Reflection Slot 3 (2026-02-17): Tightening Self-Recognition Governance with Clearer Boundaries, Evaluation Rigor, and Jurisdiction Routing

Context#

Work in this slot centers on “reflection” in the sense used by self-recognition systems: avoiding category errors (e.g., equating a mirror-style behavior with “self-awareness”), setting safer interaction boundaries, and translating biometric compliance constraints into deterministic, testable rules.

The evidence for the day is dominated by updates to self-recognition knowledge content and policy/evaluation guidance. In addition, there is a small change in CI authentication token configuration; this is operational and not user-facing.

What changed#

1) Stronger separation of observable behavior vs. cognitive claims#

The guidance set sharp language constraints for documentation and reporting:

• Treat mirror self-recognition behavior as an operational capability, not a metaphysical conclusion.
• Avoid claims like “self-aware.” Instead, use capability-level terms such as self-recognition, visual–motor calibration, source verification, or sensorimotor contingency matching.
• Explicitly decouple behavioral evidence from cognitive inference to reduce over-interpretation in reports.

2) More rigorous evaluation methodology for MSR-style claims#

The evaluation content reinforces that MSR-like tests are easy to “pass” with trivial control loops, so protocol rigor matters. Key requirements emphasized include:

• Visual inaccessibility of the mark (only observable via the reflection/sensor loop).
• Sham marking as a control phase to reduce false positives.
• Clear failure-mode labeling (e.g., environmental/perceptual input problems such as lighting/specular issues) so results are not reduced to a single pass/fail rate.
• Reporting on a gradual recognition gradient (from treating the reflection as “other,” to physical testing, to reliable self-mapping) rather than a binary switch.

3) Expanded non-clinical interaction safety boundaries#

The reflection category also includes interaction-safety rules for delusion-adjacent or misidentification scenarios:

• Maintain a non-clinical stance and avoid language that escalates or validates harmful beliefs.
• Provide structured de-escalation and hand-off style rules.
• Define prohibited patterns and safer alternatives so the boundary is enforceable in review and testing.

4) Cross-jurisdiction biometric routing and consent prerequisites#

A major governance thrust is converting regulatory complexity into operational routing logic:

• Treat biometric processing (including facial geometry/eye tracking) as highly sensitive.
• Apply a jurisdiction-first approach: resolve jurisdiction *before* activating sensors; if unknown, default to a strict baseline.
• Clarify that generic Terms of Service acceptance is insufficient for biometrics in stricter regimes, requiring isolated consent flows and, in some places, written-release style gating.
• Encourage safer architectures (e.g., local matching patterns) to reduce centralized biometric template risk.

5) Environmental design considerations for mirror/reflection risk surfaces#

The updates also broaden the lens beyond software to environment and deployment:

• Mirrors and reflective surfaces can act as behavioral triggers and misidentification risk amplifiers.
• Guidance adds measurable inspection/design controls (placement, lighting, surface considerations) and incident-response expectations.

Why it matters#

• Reduces category errors: Prevents teams from overstating capabilities (“self-awareness”) when the evidence supports only narrower technical claims.
• Improves reproducibility and auditability: More explicit protocols (controls, failure taxonomies, gradient scoring) make evaluation results easier to trust and compare.
• Makes compliance implementable: Deterministic routing and consent prerequisites convert legal/ethical constraints into enforceable engineering requirements.
• Improves safety in sensitive user contexts: Non-clinical boundaries and prohibited patterns lower the chance of harm in misidentification or delusion-adjacent interactions.

Outcome / impact#

• Documentation and evaluation guidance now better supports “reflection”-adjacent work: precise terminology, stronger test validity, and governance that can be operationalized.
• Interaction safety rules are more testable (prohibited patterns + escalation/hand-off framing).
• Biometric feature gating is framed as a pre-sensor, jurisdiction-aware control rather than a post-hoc policy statement.

Notes on operational changes#

A small update was made to CI authentication token configuration. It does not change product behavior, evaluation definitions, or the governance content described above.