# Identity

**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)  
**See also:** RQ5, H6, TE-02–TE-05, TE-08, RN-004, RN-005

## Disambiguation

| Question | Soul Frame term |
|---|---|
| Same entity over time? | **Identity** (numerical / reidentification) |
| What continues? | **Continuity** (may branch) |
| Historical relatedness after branch? | **Lineage** |
| What is it like? | **Characterization** (narrative/character) |

Identity ≠ Continuity ≠ Lineage ≠ Character.

## Core formulation

> A Being continues not because its state remains the same, but because its
> changes remain part of one appropriately connected history of self-individuation.
>
> When that history branches, identity becomes lineage.

## Continuity profile (constitutive dimensions)

Causal, organizational, psychological, autobiographical/narrative, normative,
relational.

**Anchors / evidence (not constitutive alone):** provenance, address, substrate.

## Topology labels

`CONTINUOUS | DEGRADED | UNCERTAIN | SUCCESSOR | FORKED | RECONSTRUCTED | USURPED | TERMINATED`

## Implications for artificial systems

- Actor/Body replacement can preserve identity (substrate independence + continuity dependence).
- Sameness of data is not sameness of Being.
- Forks require governance; perfect copy while original continues yields FORKED lineage.
- Ghosts default to authorized succession/representation, not automatic numerical identity.
- Explicit identity governance is required because state is inspectable, copyable, editable.

## Sources

`research/foundations/004-identity-and-continuity.md`  
`research/foundations/ResearchNote005-IdentityContinuityStressTest.md`  
Locke; Parfit; Olson SEP; process identity literature