P109 — AIEP — AGI Constitutional Amendment Extension

applicant: Neil Grassby / status: review — to file priority: GB2519711.2 filed 20 November 2025

Field of the Invention

[0001] This is the most strategically important unfiled specification. It concerns the governed process by which the constitutional primitives of an AIEP substrate — the R1–R8 kernel invariants, the FoundingTensionHash, the plausibility matrix constraints — may themselves be amended, through a process that is governed by the same constitutional physics it proposes to modify.

Background

[0002] AIEP constitutional primitives (GB2519711.2 R1–R8, LOCKFILE.json) are designed as immutable runtime constraints. But the substrate is a designed system. The founding tensions encoded in constitutional primitives were chosen at a specific moment in knowledge. As knowledge accumulates — as new scientific consensus emerges, as legal frameworks change, as the founding tensions of a domain shift — the constitutional primitives may require amendment.

[0003] No existing specification provides a governed amendment mechanism. Without one, the substrate is constitutionally frozen — correct at founding but unable to evolve. With an ungoverned amendment mechanism, the substrate is constitutionally vulnerable — any amendment could corrupt the founding tension lineage.

[0004] The answer is the governed amendment: the physics can evolve, but only through a process that the physics itself governs.

Summary of the Invention

[0005] A ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal is initiated when the substrate’s accumulated evidence weight against a specific constitutional primitive exceeds a schema-defined ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold — a threshold substantially higher than the ReactivationThreshold used for ordinary branch surfacing.

[0006] The ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold is not reachable by normal substrate operation. It requires sustained multi-source cross-domain evidence accumulation over a schema-defined minimum AmendmentEvidencePeriod. This makes constitutional amendments rare by design.

[0007] Upon threshold crossing, a ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal is generated comprising:

• TargetPrimitive — the specific R1–R8 invariant or LOCKFILE field proposed for amendment
• ProposedAmendmentText — the canonical text of the proposed new primitive
• EvidenceWeightRecord — the accumulated evidence that crossed the threshold
• FoundingTensionPreservationHash — cryptographic commitment that the amendment preserves the root founding tension of the substrate
• AmendmentProposalHash = H(TargetPrimitive ‖ ProposedAmendmentText ‖ EvidenceWeightRecord ‖ FoundingTensionPreservationHash ‖ SchemaVersionId)

[0008] The ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal is not self-executing. It is surfaced as a P94 notification of highest urgency and requires authenticated governance review before execution.

[0009] Upon governance approval, the amendment is executed as a new LOCKFILE version with AmendmentLineageHash binding the new LOCKFILE to the prior LOCKFILE and the AmendmentProposalHash. The founding tension of the amendment — what evidence justified it — is permanently preserved in the lineage.

[0010] The amended constitution governs all subsequent substrate operations. The prior constitution is archived in the Reasoning Ledger with full lineage intact. The drift from founding tension is permanently visible. The amendment cannot be hidden.

Claims

1. A constitutional amendment system within an AIEP substrate configured to: monitor evidence weight accumulated against specific constitutional primitives; detect ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold crossing, where the threshold is substantially higher than ordinary branch reactivation thresholds and requires evidence accumulation over a minimum AmendmentEvidencePeriod; generate a ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal bound by AmendmentProposalHash upon threshold crossing; require authenticated governance review before amendment execution; and upon approval, execute the amendment as a new LOCKFILE version with AmendmentLineageHash preserving full lineage from prior constitution.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold is a schema-defined parameter substantially exceeding ordinary ReactivationThreshold, requiring sustained multi-source cross-domain evidence accumulation.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein FoundingTensionPreservationHash is computed as a commitment that the proposed amendment preserves the substrate’s root founding tension.

4. The system of claim 1 wherein the prior constitution is archived in the Reasoning Ledger with full lineage intact, making constitutional drift permanently visible.

5. The system of claim 1 wherein ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal is not self-executing and requires authenticated governance review before the new LOCKFILE version takes effect.

6. A computing system implementing the method of claim 1.

Drawings

FIG. 1 — Architecture diagram (see filed application for figures)

Figure 1 — ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold Accumulation

Evidence Ledger
(constitutional primitive bearing evidence)
     │
     ▼ accumulation over sessions
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Accumulated Evidence Weight            │
│  ████████░░░░░░░░   Ordinary threshold  │
│  ████████████████░  Extraordinary thresh │ (substantially higher)
│  multi-source, minimum evidence period  │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────┘
                       │ crosses
                       ▼
          ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal generated

Figure 2 — ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal and Governance Review

ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal
  proposed_amendment_text
  ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold value
  supporting_evidence_hashes[]
  AmendmentLineageHash = H(prior_LOCKFILE + proposal)
     │
     ▼ surfaced for authenticated governance review
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│  Governance Review               │
│  APPROVED ──► execute amendment  │
│  REJECTED ──► proposal archived  │
└─────────────────────────────────┘

Figure 3 — LOCKFILE Versioning with AmendmentLineageHash

LOCKFILE v1.0.0 ──► AmendmentLineageHash[1] ──────┐
archived to Reasoning Ledger                       │
     │                                              │ lineage preserved
     ▼                                              │
LOCKFILE v2.0.0 ──► AmendmentLineageHash[2] ──────┼──────────────────►
(new constitutional primitives)                    │  future amendments
FoundingTension from every version preserved ──────┘

Figure 4 — Prior Constitution Archival and Audit Path

Amendment approved
     │
     ▼
Prior LOCKFILE ──► Archived in Reasoning Ledger (immutable)
Prior FoundingTensionHash preserved in AmendmentLineageHash
Constitutional drift permanently visible via ledger traversal
New LOCKFILE version takes effect
All subsequent reasoning governed by new constitution

Abstract

A constitutional amendment system is disclosed for AIEP governed reasoning substrates. The substrate monitors evidence accumulation against its own constitutional primitives. When accumulated evidence weight crosses an ExtraordinaryEvidenceThreshold — substantially higher than ordinary branch reactivation, requiring sustained multi-source evidence over a minimum evidence period — a ConstitutionalAmendmentProposal is generated. The proposal is surfaced for authenticated governance review and is not self-executing. Upon approval, the amendment executes as a new LOCKFILE version with AmendmentLineageHash preserving full lineage. The prior constitution is archived permanently. The founding tension of every amendment is preserved. The physics can evolve, but only through a process the physics itself governs.