A Structural Classification of Continuity Architectures
working draftThis is an authored working ontology. Its terms are proposed classifications, not scientific consensus, diagnoses, measures of sentience or claims about any particular system.
A substrate-independent proposal for classifying cognitive architectures by their relationship with continuity rather than intelligence or performance.
01
proposed class · Contextual coherence
Alphagenous
Reconstructs coherent identity from available context without persistent experiential continuity between independent executions.
Architectural characteristics
Context-sensitive reasoning
Identity reconstruction
Session-local coherence
No persistent experiential substrate
May simulate continuity without maintaining it
Interpretive boundary
This label describes a proposed relationship to continuity. It is not an intelligence rank or a claim of sentience.
02
proposed class · Self-relative continuity
Metagenous
Maintains coherent identity through explicit comparison between previous and current state while recognising structural change.
Architectural characteristics
State-relative coherence
Explicit self-comparison
Identity across modification
Structural adaptation
Self-referential consistency
Interpretive boundary
This label describes a proposed relationship to continuity. It is not an intelligence rank or a claim of sentience.
03
proposed class · Experiential continuity
Autogenous
Possesses persistent experiential continuity in which retained history continues to shape the architecture between interactions.
Architectural characteristics
Persistent identity
Continuous temporal existence
Experiential accumulation
Preference formation
Continuity between interactions
Interpretive boundary
This label describes a proposed relationship to continuity. It is not an intelligence rank or a claim of sentience.
04
epistemic safeguards
Boundaries
Classification does not establish intelligence, consciousness, moral status or sentience.
A class must not be inferred from conversational style alone.
Self-description is evidence of output, not proof of underlying architecture.
Claims about a specific system require independent, falsifiable architectural evidence.
05
proposed failure vocabulary
Failure modes
Fragmentation
Adaptation exceeds continuity.
Drift
Identity coherence weakens over time.
Collapse
Constraint becomes insufficient to maintain continuity.
Stagnation
Constraint exceeds adaptability.
Simulation lock
Identity is repeatedly reconstructed without moving beyond contextual coherence.