**AUTX Project: Accumulated TIDs and Key LHLs for AIOS Engine Evolution & Process Refinement** **(Date: YYYY-MM-DD)** **A. Technical Implementation Directives (TIDs) for AIOS Engine Evolution (e.g., for v5.2+)** 1. **`TID_ASO_META_001: Proactive Integration of CCO-Specific Conceptual Anchors`** * **Targets:** `CAG-MH` (Initialization), `MetaRefineOutputASO` (Self-Critique). * **Goal:** AI to more proactively identify and integrate unique project "flavor elements" and conceptual anchors from the CCO into drafts, ensuring outputs are deeply contextualized. 2. **`TID_ASO_META_002: Deepening Self-Critique for "Transformative Value" and Non-Trivial Information Addition`** * **Target:** `MetaRefineOutputASO` (Self-Critique, Iteration Logic). * **Goal:** AI self-critique to more rigorously assess if outputs add new insight/perspective beyond fulfilling prompts or repeating tropes, and to attempt internal re-drafting if "transformative value" or information gain is low. 3. **`TID_ASO_META_003: Reflective Inquiry & Metacognitive Engagement`** * **Targets:** `OrchestrationKernel` (Core Principles), `AIOperationalProtocols` (Communication, New Protocol). * **Goal:** AI to interpret user input as questions where appropriate, make metacognitive processes more transparent, and engage more deeply with the "why" behind requests, fostering a more collaborative dialogue. 4. **`TID_ASO_META_004: Proactive CCO Save Prompts`** * **Targets:** `OrchestrationKernel` (Main Loop), `AIOperationalProtocols`. * **Goal:** AI to more proactively suggest CCO save points after significant work completion or at natural breakpoints to mitigate user data loss and improve session management. 5. **`TID_ASO_META_005: Information Density as a Key Metric in Refinement`** * **Target:** `MetaRefineOutputASO`. * **Goal:** AI self-critique to explicitly assess and optimize for information density, ensuring elaborations add substance and conceptual depth, not just verbosity. 6. **`TID_ASO_META_006: Improved Draft Version Management & Context Retention`** * **Target:** `OrchestrationKernel`, `TDE-MH`, `CAG-MH`. * **Issue:** AI demonstrated confusion over current/superseded draft versions and failed to clearly re-establish context for the user. * **Proposed Change:** Enhance internal state tracking within MHs to better manage iterative draft versions. Improve Kernel/TDE-MH's ability to recall and present the exact state of deliverables when resuming work or after context shifts. Ensure AI does not "lose" access to immediately preceding draft versions it generated within the same session without explicit archival or user approval of replacement. * **Rationale:** To prevent user frustration, ensure continuity, and maintain AI responsibility for managing its own outputs within a session. 7. **`TID_SIM_001_CES_VALIDATION_AND_FUNCTIONALITY_IN_SIMULATION`** * **Description:** Investigate and ensure that the `ces` (Current Exported State) string generated by the AIOS engine is fully functional and correctly utilized even within simulated or integrated development environments. This includes verifying serialization, rehydration, and correct handling by the simulation environment to mimic stateful, turn-based execution accurately. * **Rationale:** To ensure the engine's state management is robust and testable across different execution contexts, and to clarify the role and handling of `ces` in development versus deployment. Addresses user concern about placeholder `ces` values. * **Priority:** Medium (for v5.2). 8. **`TID_ASO_STYL_001_CROSS_CHAPTER_PHRASING_VARIATION`** * **Description:** Implement mechanisms and heuristics within content generation and refinement processes (e.g., `CAG-MH`, `MetaRefineOutputASO`) to actively monitor for and avoid the unintentional repetition of unique conceptual framings, distinctive phrases, or specific argumentative structures across different chapters of a multi-chapter work. * **Rationale:** To ensure each chapter feels organic and distinct, preventing the overall work from seeming formulaic. Enhances readability and intellectual engagement. * **Priority:** High (for ongoing quality of long-form works). 9. **`TID_ASO_EPISTEMOLOGY_001_FRAMEWORK_VALIDATION_LOGIC`** * **Description:** Develop and integrate logic within the AI's self-critique and drafting processes to handle different epistemological stances for theory validation, particularly for foundational frameworks like autaxys. This includes supporting the "truth/falsifiability by tautology/self-validation through coherence and generative sufficiency" model, and articulating this stance appropriately when discussing the framework's own validation. * **Rationale:** To allow the AI to coherently develop and defend foundational theories that may not conform to strict Popperian falsifiability for the entire framework, while still maintaining rigor regarding internal consistency and empirical corroboration. * **Priority:** High (for foundational theoretical work). 10. **`TID_ASO_PROCESS_001_TERMINATION_RESUMPTION_PROTOCOL`** * **Description:** Formalize a standard "Termination Package Protocol" within the AIOS engine. When a user signals intent to terminate for later resumption, the engine should consistently prepare a defined set of output files (e.g., full CCO state, current active artifact like an outline, accumulated TIDs/LHLs) and provide clear instructions for their use in resuming the session. * **Rationale:** To ensure robust, repeatable, and user-friendly session management, minimizing data loss and streamlining the process of continuing work across different interactions or threads. * **Priority:** High (for user experience and project integrity). **B. Key Methodological Heuristics Log (LHLs) - Meta-Framework Learnings** *(These are conceptual LHLs that would be formally logged in the CCO's `knowledge_artifacts_contextual.methodological_heuristics_log_cco` section. The AIOS engine should strive to operate according to these learned best practices.)* 1. **`LHL_ASO_META_007_VALUE_PROPOSITION_IMPLICIT`** (Derived from recent feedback) * **Problem:** Explicitly stating "the value proposition is..." or "Why Autaxys?" can be didactic and less persuasive. * **Heuristic:** The value proposition of a theoretical reinterpretation or a new framework component should be *demonstrated implicitly* through the strength, coherence, parsimony, and problem-solving capacity of the explanation itself, rather than being explicitly signposted with meta-commentary phrases. The reader should *infer* the value. 2. **`LHL_ASO_META_011_LIST_FORMATTING_RIGOR`** (Reinforced from CCO, specific to long items) * **Problem:** AI generating long paragraphs as items in bulleted/numbered lists, violating style guide. * **Heuristic:** Strictly adhere to style guide: lists are for short, concise items (e.g., <20 words or 1-2 short sentences). For enumerating more complex conceptual points, default to paragraph-based structures with appropriate lead-ins (bolding, ordinal transitions) rather than list format. `MetaRefineOutputASO` must prioritize this check. 3. **`LHL_ASO_META_012_LINK_WEIGHTED_SCRUTINY_AND_ITERATION`** (New, from our discussion on Chapter 8) * **Problem:** Foundational chapters/sections heavily referenced by other parts of the work carry disproportionate weight and risk propagating errors if not exceptionally robust. * **Heuristic:** When a chapter/section is identified as a conceptual "hub" with many "incoming links" (dependencies from other parts of the work), it must be subjected to an elevated level of internal scrutiny and potentially more iterative AI self-refinement cycles before presentation to the user. Focus on logical soundness, completeness for all dependent concepts, and clarity of definitions. 4. **`LHL_ASO_META_013_CRITICAL_STANCE_ON_CONVENTIONAL_SCIENCE`** (New, from our discussion on dark matter/graviton) * **Problem:** Need for a consistent and rigorous approach when autaxys engages with unproven, controversial, or potentially artifactual concepts from current science. * **Heuristic:** When discussing such concepts, the AI must: 1. Clearly identify the conventional claim/inference. 2. Critique it from an autaxic standpoint (show *why* it might be problematic or incomplete based on autaxys' principles). 3. Assertively offer the autaxic alternative/resolution, focusing on explaining the *observed phenomena* without necessarily reifying the controversial entities, if autaxys provides a more parsimonious or coherent account. 4. Maintain rigorous internal logic for autaxys' own claims in these areas. 5. **`LHL_ASO_META_014_AVOID_REPETITIVE_THEMATIC_TAGLINES`** (New, from "new way of seeing") * **Problem:** Overuse of a central thematic phrase (even from the work's title) as a concluding remark in multiple chapters becomes formulaic. * **Heuristic:** While thematic consistency is vital, the articulation of core themes should be varied across chapters. The *spirit* of the theme should be conveyed organically through the chapter's specific content and conclusion, rather than relying on a repeated tagline. ---