164 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
164 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
# Future Schema Mechanisms
|
|
|
|
This note parks the useful pressure from `notes/evaluation.md` without treating
|
|
that critique as doctrine. The current v0 schema is still a character-state and
|
|
prompt-projection seam. The future runtime needs mechanisms that turn state into
|
|
changing social behavior.
|
|
|
|
## Current Boundary
|
|
|
|
The v0 agent-state schema should stay focused on:
|
|
|
|
- canonical character state
|
|
- directional relationship stance
|
|
- observer-local perceived overlays
|
|
- memories, goals, values, and scene-local dialogue packs
|
|
- enough event interpretation to support prompt projection
|
|
|
|
Do not inflate `schemas/agent-state.schema.json` into the whole simulator before
|
|
the projection examples prove what the runtime actually needs.
|
|
|
|
## Mechanisms To Preserve For Later
|
|
|
|
### Event Appraisal
|
|
|
|
Each participant needs a private read of the same event. A single exchange can
|
|
be betrayal to one agent, exposure risk to another, and flirting-with-knives to
|
|
a third. The current schema now allows `private_interpretations` on events as a
|
|
lightweight bridge.
|
|
|
|
Future work should make appraisal reusable enough to drive state updates,
|
|
memory retrieval, and action affordances.
|
|
|
|
### State Transitions And Consequences
|
|
|
|
`mean`, `plasticity`, and `current_activation` describe state. They do not yet
|
|
define how state changes. Future transition machinery needs:
|
|
|
|
- activation decay
|
|
- event-driven deltas
|
|
- sensitization or habituation
|
|
- effects on related variables
|
|
- rules for when `mean` changes versus only `current_activation`
|
|
|
|
The current `event_effects` field is a projection-facing placeholder, not the
|
|
final transition engine.
|
|
|
|
### Structured Beliefs And Secrets
|
|
|
|
String beliefs are useful for authoring, but simulation needs structure:
|
|
|
|
- holder
|
|
- subject
|
|
- claim type
|
|
- confidence
|
|
- evidence
|
|
- visibility
|
|
- emotional charge
|
|
- whether the belief is private, shared, public, rumor, false, or contested
|
|
|
|
Secrets need similar structure: owner, known-by, suspected-by, exposure cost,
|
|
protective strategies, and what can leak through action.
|
|
|
|
### Action Affordances
|
|
|
|
The system needs to choose among possible moves instead of jumping from state to
|
|
dialogue. Future projection examples should expose candidate affordances such
|
|
as probing, evading, bargaining, softening, escalating, repairing, threatening,
|
|
or walking away.
|
|
|
|
The important rule: affordances should be justified by goals, appraisals,
|
|
capabilities, costs, relationship stance, and scene pressure.
|
|
|
|
### Conversation State
|
|
|
|
Dialogue needs explicit continuity:
|
|
|
|
- active topic
|
|
- open questions
|
|
- evasions
|
|
- accusations
|
|
- face-threats
|
|
- commitments
|
|
- promises, refusals, and ruptures
|
|
- who has the floor
|
|
|
|
This belongs close to projection because it changes turn shape immediately.
|
|
|
|
### Resources And Capabilities
|
|
|
|
Cat's debt, taxi condition, mobility, and institutional exposure are not just
|
|
backstory. Oz's drone integrity, signal secrecy, anonymity, and physical safety
|
|
are not just flavor. Future schemas need concrete resource and capability
|
|
fields so desire does not masquerade as ability.
|
|
|
|
### Dyads And Shared Relationship History
|
|
|
|
Directional relationship stance should remain. A separate dyadic layer may also
|
|
be needed for shared history:
|
|
|
|
- relationship type
|
|
- phase
|
|
- shared events
|
|
- shared secrets
|
|
- unresolved ruptures
|
|
- rituals
|
|
- dependency structure
|
|
- communication pattern
|
|
|
|
Do not collapse this into one symmetric relationship object. People are not
|
|
that tidy unless the author is lying to save RAM.
|
|
|
|
### Social Knowledge, Reputation, And Institutions
|
|
|
|
The Aetheria setting needs institutions with teeth: sanctions, authority,
|
|
surveillance, reputation effects, access control, role expectations, and public
|
|
knowledge. Future work should distinguish private belief, shared belief, public
|
|
fact, rumor, common knowledge, and institutional record.
|
|
|
|
### Memory Retrieval
|
|
|
|
Memories need more than salience and confidence once the runtime starts moving:
|
|
|
|
- recency
|
|
- emotional charge
|
|
- retrieval triggers
|
|
- decay
|
|
- reconsolidation
|
|
- intrusive, avoided, cherished, rehearsed, or distorted status
|
|
- schema effects
|
|
- whether another agent knows the memory
|
|
|
|
The current memory bundle is enough for the first projection seam. It is not yet
|
|
the memory engine.
|
|
|
|
### Embodiment And Nonverbal Channels
|
|
|
|
Oz proves this one immediately. The operator, drone body, observable channels,
|
|
leakage risks, and physical affordances are separate facts. Future projection
|
|
needs embodiment because social meaning leaks through movement, timing,
|
|
silence, distance, posture, and constrained bodies.
|
|
|
|
The projected-local-context seam now carries a first embodiment/interface
|
|
surface, but the canonical schema still lacks a proper reusable embodiment
|
|
model. Future work should promote body form, native habitat, movement channels,
|
|
assistive or translation infrastructure, and visible nonverbal signal channels
|
|
only after more projection examples prove the required shape.
|
|
|
|
For Aetheria faction work, embodiment projection must check the lore vault
|
|
before writing. If the faction page supports only general habitat aesthetics or
|
|
social affordances, keep generated action at that level and record the missing
|
|
ergonomic detail as a source-lore gap instead of inventing a confident local
|
|
interface.
|
|
|
|
When a blocking gap is found, patch the AetheriaLore source before treating the
|
|
detail as available to projection. Ghostlight can discover missing granularity
|
|
through scene generation, but the lore vault should become the durable source of
|
|
the elaboration.
|
|
|
|
## Promotion Rule
|
|
|
|
Promote a future mechanism into the main schema only after it has survived at
|
|
least one reviewed projection example or runtime slice where it clearly changes
|
|
the output. Until then, document it here, test it in examples, and do not let
|
|
the ontology grow antlers for sport.
|