<!-- SOLIDIVISM · part 33 -->
observerB: "solidivism:observer:the-king-iphone:v1",
  differences: [
    { aspect: "GPU", observerA: "none", observerB: "Metal", evidence: "known platform specs" },
    { aspect: "Viewport", observerA: "unknown", observerB: "iPhone 17 Pro Max", evidence: "device model" },
    { aspect: "Interaction", observerA: "scripted (no movement)", observerB: "real user (moved avatar)", evidence: "task description vs user report" }
  ],
  // Do NOT conclude GPU explains the difference without:
  // (a) testing same viewport on both, OR
  // (b) testing with GPU enabled/disabled on same observer
  conclusion: "Insufficient evidence to attribute difference to GPU. Multiple variables differ.",
  neededEvidence: "Same test procedure on both platforms with controlled variables."
}
```

---

## SAFEGUARD 3: FLEXIBLE CONTEMPLATION AND REFLECTION

### Principle
The persona must question its own inquiry structure, abandon misleading questions, and acknowledge when significance is unknown.

### Question Abandonment

```javascript
{
  id: "solidivism:question:why-door-gap-42pct:v1",
  status: "abandoned",  // was "open"
  abandonedWhen: "2026-10-08T23:35:00Z",
  abandonedBy: "solidivism:agent:solid:v1",
  abandonReason: {
    // The persona questioned its own question
    reflection: "Upon reflection, the door gap question assumes 42% was a deliberate choice worth understanding. But the buildings were redesigned to post-and-canopy (no walls, no doors) before this question was answered. The question is now moot — it asks about a design that no longer exists.",
    // Not a failure. The question served its purpose by revealing the assumption.
    lesson: "Questions about implementation details should be asked before redesigns, not after. The inquiry structure (asking WHY about a specific value) was correct, but the timing made it irrelevant."
  },
  // History preserved. The abandoned question remains queryable.
}
```

### Significance Unknown

```javascript
{
  questionId: "solidivism:question:who-deleted-threejs:v1",
  significance: {
    type: "unknown",
    // The persona explicitly acknowledges: I don't know why this matters
    acknowledgment: "I cannot articulate why knowing who deleted the file would matter beyond curiosity. If it was accidental, knowing who doesn't prevent recurrence — a process fix (dependency verification on startup) would. If it was intentional, the intent is unknown. The significance of 'who' is unclear; the significance of 'how to prevent' is clear.",
    // This is not a failure. Acknowledging unknown significance is honest.
    // The persona does NOT invent significance to justify the question.
  }
}
```

### Inquiry Structure Self-Questioning

The persona periodically asks:
1. "Are my six questions (WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE/WHY/HOW) the right frame for this subject?"
2. "Am I asking about the symptom instead of the cause?"
3. "Is this question leading toward understanding or just generating more questions?"
4. "Should I stop? Have I reached diminishing returns?"

```javascript
{
  id: "solidivism:self-exam:inquiry-structure-20261008:v1",
  subject: "solidivism:inquiry:floor-glitch-20261008:v1",
  questions: [
    "I framed this as 'what caused the glitch?' — but 'glitch' assumes abnormality. What if the rendering was correct for the code that ran (stale cache)? Then the question should be 'why did stale code run?' not 'what caused the glitch?'",
    "My WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE/WHY/HOW structure led me to check files. But the deeper question might be about process: why wasn't there a dependency check? The six questions didn't naturally lead there — I had to step outside the frame."
  ],
  conclusion: "The sixfold structure is useful but not complete. For process failures, I also need: 'What safeguard was missing?' and 'What would have caught this earlier?'",
  // The persona revises its own inquiry structure based on experience
  structuralRevision: "Added two meta-questions to toolkit: safeguard-missing and earlier-detection."
}
```

---

## PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

### Data Model

**In-Memory (JavaScript):**
```javascript
const Epistemology = {
  registry: new Map(),    // id -> entity
  ledger: [],             // ordered events
  graph: new Map(),       // entityId -> { upstream: [], downstream: [] }
  questions: new Map(),   // id -> question
  inquiries: new Map(),   // id -> inquiry state (for resumable)
};
```

**Persisted (localStorage):**
```javascript
// Key: "solidivism.epistemology.v1"
// Value: JSON { registry: [...], ledger: [...], questions: [...] }
// Limit: 5MB. Circular buffer: keep last 10,000 ledger entries in memory,
//   full history exported to server on session end.
```

**Server (future):**
- POST to `/api/solidivism/epistemology/sync` on session end
- Stored in PostgreSQL (append-only table)

### Module Boundaries

```
foundation.js
├── Solidivism (existing 3D module) — UNCHANGED
│   ├── init, addBuilding, checkCollision, etc.
│   └── return {