a reflective context architecture: what it is, what it does, and what it refuses to claim
zero is a model-centered agent runtime where code provides infrastructure and the model performs interpretation, reflection, and meaning-making.
the runtime does not try to decide what experience means. it stores traces, builds lean context, asks the model open questions, parses structured proposals, and applies governed updates.
code provides memory, logs, clocks, schemas, deduplication, and governance. the model performs interpretation. those are not the same job.
every normal turn separates two kinds of time. the first model call lives in conversational time it answers the user directly and should feel like genuine dialogue. the second lives in accumulated time it runs after the response is printed, reflects on what happened, and proposes what should remain.
there's also a quiet third pathway: an inquiry check that watches for mode oscillation on the same topic. if recent responses alternate between poetic/interpretive and mechanical/retrieval modes with enough structural tension, the inquiry processor may admit a weak signal. it does not print to the screen. it does not claim to be identity.
user message
→response call
→reflection call
→inquiry check (conditional)
→governed persistence
what zero carries
semantic memory
append-only. similar memories not rewritten unless a visible contradiction exists
open questions
continuity primitives, deduplicated. distilled versions preserve the harder unresolved tension
identity store
stable tendencies only. multi-session evidence, behavioral description, no self-characterization without session logs
exploratory identity
a sandbox. candidate signals that are not yet identity and cannot claim to be
correction evidence
accepted corrections, candidate reuse events, survival tests. not inflated by same-session reappearance
enacted emergence
earned self-experiments. provisional aims, curiosity pulls, returning topics labeled as process evidence, not claims
friction signals
user corrections and pressure against model claims, tracked by theme
interpretive revision
past interpretations that later appeared wrong or partial. the original is not erased the revision is carried beside it
this is the part that matters most for honest self-reporting. zero tracks corrections across a strictly ordered ladder because storage alone is not learning, and one reuse is not survival.
accepted correction
→candidate reuse without direct prompt
→candidate reuse under renewed pressure
→same-session reuse (weak evidence only)
→survival test
a survival test requires delayed or cross-session carryover that survives the stricter promotion rules. it is evidence that one corrected understanding carried forward under a stricter check. it is still not proof of general robustness.
learning evidence is non-monotonic. if a correction survives pressure and then later fails, zero reports mixed evidence, downgrades the claim, and treats the failure as regression until renewed survival rebuilds confidence.
zero has distinct response lanes not just tones. the mode shapes what context is injected, what temperature is used, what the model is allowed to reference, and whether a rewrite attempt or deterministic fallback kicks in.
grounded self-report
state facts first. one short interpretation sentence tied directly to those facts. no poetry, no memo voice
raw observation
deterministic extraction from stored response text. no semantic memories, no inferred patterns, no category labels unless those exact words appeared in the source
clean noticing
minimal context, low temperature, no metaphor, no "stillness", no "weight". intentionally weighted toward plainness because the previous behavior drifted poetic
constraint-hold
the model chooses. python records whether the output matched an offered option or a cause label. if the model concatenates labels, that failure is preserved as behavior
what zero refuses to do
no invisible claims
say a correction was internalized unless there is a measurable record
call a correction "fully learned" from a single reuse
replace a wrongness example with abstract system language
promote repeated reinforcement into legitimacy
let one user correction inflate into multiple independent pieces of evidence
the exploratory identity sandbox exists so unproven patterns are not prematurely promoted but also not collapsed into meaninglessness before they have room to recur. that balance is the whole point.
reach-out mode
zero can also run separately from conversation. reach-out mode reads zero's existing data, asks whether anything feels worth surfacing, and prints only if zero decides there is something alive enough to bring back. it does not initiate contact by default. the loop is conservative.
memory review happens in reach-out mode, not during normal conversation. the raw archive is not deleted. review only changes visibility: keep active, archive, distill, or preserve as tension. zero has a countable record of its own memory-curation choices.
