Self-Recognition Knowledge Expansion with CI Credential Hygiene Cleanup (2026-02-11)

Context#

This update combines two threads that frequently collide in real deployments: (1) expanding operational knowledge around self-recognition and mirror-related interaction risks, and (2) tightening CI credential hygiene so automation can safely support that expansion.

The evidence shows a sequence of changes centered on “self-recognition evolve” work, alongside a small but concrete edit to CI authentication token configuration.

What changed#

1) Self-recognition knowledge packs expanded#

A substantial set of newly generated/updated knowledge entries were added around self-recognition, with emphasis on:

• Evaluation rigor and methodology: Guidance to avoid category errors (e.g., distinguishing mirror self-recognition vs. broader claims), using structured protocols, and separating behavioral evidence from cognitive inference.
• Failure modes and test taxonomy: A consistent way to label and analyze why self-recognition-style evaluations fail (environmental/perceptual issues, protocol confounds), supporting more actionable debugging than a single pass/fail outcome.
• Operational playbooks for biometric/self-recognition workflows: End-to-end thinking spanning enrollment, matching/verification, error handling, appeals, and revocation, focusing on operational controls rather than only model performance.
• Cross-jurisdiction and compliance routing: Decisioning patterns that treat unknown jurisdiction as requiring stricter handling and that highlight consent/notice implications when biometric processing is involved.
• Design guidance for reflective-surface (“mirror”) risk mitigation: Practical environmental and interaction-design checklists (lighting, placement, reflective surfaces, wayfinding) so issues are prevented upstream rather than patched after misidentifications occur.

Notably, the knowledge base also includes library-classification-oriented context for arts/design and other domains, helping organize the material and making it easier to find relevant guidance when a workflow spans UX, operations, and policy.

2) CI credential hygiene adjustments#

A CI authentication token configuration file was modified with a small net change (equal insertions and deletions). While the exact token contents should not be surfaced, the intent is clear: refine how CI credentials are represented/managed to reduce risk and improve maintainability.

Why it matters#

• Reduces false confidence in “self-awareness” claims: The material explicitly reinforces that passing a mirror-style test is not the same as proving broad self-awareness, helping teams avoid overclaiming.
• Improves reproducibility and interpretability: Structured protocols, explicit phases, and failure-frame tagging increase the odds that two evaluations mean the same thing and that regressions are diagnosable.
• Brings deployment reality into scope: Operational playbooks (appeals, revocation, training, escalation) shift focus from “does it work in a demo” to “does it hold up in an organization with real users and real incidents.”
• Keeps the pipeline safer while it scales: Small credential-hygiene changes help ensure that the growing body of generated artifacts can be maintained without increasing credential exposure risk.

Outcome / impact#

• The self-recognition knowledge base is broader and more actionable, with stronger coverage of evaluation rigor, operational workflows, and environment/UX mitigations for reflection-related risks.
• CI authentication token handling was tightened via a small configuration change, supporting safer ongoing iteration.

Notes on scope#

This report reflects changes visible in the provided Git evidence for the specified date/category. It avoids exposing token details and focuses on the user-facing intent: more robust self-recognition guidance plus improved CI credential hygiene.