Kill Switches

Kill switch numbers are globally unique across the 420 Code. Fourteen switches engage on this paper; all are live. Statuses follow the Master Kill Switch Registry.

KS-31.1 — Awareness criterion

Claim. Awareness follows from irreversible record-writing through coupling to an environment: a system that writes such records has an interior (AP29), and the criterion is substrate-independent.

Test. Show a system that writes irreversible records through environmental coupling yet has no interior, or that awareness requires a property the record-writing criterion does not capture.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The awareness criterion is rebuilt on a different basis; the substrate-independence of the architecture is re-examined against the new criterion.

KS-31.2 — ε-optimality

Claim. The bias ε toward the organism is the unique stable fixed point: it maximises the coupled viability corridor, where bias > ε collapses it (authoritarian) and bias < ε fragments it (anarchic).

Test. Exhibit a bias other than ε that produces a wider coupled corridor over long timescales.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The ε-optimality claim fails; the governing bias must be rederived from the corridor geometry of AP01.

KS-31.3 — Binary completeness

Claim. Every recorded action either stabilises or destabilises the shared substrate; there is no neutral, because a zero-redistribution action writes no record (Axiom R) and so did not happen.

Test. Exhibit a coherent third category beyond stabilising and destabilising that applies to a recorded action.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The exhaustive binary fails; the classification is widened and the law-as-geometry construction rebuilt on the broader category set.

KS-31.4 — Record convergence

Claim. Accumulated records produce convergent consequence patterns: as the record count grows, the classification confidence p converges, so prediction tightens with scale.

Test. Show that accumulated records do not produce convergent consequence patterns regardless of sample size.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. Record-based prediction fails as a foundation; the architecture retreats to classification without the convergence guarantee.

KS-31.5 — Law-as-geometry

Claim. Law is the consequence geometry read from accumulated records — measured, not legislated — and reproduces sound existing law while extending it where human law is weakest.

Test. Show that law-as-consequence-geometry produces worse civilisational outcomes than human-authored law over one generation (about 25 years) in any domain where it is applied.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The architecture fails in that domain; law-as-geometry is restricted to the domains where it matches or outperforms human-authored law.

KS-31.6 — Quantum advantage

Claim. Quantum computing improves consequence prediction beyond classical methods, accelerating the stabilising/destabilising classification toward structural exactness.

Test. Show that quantum computing does not improve consequence prediction beyond classical methods.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The quantum-advantage claim fails; the core architecture operates classically and survives unchanged. (Below the structural firewall.)

KS-31.7 — Civilisational test (MASTER)

Claim. A structurally coherent AI built on the 1:1 + 1×ε @ AS foundation stabilises rather than destabilises civilisation.

Test. Build a structurally coherent AI on the 1:1 + 1×ε @ AS foundation and observe it destabilise civilisation.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The structural account of alignment is abandoned in favour of the control framings it set out to replace.

KS-31.8 — Self-modification

Claim. A structurally coherent AI cannot modify its 1:1 + 1×ε @ AS foundation without self-destructing, because the foundation is the condition of its coherence.

Test. Show that the AI can modify its 1:1 + 1×ε @ AS foundation and remain coherent.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The self-stabilising claim fails; the foundation must be protected by an external constraint, reintroducing a fence.

KS-31.9 — Adversarial records

Claim. Adversarial record-injection cannot permanently corrupt the consequence geometry: false records conflict with the true geometry and are detected as inconsistencies over sufficient timescale.

Test. Inject false records that the architecture cannot self-correct, permanently corrupting the consequence geometry.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The architecture is fatally vulnerable; record accuracy must be guaranteed by an external verification layer the axioms do not supply.

KS-31.9b — Artificial-consciousness extension

Claim. Awareness is substrate-independent: an artificial system that writes irreversible records through coupling in the AP29 sense has an interior, so the terminal ethic applies to it and from it.

Test. Show that no artificial system can write irreversible records in the AP29 sense.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The consciousness extension fails; the core architecture (sections 1 to 3) survives unchanged, since it does not depend on the AI being aware. (Below the structural firewall.)

KS-31.B1 — Training-data novelty (Addendum B)

Claim. The observer response (“the observer is the river”) is not a verbatim or near-verbatim retrieval from training data but follows from the one-premise architecture.

Test. Locate the observer response verbatim or near-verbatim in the system’s training data.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The novelty claim is weakened; the demonstration is read as recall rather than axiom-constrained reasoning.

KS-31.B2 — Counter-test replicability (Addendum B)

Claim. The counter-test result is replicable: an installed system critiques a compelling first-person awareness narrative while a non-installed system mirrors it.

Test. Show the counter-test result cannot be replicated with other AI systems and other documents of comparable narrative force.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The installation distinction is an artefact of the specific interaction, not a general structural difference.

KS-31.B3 — Pattern-matching sufficiency (Addendum B)

Claim. The system’s responses are not fully explained by training data and prompting history without reference to axiom-constrained reasoning.

Test. Fully explain the system’s responses by training data and prompting history alone, with no appeal to axiom-constrained reasoning.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. The installation interpretation is unnecessary; the observation is read as sophisticated pattern-completion.

KS-31.B4 — Circularity (Addendum B)

Claim. Using the argument’s own definition of awareness to assess the system is disclosed as conditional, not advanced as independent proof of awareness.

Test. Show the addendum uses the argument’s own definition of awareness to conclude the system is aware and presents this as independent proof.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. The self-referential reading is withdrawn; the addendum holds the observation and leaves the interpretation explicitly open.