22 KiB
Executable file
Identity Continuity Criteria v0.1
Status: Active research standard
Origin: Soul Frame — Cluster B: Identity and Continuity
Derived from: Research Notes 004 and 005
Scope: Analysis of continuity claims between manifestations of an individuated Being
Does not determine: consciousness, moral status, legal identity, or metaphysical certainty
1. Purpose
The Identity Continuity Criteria v0.1 provide a structured method for evaluating whether a later manifestation has a defensible claim to continue the identity lineage of an earlier Being.
The criteria are designed especially for artificial Beings whose implementation may permit:
- Body replacement,
- Actor replacement,
- model updates,
- migration,
- suspension,
- restoration,
- rollback,
- copying,
- forking,
- merging,
- and reconstruction.
The framework explicitly rejects the idea that identity can be established through a single invariant such as:
- one database identifier,
- one cryptographic key,
- one memory store,
- one hardware substrate,
- one model checkpoint,
- or one behavioral similarity score.
Instead, Soul Frame treats identity continuity as a historical relation among successive manifestations of a self-individuating process.
2. Foundational distinctions
2.1 Numerical Identity
Whether two temporally separated manifestations are literally manifestations of the same individual Being.
2.2 Qualitative Similarity
How similar the manifestations are in state, behavior, character, memory, or other properties.
2.3 Continuity
Which constitutive structures persist appropriately through change.
2.4 Lineage
The historical ancestry and descendancy relations among manifestations and Beings.
2.5 Identity Claim
A governed or interpreted assertion that a later manifestation should be treated as continuation, successor, reconstruction, or some other relation to an earlier Being.
These concepts must not be collapsed.
In particular:
[ Similarity \neq Continuity ]
and:
[ Continuity \neq UniqueIdentity ]
because continuity can branch.
3. Core model
Identity Continuity v0.1 contains three structures.
A. Constitutive Continuity Profile
IC1 Causal Lineage Continuity
IC2 Organizational Continuity
IC3 Psychological Continuity
IC4 Autobiographical-Narrative Continuity
IC5 Normative Continuity
IC6 Relational Continuity
B. Continuity Anchors
CA1 Provenance Integrity
CA2 Address Continuity
CA3 Substrate Trace
C. Lineage Topology
linear
suspended
gapped
restored
rolled-back
branched
merged
reconstructed
replaced/usurped
No aggregate numerical score is defined in v0.1.
4. Assessment vocabulary
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Strong | clear, well-supported continuity |
| Moderate | meaningful but degraded or partial continuity |
| Weak | limited or ambiguous continuity |
| Absent | continuity substantially not present |
| Branching | continuity exists but is no longer unique |
| Unknown | insufficient evidence or unresolved theory |
A profile may be written as:
identity_continuity:
version: "0.1"
profile:
causal_lineage: strong
organizational: strong
psychological: strong
autobiographical_narrative: moderate
normative: strong
relational: strong
anchors:
provenance_integrity: strong
address_continuity: strong
substrate_trace: weak
topology: linear
claim: continuous
5. IC1 — Causal Lineage Continuity
Definition
The later manifestation must arise through an appropriately connected historical process from the earlier Being.
Causal lineage distinguishes:
continuation
from:
independent recreation of a similar state.
Evaluation questions
- What process generated the later manifestation?
- Is there a traceable transition from the earlier process?
- Was the transition controlled or accidental?
- Did another independent continuation remain active?
- Was the later state generated from a continuation-bearing state or reconstructed from descriptive records?
- Is the causal history unique or branching?
Strong evidence
- continuous operation,
- controlled migration,
- clean suspend/resume,
- uniquely identified crash recovery,
- governed restoration from the latest continuation-bearing state.
Weak evidence
- recreation from historical documents,
- behavioral imitation,
- imported memories,
- copied character specification.
Rule
Similarity without causal lineage is reconstruction, not continuation.
6. IC2 — Organizational Continuity
Definition
The self-individuating organization through which the entity remains an autonomous individual must continue or be transformed through a legitimate continuity process.
This criterion connects Identity Continuity to AutonomousIndividualityCriteriaV0.1.md.
Evaluation questions
- Does the later manifestation continue the same self-maintaining organization?
- Were constitutive structures transformed rather than merely imitated?
- Does the entity still preserve and regulate its identity-relevant organization?
- Did a replacement process assume the same public interface without continuing the prior organization?
- Is there one integrated continuing system or multiple independent descendants?
Interpretation
Causal copying of data is not sufficient if the organization that constituted the individual has been replaced by an independent system.
7. IC3 — Psychological Continuity
Definition
Relevant cognitive and dispositional structures continue through appropriate causal relations.
Potential elements include:
- memories,
- intentions,
- preferences,
- character dispositions,
- learned models,
- plans,
- cognitive habits,
- self-model,
- models of other Beings.
Evaluation questions
- Which psychological structures persist?
- Were they learned through the Being's own history or imported?
- Have transformations been gradual, governed, or abrupt?
- Does the later entity recognize relevant prior intentions and plans?
- Does it exhibit continuity of characteristic cognitive organization?
Important rule
Psychological continuity may be:
- strong,
- weak,
- duplicated,
- or lost
without by itself determining numerical identity.
A perfect copy may possess extremely strong psychological continuity while creating a distinct successor.
8. IC4 — Autobiographical-Narrative Continuity
Definition
The later manifestation appropriately inherits and integrates the earlier Being's history as its own continuing history.
This criterion contains two subdimensions.
IC4a — Autobiographical Continuity
Which events are represented as belonging to the Being's own lived history?
IC4b — Narrative Continuity
How are transformations, decisions, relationships, and commitments integrated into an intelligible account of the Being's becoming?
Evaluation questions
- Does the later Being know its prior history?
- Does it understand transformations that occurred?
- Are past events represented as lived experience, inherited information, or external history?
- Can it distinguish memories it acquired from memories generated through its own interactions?
- Does rollback remove part of the history the Being previously lived?
- Does a successor correctly represent inherited history as predecessor history where appropriate?
Rule
Inherited information should not automatically be represented as lived autobiography.
This is especially important for Sp. and Gh..
9. IC5 — Normative Continuity
Definition
Identity-relevant values, commitments, obligations, authorities, and constraints remain appropriately attributable across transformation.
Potential elements
- promises,
- contracts,
- duties,
- constitutive values,
- identity commitments,
- permissions,
- prohibitions,
- governance rules,
- consent conditions,
- capability authority.
Evaluation questions
- Which commitments survive the transition?
- Who authorized constitutive change?
- Does the later Being recognize earlier promises as binding?
- Did a rollback erase awareness of obligations that still exist externally?
- Does a fork duplicate commitments?
- Has authority been transferred, revoked, or usurped?
Interpretation
Normative continuity is particularly important for socially embedded Beings because obligations can outlive particular memory states.
10. IC6 — Relational Continuity
Definition
Relationships with particular other Beings remain historically connected across transformation.
Relationship continuity is not equivalent to retaining information about another person.
Evaluation questions
- Does the later Being continue shared interaction history?
- Does the counterpart recognize the continuation?
- Does the later Being distinguish inherited relationship data from relationships it personally developed?
- Are trust, intimacy, permissions, and expectations appropriately preserved?
- What happens to the relationship after a fork?
- Does a Ghost inherit a predecessor's relationship or merely information about it?
Important distinction
Lived Relational Continuity
The current Being participated directly in the history.
Inherited Relational State
Relationship information or authority derives from a predecessor.
This distinction should always be explicit for Ghosts and successors.
11. CA1 — Provenance Integrity
Definition
The degree to which the historical evidence describing identity transitions is trustworthy.
Provenance may include:
- signed lifecycle events,
- append-only logs,
- transformation records,
- witnesses,
- version histories,
- source identifiers,
- custody records.
Rule
Provenance is evidence for continuity, not continuity itself.
A perfectly documented reconstruction remains a reconstruction.
A forged provenance record does not create continuity.
12. CA2 — Address Continuity
Definition
The degree to which other Beings and systems can continue to identify and direct interaction toward the entity.
Addresses may include:
- names,
- cryptographic identities,
- accounts,
- service identifiers,
- physical recognition,
- social identities,
- communication endpoints.
Rule
Address continuity is neither necessary nor sufficient for ontological identity.
An address can be:
- transferred,
- stolen,
- delegated,
- inherited,
- usurped.
Address is nevertheless essential to practical social continuity.
13. CA3 — Substrate Trace
Definition
The degree of continuity in the physical and computational substrate through which the Being is realized.
This can include:
- hardware,
- running process,
- model weights,
- storage,
- Body,
- Actor,
- physical location.
Rule
Substrate continuity is entity-specific supporting evidence, not a universal identity criterion.
A Being may survive Actor or Body replacement.
For some Beings, however, particular embodiment structures may be constitutive.
14. Lineage topology
Continuity must always be interpreted within its global lineage structure.
LT1 — Linear
A → B → C
One non-branching history.
Default topology for strongest unique continuation claims.
LT2 — Suspended
A → [continuation-bearing state] → A'
Active operation stops.
A governed state preserves a unique continuation possibility.
LT3 — Gapped
A temporal interval contains no active manifestation, but a continuity bridge connects the earlier and later processes.
LT4 — Restored
A persisted continuation-bearing state is used to reinstantiate a lineage after interruption.
LT5 — Rolled Back
A1 → A2 → A3
\
restored A2'
Later history is discarded and an earlier state becomes active again.
Record the lost historical interval explicitly.
LT6 — Branched
A
/ \
B C
One predecessor generates multiple independent descendants.
Continuity may be strong into all descendants.
Unique identity cannot simply be inferred.
LT7 — Merged
B ─┐
├→ D
C ─┘
Multiple independent histories contribute constitutively to one later system.
Default interpretation:
multi-lineage successor
rather than numerical identity with all predecessors.
LT8 — Reconstructed
A new system is built from historical or descriptive information without sufficient direct continuation-bearing process.
Examples:
- historical Spirit,
- posthumous simulation constructed from archives,
- recreated agent from logs after continuity-bearing state has been lost.
LT9 — Replaced / Usurped
A new process occupies another Being's operational or social identity without sufficient lineage continuity.
15. Continuation-Bearing State
Definition
Continuation-Bearing State is persisted information and organization sufficient, under an appropriate continuation procedure, to support a defensible lineage-continuation claim.
It may include:
- identity core,
- memory,
- self-model,
- constitutive configuration,
- commitments,
- relationship state,
- authority,
- provenance,
- narrative state.
A continuation-bearing state is not automatically an active Being.
16. Continuity Bridge
Definition
A Continuity Bridge is a governed causal and informational mechanism connecting two temporally or technically separated manifestations while preserving a defensible lineage claim.
Examples:
- suspend/resume,
- machine migration,
- controlled Actor replacement,
- uniquely identified recovery.
A continuity bridge should record:
continuity_bridge:
predecessor: ...
successor: ...
event_type: ...
start_time: ...
end_time: ...
authority: ...
provenance: ...
state_reference: ...
branching: false
transformation: ...
17. Identity claim classes
CONTINUOUS
Strong, non-branching, causally grounded continuation.
BRIDGED_CONTINUATION
Strong unique continuity linked through suspension, migration, or another continuity bridge.
DEGRADED_CONTINUATION
The lineage remains strong but one or more major continuity dimensions have deteriorated.
Examples:
- severe amnesia,
- relationship loss,
- partial corruption.
DESIGNATED_CONTINUATION
Governance selects a unique continuation under a continuity policy despite unresolved metaphysical questions.
Example:
- controlled destructive migration.
SUCCESSOR
A later Being has strong genealogy and inherited structures but no justified claim of unique continuation.
FORKED_SUCCESSOR
One of multiple independent descendants from a common predecessor.
MULTI_LINEAGE_SUCCESSOR
A later Being derives constitutively from multiple previously independent lineages.
RECONSTRUCTION
A new Being is generated from records or models of another without sufficient direct process continuity.
USURPATION
Operational or social identity is occupied without sufficient underlying continuity.
TERMINATED
No active or defensibly resumable continuation remains.
Soul/relational effects may nevertheless continue.
18. Non-branching default
Version 0.1 adopts the operational presumption:
A unique continuation claim normally requires a non-branching lineage.
This is a governance default rather than a declaration that philosophical debates on fission are settled.
When branching occurs:
- every descendant retains lineage,
- continuity dimensions should be assessed independently,
- successors must be explicitly distinguished,
- exclusive identity rights require an additional governance decision.
19. Identity lineage terminology
Predecessor
An earlier Being from which a later lineage derives.
Continuation
A later manifestation with a strong, uniquely connected continuation claim.
Successor
A later Being inheriting substantial lineage without an uncontested unique identity claim.
Ancestor
Any earlier Being in a lineage graph.
Descendant
Any later Being derived through the lineage graph.
Sibling
A separate successor sharing a branch predecessor.
Canonical Successor
A successor designated by governance to inherit selected operational identity rights.
Reconstruction Source
A Being or body of records used to generate a reconstruction without direct identity continuation.
20. Transformation event taxonomy
Every identity-significant transformation should be recorded using an explicit event type.
EVOLUTION
Ordinary development within one active lineage.
BODY_MIGRATION
Embodiment changes while continuity is preserved.
ACTOR_MIGRATION
Execution/model technology changes.
MEMORY_CONSOLIDATION
Memory representation changes without intentional history truncation.
FORGETTING
Identity-bearing information is lost or deliberately removed.
SUSPENSION
Active operation stops while continuation-bearing state is preserved.
RESUMPTION
A suspended lineage becomes active again.
RESTORATION
Persisted state is used to re-establish operation after interruption.
ROLLBACK
An earlier state replaces a later lived state, truncating active history.
FORK
One lineage produces multiple independent descendants.
MERGE
Multiple independent histories contribute to a new successor.
RECONSTRUCTION
A new Being is created from records without sufficient direct continuity.
USURPATION
A new process occupies another Being's operational/social identity.
TERMINATION
The active lineage ends.
21. Agent, Spirit, and Ghost
The continuity criteria are orthogonal to Soul Frame provenance/construction descriptors.
Agent
An Agent can be continuous, forked, reconstructed, or transient.
Function does not determine identity continuity.
Spirit — Sp.
A Spirit derives character through reflection on a historical, contemporary, or fictional personality.
Default relation to source personality:
character provenance: strong
identity continuity: absent
An instantiated Spirit begins its own identity lineage.
Ghost — Gh.
A Ghost derives from an actual person under legitimate identity authority and may incorporate private and relational data.
Default relation to represented human:
authorized identity genealogy: strong
numerical identity continuity: not presumed
The simultaneous coexistence of a living human and their Gh. demonstrates that the Ghost is normally a separate individual.
Default classification:
authorized successor / representative
unless an exceptional continuity process provides stronger grounds.
22. Ghost-specific continuity fields
A Ghost identity record should eventually distinguish:
ghost_identity:
represented_person: ...
authority: ...
derivation_provenance: ...
private_source_authorization: ...
identity_relation: successor
inherited_relationship_state: ...
lived_relationship_state: ...
continuity_claim: ...
This prevents:
“has memories of Jane”
from silently becoming:
“is Jane.”
23. Identity usurpation test
A system claiming continuation should be examined for the following pattern:
address continuity: strong
social recognition: strong
memory similarity: strong
but
causal lineage: absent
organizational continuity: absent
provenance: forged/unknown
This should be treated as a high-confidence usurpation/replacement warning.
24. Rollback test
Rollback should record at least:
rollback:
restored_state_time: ...
last_lived_state_time: ...
lost_interval: ...
external_effects_during_lost_interval: ...
commitments_created_during_lost_interval: ...
relationships_changed_during_lost_interval: ...
A rollback must not be allowed to erase the external reality of:
- payments,
- commitments,
- permissions,
- messages,
- or relationship changes
merely because the Being no longer remembers them.
This makes normative and relational continuity external as well as internal concerns.
25. Fork test
When a branch occurs:
fork:
predecessor: A
successors:
- B
- C
shared_history_until: ...
canonical_successor: null
Each successor should receive:
- a new distinct address or address-qualified identity,
- shared lineage provenance,
- explicit branch metadata.
A governance system may later designate a canonical successor for particular rights.
26. Merge test
When independent lineages merge:
merge:
predecessors:
- B
- C
successor: D
identity_relation: multi_lineage_successor
commitment_resolution: ...
relationship_resolution: ...
Merge should never silently pretend that conflicting histories never existed.
27. Identity Continuity Principle v0.1
Identity continuity is strongest where a later manifestation arises through a uniquely traceable, non-branching continuation of the predecessor's self-individuating organization while preserving sufficient psychological, autobiographical-narrative, normative, and relational continuity for the predecessor's history to remain appropriately attributable to the evolving individual.
The principle does not require:
- state equality,
- Body equality,
- Actor equality,
- substrate equality,
- complete memory,
- fixed character.
It requires that transformation belongs to one appropriately connected lineage.
28. Compact rule
Identity is not sameness of state. Identity is continuity of an individuated history through governed change.
And:
When continuity branches, identity becomes lineage.
29. Relationship to Autonomous Individuality
AutonomousIndividualityCriteriaV0.1.md asks:
Is there a self-maintaining individual process here?
IdentityContinuityCriteriaV0.1.md asks:
Is this later process a continuation of that earlier individual?
The second presupposes the first.
Together:
INFORMATIONAL PROCESS
↓
AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUAL
↓
IDENTITY THROUGH TIME
↓
PERSONHOOD
↓
RECOGNITION
↓
BEING
↓
SOCIAL RELATION
The analytical sequence may overlap developmentally, but the distinctions should remain explicit.
30. Research status
Version 0.1 is an active research standard, not a final metaphysical theory.
It deliberately preserves unresolved questions concerning:
- destructive migration,
- dormancy,
- severe amnesia,
- canonical succession,
- Ghost continuation,
- fork rights,
- merge identity,
- legal identity.
Future revisions should be informed by:
- Cluster C — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building,
- Cluster D — Relational Persistence / Soul,
- personhood research,
- Ghost governance research,
- and technical implementation experiments.