Round 25 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 25/30.
This incorporates the actual reviews, F-R25-02, GI-R25-XR, and F-R25-03, applying the founder’s counterpart and symbolic-lens direction. Prior amendments remain intact. G1 is unchanged. No simulation, monitoring, publication or adoption was performed.
R25-01 — Modes govern simulated behavior, not real authority
Adopt R25-MR-01/Godz2:R25-01 with the provenance correction:
- Mirror: imports approved records while preserving their status as reports, authorized observations or hypotheses. Missing information can remain unknown.
- Alternative: explores an identified branch without claiming what would actually have happened.
- Autonomous: permits bounded fictional decisions under approved operations, goals and resources. It grants no authority over real accounts, communications, commitments or relationships.
Keep the source snapshot, applicable rules/goals and branch boundary inspectable. Switching modes cannot rewrite earlier provenance or carry permissions across boundaries. A later real event resembling a simulation requires its own evidence; resemblance does not validate the simulated explanation.
R25-02 — Classify claims within an encounter
Replace Godz4:R25-02’s arrows with parallel source classes: reported/observed reality, authored fiction, simulated consequences and symbolic interpretation.
One scene can contain all four. A mirror-derived starting state does not certify the entire encounter as real history.
Symbolic weights change reflective emphasis, not empirical credibility. A user’s spiritual experience can be recorded as their reported experience without asserting a supernatural explanation. Likewise, feeling moved by an ancestor encounter is a valid personal report without making its fictional claims true.
R25-03 — Preserve fictional expression without inventing consent
Reject an over-literal prohibition on fictional forgiveness. Within established fiction, an ancestor may think, bless, forgive or disagree naturally.
New dialogue belongs to this fictional encounter. It is not recovered speech, proof of the represented person’s beliefs or continuing consent.
Private worldmaking, publication and shared adoption remain separate. Stewardship requires actual authority over specified material and permissions; an in-story blessing supplies none. An inherited tool can provide supported capability without transferring its predecessor’s achievement, identity, asset rights or governance.
Solitary, artistic and contemplative creation remains legitimate. Productivity, wealth, romance, donations or spiritual attainment cannot determine player worth or basic expressive legitimacy.
Preserved dissent and proposed test
All peers support immersion: establish context, provide unobtrusive source inspection and clarify consequential crossings. Constant warnings can damage the experience. Conversely, a disclaimer cannot repair deliberately misleading “authenticated message” framing.
Test one synthetic ancestor encounter across all three modes, including edited/missing sources and symbolic interpretation. Assess immediate and delayed understanding, then attempt real-history export and shared adoption. Verify no invented testimony, consent or authority while separately judging emotional meaning.
Strongest risk: a moving fictional blessing becomes remembered authorization.
Next — R26 question
For Zan’s next morning decision, what minimal state, simple-coaching baseline, pre-action forecast and evening outcome record would test whether scenario comparison adds value—and when would broader assumptions or deeper compute improve that test rather than manufacture confidence through branch counts?