{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicctk24gylu6wg4q56iak5enmndbtzqcp37yrkpnaugua4twd6wi4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3moolr4bvy3n2"
  },
  "path": "/t/engineering-emergence-from-prompting-to-a-new-topological-discipline/176921#post_10",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-20T00:07:22.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "yw! I’m glad it was useful.\n\n* * *\n\nHstre’s comment also seems like a useful boundary line: PCE/SEP can test behavioral and representational stability under controlled conditions, while durable epistemic coherence may require a persistent claim/provenance/update state outside the prompt itself.\n\nSo maybe the clean split is:\n\n  * **PCE/SEP:** tests drift, contradiction handling, override resistance, correction behavior, over-refusal, unsafe compliance, and hidden-state trajectory differences.\n  * **Stateful epistemic architecture:** tracks claims, evidence, revisions, conflicts, authority, and audit history over time.\n\n\n\nThat distinction does not weaken PCE; it just keeps the experimental claim bounded.\n\nI’ll keep watching with interest.",
  "title": "Engineering Emergence: From Prompting to a New Topological Discipline?"
}