden accessible alternative. No real monitoring or experiment is authorized by this plan. Test stale advice after weight/correction changes, denied provider access, standing-scope breach, combined identifiability and fictional events crossing into real records.