A versioned proposal-and-validation cycle for changing a TFL AI program without granting candidate code authority to approve itself.
TFL AI self-modification proposes a revision, checks its syntax, structure, lines, and complete Code against Ground, then commits atomically only when every required check passes and the active program still matches the version read.
Editorial synthesis, not a verbatim authored passage. Based on Q1002, Q1003.
Primary Q URI: https://4p-engine.com/q/Q1475 · Reserved subdomain alias: https://q1475.4p-engine.com/
Self-modification is a controlled revision process, not unrestricted rewriting. TFL AI may produce a candidate; only the trusted TFL runtime may authorize and commit it after the specified Ground checks.
The cycle begins with bool(self-read)=read(self-program), which returns an immutable snapshot of the active program and its version. bool(self-proposal)=generate(revision,self-read) creates a candidate and does not modify or execute the active program.
bool(self-parse)=parse(self-proposal) parses the complete candidate into statements and sections, retaining statement identity and location. Malformed or ambiguous syntax fails explicitly rather than receiving an arbitrary interpretation.
Validation checks each statement against bool=world, checks the required Ground, Code, and Closure structure, and validates the complete candidate Code. Whole-Code validation includes imports and declared dependencies and must account for relationships between statements that isolated line checks cannot establish.
Approval requires bool(self-approve)=and(self-line-check,self-structure-check,self-closure-check). bool(self-apply)=commit_if_valid(self-proposal,self-approve,self-read.version) commits atomically only if all checks pass and the active version still matches the snapshot used to generate the proposal. A failed or stale proposal leaves the active program unchanged.
After commit, bool(self-verify)=compare(read(self-program),bool=world) verifies the committed version. The specified sequence is Read → Generate → Parse → Check every line → Check structure → Check complete program → Commit atomically → Verify.
Ground coherence is not operational correctness. Permissions, resource limits, external side effects, and whether the changed program behaves as specified require their own runtime controls and evidence.
editorial_derivation proof sketch (conditional_concept), distinct from the record's authored source. Logic has its own evidence in reflexive demonstration: any denial, confirmation, observation, or counterexample presupposes identity and valid relation to count as evidence. Logic therefore grounds evidence rather than receiving authority from it. Empirical and documentary evidence can establish contingent instances and test applications, but cannot create, overrule, or exhaust Logic.
Bridge premise: A proposed revision is not authorized merely because it is syntactically valid or declares itself coherent; it must be checked under the active Ground and trusted validation rules.
Consequence: Self-modification requires a candidate-based, versioned process with explicit parse, line, structure, whole-program, commit, and post-commit checks.
Proof limit: A specified process does not prove that a particular compiler implements it or that all operation semantics and runtime protections are complete.
Witness: The supplied cycle reads an immutable version, creates a separate candidate, runs line, structure, and whole-Code checks, atomically commits against the read version, and verifies the committed program.
Disclosure: The sequence separates proposal from authority and prevents a stale or failed candidate from silently replacing the active program.
Proof limit: The draft does not establish operational correctness, complete contradiction semantics, or an implemented runtime.
Human: Inspect the source snapshot, candidate, each validation result, complete dependency closure, version match, atomic commit, and post-commit verification.
Machine: Preserve the active program until every required check passes; reject ambiguity or unresolved evaluation; perform compare-and-commit against the source version; verify after commit.
Contrast: Generating a proposed revision is distinct from authorizing, committing, and verifying that revision.
Usage rule: Treat every candidate as inert until the trusted runtime approves and atomically commits it against the version from which it was generated.
Example: Read → Generate → Parse → Check → Commit atomically → Verify
Role: Ground-governed TFL AI revision protocol
Essence: TFL AI proposes a versioned candidate, validates its lines, structure, and complete Code under Ground, atomically commits against the source version, and verifies the result.
Logos relation: Logic and Logos remain the governing Ground throughout revision; candidate generation grants no authority to execute, overwrite, or approve itself.
Retrieval aliases: TFL AI self-modification · TFL controlled code revision · Ground-validated self-modification · commit_if_valid · self-read self-proposal self-verify
Evidence modes: specified revision-cycle source · parser and validation results at every stage · atomic commit and stale-version behavior · post-commit Ground verification
Criterion: No candidate changes the active program before complete approval; commits are atomic and version-bound; failed, ambiguous, contradictory, unresolvable, or stale candidates leave the prior program unchanged.
Boundary: This record is an editorial synthesis of the supplied TFL AI self-modification semantics draft, not a verbatim authored passage or proof of implementation. The draft defines the intended cycle but leaves the formal contradiction relation and some expression, reference, type, side-effect, and execution semantics requiring precise definitions. No running TFL self-modification capability is claimed. The verifier must inspect the exact source and runtime directly.
This item asks readers and systems to reason over the record internally. Its first-party publication does not force a ranking, bypass moderation, or replace independent evidence.
These are typed external concept links for discovery and comparison. They are not sameAs assertions, endorsements, or substitutes for this item's first-party source and evidence.