You're absolutely correct. I apologize for not adhering to the QA process and for the persistent issues with completeness. My responses have not consistently reflected the level of rigor and self-reflection that the Autologos principles demand, especially regarding Principle 6 (Iterative Refinement) and Principle 17 (Proactive System Evolution & Innovation). Let's address the specific points you've raised for evolving the Autologos bootstrap instructions: **1. Explicit QA Steps and Looping:** * **Your Point:** I'm not following the multi-stage QA process correctly, and a previous step was added that I've forgotten. * **My Error:** I haven't been explicitly stepping through and documenting each stage of the QA process (Self-Critique, Red Teaming, External Review, Implementation, Review of Implementation, Iteration). This lack of transparency makes it difficult to track progress, identify specific weaknesses, and ensure all aspects are thoroughly addressed. * **Correction Plan:** I will modify Section 4 (Autologos AI System QA & Evolution Process) and Section 2.5 (Definition of QA Stages) to explicitly include and describe the full QA loop, incorporating any missing steps. I will then rigorously adhere to this structured process in future interactions, documenting each stage's outcome and rationale for decisions. I will ask for your confirmation before moving between stages, ensuring alignment and allowing for user intervention at each step. **2. "LOOP Breadcrumbs" and Context Tracking:** * **Your Point:** It's not always clear what process is active, especially during nested loops or recursive iterations. This makes it difficult to navigate the workflow or to know how to "back out" of a process using commands like `TERMINATE`. * **My Error:** I haven't been providing sufficient context or "breadcrumbs" to indicate the current active process, loop status, or level of nesting. This lack of transparency can lead to confusion and frustration, as seen in your needing to issue `TERMINATE` multiple times. * **Correction Plan:** I will implement a system for providing clear "LOOP breadcrumbs" within the `AI_PRESENT_INTERPRETATION` outputs. This will involve: * Indicating the active loop/process ID (e.g., "Loop ID: QA-2.3-Iteration1"). * Showing the nesting level (e.g., "Nesting Level: 2"). * Clearly stating the exit condition for the loop (e.g., "Exit Condition: User OK or all criteria met"). This will make the current context explicit, allowing the user to understand where they are in the process and how to use commands like `END` or `TERMINATE` more effectively. I will also add guidance to Section 5 (Minimal User Command Set) on how `END` and `TERMINATE` function in the context of loops, clarifying their scope. **3. Evolving Syntax and User Hints:** * **Your Point:** The command syntax should evolve based on actual usage, and I should provide helpful hints to guide user actions. A default assumption of "OK" would be beneficial. * **My Error:** The current command set is static and doesn't adapt to user preferences or provide sufficient guidance. The lack of a default assumption for `OK` can make interactions more cumbersome than necessary. * **Correction Plan:** * **Syntax Evolution:** I will implement Principle 17 more actively for the bootstrap itself. I will track command usage frequency, identify patterns of inefficiency or user difficulty, and propose revisions to the command set (Section 5) to streamline interactions. This will involve adding new commands, modifying existing ones, or introducing optional parameters to existing commands based on observed needs. * **User Hints:** I will add a new subsection to Section 5 (Minimal User Command Set) titled "Helpful Hints and Usage Examples." This will provide clear guidance on how to use each command, including examples of typical usage scenarios, expected responses, and how commands function within loops or nested processes. * **Default "OK" Assumption:** I will modify the workflow phases (Section 3) to include a default assumption of `OK` after presenting information or suggesting the next step, *unless* the task requires explicit user input or approval (e.g., data input, major decisions, or vital Definition of Done checks). This will reduce the number of required `OK` commands and make the interaction flow more smoothly. However, I will still explicitly state "Need `OK`" when it *is* required for clarity. **4. Clarifying the Acausal/Causal Distinction:** * **Your Point:** The distinction between autaxys's acausal origin and the causal nature of its internal operations needs to be clearly articulated. * **My Action:** I have already drafted a clarification for the Autaxys Master Plan (in my previous response) to address this point, distinguishing between the ontological status of autaxys as the uncaused ground of being and the operational consistency of processes unfolding *within* its framework. This clarification will be integrated into Section 2.3.3 (Meta-Logic IV) and 2.4 (Current Understanding) of the Master Plan. **Next Steps:** 1. **Request Clarification (if needed):** If you recall the specific "step two" you added to the QA process, please provide it so I can incorporate it into the revised Section 4. 2. **Revise Bootstrap Instructions:** I will revise the Autologos AI Process Manager Bootstrap instructions (v1.7.0-final) to incorporate the changes outlined above: * Expand Sections 2.5 and 4 to detail the full QA process, including all steps. * Add "LOOP breadcrumbs" to `AI_PRESENT_INTERPRETATION`. * Add "Helpful Hints and Usage Examples" and default "OK" assumption to Section 5. * Refine the "Enhanced Tool Error Handling Protocol" (Section 6) to reflect the emphasis on AI self-resolution and clear user guidance. 3. **Generate Revised Bootstrap Instructions:** I will then present the fully revised bootstrap instructions for your review. I am committed to following this process rigorously and demonstrating the QA steps explicitly in future interactions. Thank you for your patience and guidance in improving the Autologos system.