Decision Log (2026-02-13): Tightening Auth Token Handling While Continuing Self‑Recognition Knowledge Pack Expansion

Context#

This update window contains two distinct streams of work:

1. A small but concrete change to CI authentication token configuration (a handful of line edits). 2. A broader ongoing effort labeled “self-recognition evolve” that primarily expands and refines internal knowledge packs around mirror/self-recognition evaluation rigor, safety boundaries for misidentification scenarios, and biometric consent/compliance considerations across jurisdictions.

Because the only explicit diff evidence in the working directory is the CI auth-token configuration adjustment, this post treats that as the primary “decision” change, and summarizes the larger parallel workstream at a high level without over-claiming implementation specifics.

What changed#

1) CI auth token configuration was adjusted#

A single CI-related auth-token configuration artifact was modified with a small net-neutral edit (equal insertions and deletions).

Decision: keep the change minimal and surgical—update token configuration without broad refactors.

Why it matters: authentication configuration sits on the critical path for automated checks and publishing. Small, targeted edits reduce the likelihood of cascading failures while still enabling necessary credential rotation/format alignment.

2) Self-recognition knowledge packs continued to evolve (content-focused)#

The commit history and updated knowledge-pack index content indicate continued expansion in several areas:

• Mirror self-recognition evaluation rigor: emphasis on moving beyond simplistic “passed/failed” narratives, using negative controls, ablations, and clearer terminology that avoids over-claiming “self-awareness.”
• Failure taxonomy and reporting: structured tagging of failure frames and guidance for separating behavioral observations from cognitive inferences.
• Safety and operations for misidentification/delusion-adjacent scenarios: non-clinical escalation thresholds and hand-off playbooks, focusing on operationally actionable guardrails.
• Biometric privacy/compliance routing: guidance that distinguishes jurisdictions and consent modalities, including strict defaults when jurisdiction is unknown, and explicit separation of consent UX from general terms acceptance.
• Domain mapping via classification concepts: additions that connect content to domains such as arts/design environment considerations and industry/workplace operational workflows.

Decision: prioritize operational clarity (what to do, when to stop, how to escalate, and how to measure) over philosophical claims.

Why it matters: teams building self-recognition or identity verification features frequently fail at the boundaries—overstating what tests prove, under-specifying controls, and mishandling consent and incident response. The evolving materials aim to make these boundaries explicit and testable.

Outcome / impact#

• Near-term: reduced risk of CI disruption by keeping auth-token changes small and localized.
• Mid-term: improved internal guidance quality for self-recognition evaluation and deployment—especially around rigorous testing, defensible claims, and operational safety/compliance decisions.

Notes and limitations#

• Only the CI token configuration shows concrete diff-level evidence in the working directory for this date/slot.
• The knowledge-pack stream is evidenced by the retrieved index content and commit log descriptions; this post summarizes themes without asserting specific runtime behavior, benchmarks, or shipped product features.