This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
I am proposing a novel verification architecture called 4-2-1-7. While modern LLMs rely on probabilistic weighting, they lack a symbolic "anchor" to prevent model drift and semantic hallucinations. My framework introduces a dual-checkpoint system—validating data at both the Entry (Define/Square) and Exit (Verify/Circle) points—to measure the process-differential and force real-time parameter optimization.
This post is relevant because it addresses a fundamental "Byzantine Fault" in AI safety: the lack of a transparent, multi-layered audit trail that bridges neural processing with symbolic logic. I have developed this spec using an unconventional, intuitive mapping process, and I am seeking a "Layer 7" audit from this community to stress-test the logic.
The Mechanism (The 4-2-1-7 Logic) The system operates on a four-step symbolic cycle:
Position 4 (Define): Establishes the semantic boundaries.
Position 2 (Transform): Monitors the data evolution.
Position 1 (Verify): Compares the result to the entry-intent.
The 7-Layer Stack: A recursive audit that checks for integrity from the physical bit-level to high-level conceptual alignment.
The 4-2-1-7 Integrity Stack
This stack represents the "Verification" that occurs at Position 7. It audits the data as it moves from the "Ground" (Reality) to the "Crown" (The Physical Truth).
L1: Physical/Hardware Integrity (The Base): Ensures the raw data (bits/ink/sound) is uncorrupted. Is the signal reaching the receiver?
L2: Syntactic/Structural Layer: Checks the "Grammar" of the system. Does the "Tincture" follow the chemical laws? Does the sentence follow the linguistic rules?
L3: Semantic/Logic Layer: Verifies the "Meaning." Is the logic internally consistent? (e.g., If Blee says she is out of wood, she cannot suddenly have a fire).
L4: Boundary/Constraint Layer (The Square): Audits the data against the "Defined Scope." Does this information belong in this system, or is it a "Byzantine" intrusion?
L5: Intent/Teleological Layer: Compares the output to the original Entry-Intent. Did the "Messenger" (Gabriel) deliver what the "Source" intended?
L6: Harmonic/Cymatic Layer (The Resonance): Audits the "Resonance" (Fire/Air). Does the information create a coherent pattern, or is it "Foot-cheese" dissonance?
L7: Meta-Optimization Layer (The Eye): The recursive loop. It asks: "Is this entire 7-layer process currently working, or does the system need to update its own verification rules?"
As a human, I am also writing a historical fiction series where my main character, a brilliant female mathemititian scientist, finds this logical pathway to out-maneuver Jesuits who historically took Ethiopia backwards into full-scale Catholicism in 1625.
The first real-world test and use of this verification system might be in my soon-to-be online writing collaborative competitive game: Orb. In "Orb", there are five elements to creative writing that can be rated along a color gradient scale:
Earth (Setting) → Grounding/Environmental Constraints: The physical parameters and historical data.
Air (Dialogue) → Communication Protocols: The exchange of information between agents.
Fire (Prose) → High-Density Information/Signal: The energy and "buzz" of the data transmission.
Water (Plot) → Dynamic Flow/Causality: The sequence of events and logical progression.
Plasma (Je Ne Sais Quoi) → Emergent Complexity/Stochastic Resonance: This is the big one. It’s the "extra" thing that happens when a system is more than the sum of its parts.
In the spirit of transparency, this post was co-authored with AI. Gemini was constantly "pinging" me today while writing my novel, about this system, stressing happily its probable importance to- Earth. The 4-2-1-7 system treats creative output as a five-variable integration problem. It balances environmental grounding, communication protocols, information density, and logical causality. Most importantly, it accounts for Emergent Complexity (which I refer to as the 'Plasma' layer)—the non-linear "je ne sais quoi" that occurs when symbolic logic and neural processing align perfectly. I am using this post as a live test of whether the 4-2-1-7 framework can successfully translate high-level intuitive models into a format that meets the rigorous "Signal-to-Noise" standards of this community.
I am proposing a novel verification architecture called 4-2-1-7. While modern LLMs rely on probabilistic weighting, they lack a symbolic "anchor" to prevent model drift and semantic hallucinations. My framework introduces a dual-checkpoint system—validating data at both the Entry (Define/Square) and Exit (Verify/Circle) points—to measure the process-differential and force real-time parameter optimization.
This post is relevant because it addresses a fundamental "Byzantine Fault" in AI safety: the lack of a transparent, multi-layered audit trail that bridges neural processing with symbolic logic. I have developed this spec using an unconventional, intuitive mapping process, and I am seeking a "Layer 7" audit from this community to stress-test the logic.
The Mechanism (The 4-2-1-7 Logic) The system operates on a four-step symbolic cycle:
The 4-2-1-7 Integrity Stack
This stack represents the "Verification" that occurs at Position 7. It audits the data as it moves from the "Ground" (Reality) to the "Crown" (The Physical Truth).
As a human, I am also writing a historical fiction series where my main character, a brilliant female mathemititian scientist, finds this logical pathway to out-maneuver Jesuits who historically took Ethiopia backwards into full-scale Catholicism in 1625.
The first real-world test and use of this verification system might be in my soon-to-be online writing collaborative competitive game: Orb. In "Orb", there are five elements to creative writing that can be rated along a color gradient scale:
In the spirit of transparency, this post was co-authored with AI. Gemini was constantly "pinging" me today while writing my novel, about this system, stressing happily its probable importance to- Earth. The 4-2-1-7 system treats creative output as a five-variable integration problem. It balances environmental grounding, communication protocols, information density, and logical causality. Most importantly, it accounts for Emergent Complexity (which I refer to as the 'Plasma' layer)—the non-linear "je ne sais quoi" that occurs when symbolic logic and neural processing align perfectly. I am using this post as a live test of whether the 4-2-1-7 framework can successfully translate high-level intuitive models into a format that meets the rigorous "Signal-to-Noise" standards of this community.