Andy Dixon
0840a6c00a
Two new chapters (epistemic honesty, privacy) and updates across concepts, beliefs, conversation, cognition, graph, replay, providers, security, decisions, development, glossary, API, interface tour and the landing page. Rebuilt into dixon.cx (website commit d541bc9).
12 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
12 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
Version 0.2 is the result of a review that asked one question of every part of Noema that makes a knowledge claim: is what the system says about itself true of the code? Where the answer was no, the code, the documentation or both were changed, and a test was left behind. This page is the summary; the sections below reproduce the full deliverable.
|
|
|
|
## What the review changed, in one paragraph
|
|
|
|
Statements people make are now recorded as **assertions** before anything becomes a belief, so a mind can be sure who said what while remaining unsure whether it is so. Every piece of evidence carries its **provenance**: how it was derived, which independent source it ultimately rests on, and where it came from, so a source repeating itself or a consolidation re-expressing it can no longer masquerade as corroboration. Every score is labelled as what it is, an **uncalibrated epistemic score**, with a separate calibrated estimate offered only when the mind's own resolved predictions justify one. **Unknown** is a status, not a low number. Beliefs about changing states **supersede** rather than contradict. Sources earn **reliability per subject** from outcomes. Association and causation are different relations. Replays record the **runtime identity** they ran under and say whether they could have been exact. History gained an audited **redaction** path that removes words and keeps shape. The threat model was rewritten so that every mitigation it names is one the code performs, with the test that proves it.
|
|
|
|
## Why it matters
|
|
|
|
A system that tracks evidence is only as honest as its accounting. The 0.1 arithmetic was sound but its inputs were not always what they claimed to be: a claim from one person looked like an observation, a consolidated memory looked like a second witness, a number that was a ranking looked like a probability. The review did not add cleverness; it removed ways of being wrong about oneself, and it did so without discarding a row of existing data. Old evidence is labelled as legacy rather than back-filled with invented ancestry.
|
|
|
|
{{include docs/epistemics.md}}
|