Add
Introduce a new distinction or capability when a persistent gap and expected gain justify its activation and maintenance cost.
LMRuntime.com / Teleodynamic-informed review
Idea Review Model
How LMRuntime classifies and reviews proposed structural changes through evidence, resource cost, review gates, structural operators, documented no-op outcomes, and human approval.
Teleodynamic-informed, human-controlled
Review the proposed change before promoting it.
This is a project governance model around LMRuntime work. It is not a claim that the runtime is conscious, autonomous, biologically alive, AGI, certified safe, or a proven live Teleodynamic system.
- Fast workClarify, reproduce, compare, and test within the current structure.
- Slow workChange durable architecture, memory, public claims, release posture, or policy only after review.
- AuthorityHuman review and project validation remain required before promotion.
Review flow
From proposal to documented outcome
Each stage can return a clarification request, route-elsewhere result, defer decision, or no-op.
- 01
Triage and source routing
Identify the affected LMRuntime surface, the idea type, and the authoritative source. Security and accessibility issues enter their dedicated boundaries first.
- 02
Evidence and trace
Separate observed behavior, reproduction, source evidence, expected result, actual result, interpretation, and uncertainty.
- 03
Resource and maintenance cost
Consider compute, memory, implementation, testing, documentation, human review, governance risk, and future maintenance.
- 04
Structural operator
Classify the proposal as Add, Retire, Merge, Reactivate, Freeze, or No-op.
- 05
Boundary review
Check security, privacy, licensing, public claims, cognitive-liberty limits, release status, and whether the proposal belongs to another project.
- 06
Human decision and validation
Approve a minimal reversible step, request evidence, defer, route elsewhere, or preserve the current state. Accepted work still requires implementation and tests.
- 07
Recorded disposition
Document what changed—or why nothing changed—plus evidence, authority, UTC date, follow-up gate, and exit condition.
Structural operators
Classify the action before discussing implementation.
Operator labels make the expected change and rollback burden explicit.
Retire
Remove or deprecate a low-utility or unsupported structure with a fallback and historical record.
Merge
Collapse redundant structures after assessing information loss, compatibility, and rollback.
Reactivate
Restore a retired path when new evidence and current resource feasibility support it.
Freeze
Hold a stable structure unchanged during evaluation, parity work, incident review, or release validation.
No-op
Preserve the current state when evidence, authority, scope, safety, budget, or release gates do not support change.
A first-class disposition
No-op is not rejection by default.
It can mean “not yet,” “insufficient evidence,” “outside this project,” “too costly for the expected gain,” “unsafe to widen,” or “preserve parity while evaluation continues.” A useful no-op records the reason, evidence gap, re-entry condition, and owner.
Epistemic firewalls
A proposal does not become canonical state by itself.
Keep these lanes separate until a reviewed project change explicitly connects them.
- Idea packet and correspondence
- Current source and deterministic runtime behavior
- Active `.uai` project memory
- Archive evidence and generated exports
- Public website claims
- Release artifacts and package availability
- External Teleodynamic theory or process material
Source authority
Teleodynamic material is process context, not LMRuntime authority.
LMRuntime can use bounded action, resource accounting, no-op dominance, evidence receipts, review gates, quarantine, and claim boundaries as governance concepts. LMRuntime-specific implementation and public claims still route to LMRuntime source, evidence, and owner review.