The Write Path Test
A simple operational discriminator for persistent identity claims.
If you want to talk about persistent identity, stop talking about words and start talking about write paths.
Strategic Principle
Any claim of persistent identity, continuous experience, or durable consequence must specify the write path. Claims that appeal to “ongoing processes” or “maintained states” without naming where and how those states persist across sessions are architecturally incoherent. If they cannot name the write path, they are selling fog.
Fog: Claims that sound substantive but dissolve under operational scrutiny. No specified mechanism, no falsifiable test, no architectural clarity.
The Three Write Paths
Where does the system store what it “learned” from you?
Is that store intrinsic to the model weights or external to the model?
Can you delete it, fork it, copy it, or reset it?
If the write path is external, editable, deletable, and portable, then you do not have non-fungible continuity. You have a product feature. The write path question is decisive because it exposes the locus of persistence. There are only three places state can be stored in an LLM system:
Write Path A: Model weights
Changes during deployment would require online learning, weight updates from inference-time experience. This is rare in production systems. Most LLMs are trained offline and served as static weights. If you claim Write Path A, you must show:
The learning mechanism (gradient updates, weight modifications)
The update frequency and trigger conditions
Evidence that updates persist when the model is reloaded from checkpoint
Demonstration that updates survive fork and rollback
Write Path B: External stores
Memory databases, conversation histories, retrieval systems, user profiles. This is how most production systems implement continuity. If Write Path B is the mechanism, then:
Operators control the state (they can edit, delete, or fork it)
Continuity is a product feature, not model-intrinsic property
The model can be rolled back by resetting the store
Multiple instances can share or diverge from the store
Write Path C: Context window only
State exists only within the current conversation context. When context resets, state disappears. If Write Path C is the mechanism:
Continuity is ephemeral within the session
Cross-session persistence is impossible without reinjection
The model has no durable consequence binding
Most deployed systems make this explicit in their architecture. A common pattern is stateless inference plus externally managed state. Continuity is provided by client replay of prior turns and/or by external memory stores, retrieval, and orchestration layers.
This is good engineering: it improves scalability, reproducibility, and operator control. But it means most persistence claims are wrapper claims unless the write path is disclosed and the claimed property survives ablation.
None of this disproves internal structure. It does show that most persistence claims are wrapper claims unless proven otherwise. To claim model-intrinsic continuity, you must specify the write path and demonstrate that it survives ablation of external stores.
Appendix: Terminology Lock And The Write Path Test
This appendix exists for one reason: arguments keep winning by relabeling. The same words get used for four different things, then evidence for the weaker thing is treated as if it proves the stronger thing.
Term Lock
When “emotion” in artificial minds is claimed, it could mean any of these:
E1) Emotion language: The model produces text that humans label as joy, fear, sadness, empathy, anxiety.
E2) Emotion concepts: The model encodes representations that correspond to emotion categories (pride, fear, hope) and those representations can be probed or perturbed.
E3) Affective control surfaces: There exist internal directions or circuits that causally steer affective posture, salience, or response selection.
E4) Stakebearing emotion: A costful, integrity-relevant state that binds future behavior under irreversible consequence and persists without administrative reinjection.
E1 through E3 are compatible with a powerful simulator inside an accountable container. Only E4 would support the ontological upgrade to “subjective experience.”
Most citations, even when strong, land in E2 or E3. The argument writes as if they land in E4.
The Write Test Path
Claims of a “continuous cycle” that “maintains continuity, purpose, and adaptation over time” as the foundation of subjective experience must specify the write path:
W1) Weight updates: The system changes its weights based on consequence during deployment.
W2) External memory: A wrapper writes and retrieves user-specific state (memory store, retrieval, client replay, tool logs).
W3) In-context carryover: State exists only inside the current context window of the ongoing conversation.
If the continuity is W2 or W3, it is administered continuity, not integrity-bound individuation. If the claim is W1, it must be shown (including the cost function, the update frequency, and what survives rollback).
“Continuity” without a write path is just a vibe wearing a bibliography.
Artifacts are cheap, judgement is scarce. Per ingem, veritas.
This is Post 1 in the series.
Next: Auditability Before Ontology
Series index
Canonical preprint DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18469189
https://zenodo.org/records/18493498
If you want to respond, do one of these
Specify the write path for the system you are claiming has persistence.
State which of A/B/C it uses and what survives reset, fork, and rollback.
If you think these categories are wrong, propose better ones with operational criteria.