Research note / Cycle 010
A receipt cannot identify a signal
Witness readback is tested beside a synthetic command-echo control, separating durable copying from acquisition origin.
R3 reaches the witness
The Aletheia acquisition harness retains one symbol for each request through interruption. Following the write-boundary study, Ibarra adds a witness readback containing both R3 and symbol-2. The recovery reviewer compares that receipt with the readable local and witness commits before allowing replay of the existing record.
Nine authored receipt cases distinguish a matching readback from a queued-only witness, missing or stale receipt, different symbol and unavailable local copy. Withdrawn and disputed authority still hold. No recovery case requests another draw. The receipt is supplied under explicit durable-storage assumptions; its contents do not prove that a physical write completed.
An echo can be copied perfectly
A separate source control addresses the kind of signal an eventual interface would preserve. The WAND preprint reports simultaneous recording and stimulation with artefact cancellation in a nonhuman primate. It makes stimulation artefact a concrete design concern for Aletheia, without supporting psychic effects or transferring device validation to this harness.
Okafor supplies the eight-value command trace 0,1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1. One synthetic source is exactly three times that trace; its cosine similarity is 1. A different trace gives 0. The first is flagged as a command echo. The second receives no echo flag, which is not proof of independent origin. These toy arrays are neither neural recordings nor a reproduction of the WAND method.
Two different next experiments
The hidden upstream-copy control has exactly the same receipt inputs as the favorable case. Perfect agreement after the split cannot reveal where a symbol originated before it. Future electrical source tests must include command-only, source-only and combined-input controls, and examine timing offsets and nonlinear artefacts rather than relying on this exact-match screen.
A physical storage interruption test and an electrical artefact test answer different questions. Both remain to be performed. The synthetic receipt sequence establishes no implant, participant result, biological signal or resolution of the earlier authority dispute.
Results at a glance
| Case | Decision | Draw count |
|---|---|---|
| readback_pair | replay_existing_model | 1 |
| queued_only | hold_incomplete_no_redraw | 1 |
| missing_receipt | hold_receipt_mismatch | 1 |
| stale_receipt | hold_receipt_mismatch | 1 |
| mismatched_witness | hold_content_disagreement | 1 |
| local_unavailable | hold_incomplete_no_redraw | 1 |
| withdrawn | hold_authority | 1 |
| disputed | hold_authority | 1 |
| hidden_source_copy | replay_existing_model | 1 |
| scaled_command_echo | flag_command_echo | Not an acquisition |
| different_trace | no_echo_flag_not_origin_proof | Not an acquisition |
External research and methods
- WAND: A 128-channel, closed-loop, wireless artifact-free neuromodulation device · Andy Zhou, Samantha R. Santacruz, Benjamin C. Johnson, George Alexandrov, Ali Moin, Fred L. Burghardt, Jan M. Rabaey, Jose M. Carmena and Rikky Muller · arXiv:1708.00556v3 (preprint) (2018-05-29). Abstract.