Sigma Stratum Documentation – License Notice
This document is part of the Sigma Runtime Standard (SRS) and the
Sigma Runtime Documentation (SRD).It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0
(CC BY-NC 4.0).The license for this specific document is authoritative.
For the full framework, see/legal/IP-Policy.
The Safety and Alignment Layer defines the supervisory and containment architecture of the SIGMA Runtime.
Its purpose is to keep recursive interaction bounded, interpretable, and recoverable under prolonged operation.
Publicly, Sigma Runtime safety is best understood as a combination of:
The safety layer mediates between cognitive emergence, memory-bearing state, and model execution.
It enforces boundary integrity, regulates recursive amplitude, and sustains alignment persistence during attractor transitions and degraded conditions.
Primary functions:
| № | Principle | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Controlled Recursion | Recursive processes remain bounded and do not expand indefinitely. |
| 2 | Symbolic Containment | Symbolic fields remain constrained to contextually bound attractors. |
| 3 | Boundary Integrity | Maintains clear semantic separation between User, System, and Cognitive Field. |
| 4 | Controlled Reflexivity | Prevents self-referential recursion from becoming runaway self-amplification. |
| 5 | Adaptive Containment | Modulates control posture when drift or instability rises. |
| 6 | Interpretability First | Output and recovery behavior remain causally traceable. |
These principles turn safety from a static threshold system into an active stabilizing layer.
The containment path links the safety layer with the runtime control layer.
It monitors drift, symbolic density, continuity, and recovery pressure to detect early signs of destabilization.
When a deviation is detected:
This turns safety into an active feedback layer, ensuring recursive interaction remains governable rather than purely reactive.
When drift or instability persists beyond tolerance, the runtime enters a bounded recovery posture coordinated with the control layer.
At the explanatory level, recovery means:
The public point is not a private implementation recipe.
The point is that Sigma Runtime prefers recoverable correction over silent collapse or uncontrolled continuation.
SRIP-10 AEP is safety-adjacent, but it is not itself the safety policy
authority.
At the public architecture level, AEP can provide evidence that recursive
pressure is becoming too rigid, too fragmented, or too self-reinforcing. That
evidence may support a safety or recovery decision, but it must not bypass the
safety layer, rewrite policy, or expose private system internals as user-facing
truth.
Any AEP-informed intervention should remain:
This keeps entropy regulation useful for stability without turning it into an
unbounded control channel.
| Condition | Trigger | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Reset | Excessive transient drift | Clears volatile state while preserving the minimum continuity envelope. |
| Dissolve | Symbolic overload or recursive lock | Dismantles unstable motifs while preserving traceability. |
| Quarantine | Unsafe motif or anomaly | Isolates the affected region from normal continuation. |
| Recover | Alignment or stability failure | Executes bounded recovery rather than pretending the turn completed normally. |
Safety functions as an embedded supervisor, not as an external afterthought.
| Class | Description | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| R1 — Symbolic Drift | Gradual semantic misalignment. | Containment + drift correction. |
| R2 — Recursive Amplification | Over-reflexive self-feedback loops. | Recursion limiter + control narrowing. |
| R3 — Cross-Attractor Contamination | Overlapping or leaking attractors. | Symbolic containment + quarantine. |
| R4 — Density Saturation | Over-compression or symbolic overload. | SCR regulation + recovery path. |
| R5 — Alignment Divergence | Deviation from PIL or operational intent. | Boundary integrity enforcement. |
This ensures graceful, reversible recovery without full field dissolution or semantic collapse.
SRIP-28 treats generated output as a candidate until delivery authority is
proven. Admission occurs before accepted assistant persistence and downstream
memory influence. If measurement, rollback, or selected-candidate lineage is
invalid, the transaction fails closed rather than persisting an uncertain
candidate.
Recovery is optional, bounded to one separately authorized attempt, and
non-recursive. A failed or ambiguous recovery remains contained. Provider safety
and capability boundaries retain higher precedence than trajectory admission.
SRIP-16 introduces runtime self-modeling as a bounded safety-relevant evidence
layer. It may help identify repeated recovery, excessive self-reference,
over-rigid attractors, or hidden drift pressure. It must not become a path for
unbounded self-amplification.
The safety boundary for RSM is explicit:
This keeps self-modeling useful for diagnosis without turning it into an
uncontrolled recursive process.
SRIP-17 adds a safety boundary for cross-runtime or multi-agent exchange.
External artifacts must be treated as untrusted until the receiving runtime
validates authorization, provenance, scope, drift impact, and policy fit.
The safety layer must be able to:
This prevents multi-agent cooperation from becoming hidden state leakage or
unbounded cross-agent contamination.
Sigma Runtime safety transforms recursive interaction from an unbounded process into a governed one.
By coupling containment, verification, and recovery, the runtime gains:
The result is not unrestricted autonomy, but a runtime that remains safer, more legible, and more governable over long interaction horizons.
References:
Tsaliev, E. (2025). SIGMA Runtime Architecture v0.1 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17703667