A Symbolic Crucible for Metaphysical Simulation

This prototype is a focused test-bed for core gameplay systems. It is intended to evaluate several key mechanisms in ATET: belief formation and transformation, the impact of internal state on perception, symbolic memory encoding, and the persistence of narrative consequences across distinct gameplay cycles. While small in scope, this scenario is designed to stress-test the systems that underpin emergent narrative coherence and simulate complex belief-driven behavior.

Scenario Summary: Shrine, Witness, and Symbol

An isolated Incarnation stumbles upon a dilapidated shrine nestled within a clearing characterized by an unsettling atmospheric ambiguity. The landscape is rendered based on variables tied to the Incarnation’s internal state. These include accumulated Eidos (symbolic memory fragments), internalized Faiths (belief systems), and inherited Fictions (cultural narratives from previous cycles or Tapestry defaults). These factors control a subjective interface layer that dynamically modulates the shrine’s audio-visual presentation—ranging from decayed and mundane to sacred or surreal—depending on the player character’s narrative and psychological profile.

In proximity to the structure, the Caretaker appears—a solitary, enigmatic NPC clad in ritual attire, who speaks in an oracular idiom combining poetics, liturgy, and myth. The Caretaker offers a Fictional account: “This is the place where the moon expired. Since then, the veins of the world have run dry.” This statement is not an objective datum, but a narrative payload modeled as a belief node. Each such node consists of a symbolic identifier, a source reference (e.g., Caretaker.Faith), an optional rhetorical expression (used in dialog delivery), and linkage metadata to define its interpretive context. Upon reception, the player’s BeliefStore evaluates this node for plausibility and resonance, modulated by the Incarnation’s current belief schema, Eidos fragments, and emotional state. This mechanism allows for belief propagation, mutation, or rejection, enabling emergent ideological evolution across playthroughs.

Presented with this scenario, the player—through their Incarnation—may choose from three core interventions:

1. Ritually enact the Caretaker’s prescription and participate in the shrine’s mythology
2. Deface or desecrate the structure, rejecting or rewriting its implied meaning
3. Disengage entirely, refusing to interpret, embodying apatheia or silent witness

Each action produces direct consequences for the simulation’s local logic, but more importantly, it encodes symbolic and emotional content into Eidos, which persists as a mutable cognitive artifact across subsequent lives. This memory may transmute over time, reflecting the interpretive drift inherent in layered experience.

Philosophical and Systemic Dimensions Under Evaluation

1. Subjective Interface: Perception as Semiotic Filter

• The appearance, resonance, and auditory signature of the shrine are mediated by the Incarnation’s psychological schema and metaphysical orientation.
• A rational empiricist may register nothing but broken stone and fungal overgrowth. A mystic may perceive radiant geometric patterns or the faint resonance of ancestral hymns. An Incarnation carrying unresolved trauma may see the shrine as a threatening ruin, its form grotesquely anthropomorphized.
• This mechanism tests whether the UI can meaningfully reflect internal states—transforming data display into a component of characterization.

2. Ideological Vectoring and Belief Plasticity

• The Caretaker’s narrative is not static lore but a potential seed for belief propagation.
• Depending on context, prior Eidos, and emotional state, the player may absorb the Fiction, reframe it, contest it, or nullify it entirely.
• The system must support cognitive dissonance, ideological layering, and reinterpretation across time: e.g., “The moon’s death” may evolve into a belief in sacrificial cosmogenesis or degrade into paranoid taboo.

3. Symbolic Memory as Mutable Substance

• Every meaningful engagement with the shrine produces an Eidos fragment: a structured memory object encoded at runtime through the MemoryStore subsystem. Each fragment includes fields for event_type, location_id, subjective_overlay (a perceptual snapshot), emotional_valence, motif_tag, and an optional list of belief_references and thread_linkages. These fragments are instantiated by a state machine that responds to symbolic triggers and agent actions. On recall, Eidos fragments may pass through a transformation layer, modulated by current beliefs or emotional state, which can mutate their content or recontextualize their symbolic weight. This mechanism enables layered memory recursion and belief-informed narrative reinterpretation.
• These fragments are not static records but living systems: when recalled, they may shift, deepen, or conflict with newer memories.
• Example: “Conducted ritual beneath decaying monolith. Felt sorrow. Saw flickering image of mother. Moon not dead—only lost.”

4. The Dialectic of Fact, Fiction, and Faith

• The shrine may contain clues to a prior non-mythic function—e.g., astronomical alignment, ancient data caches, or infrastructural remnants.
• Interpreting such clues introduces tension between empiricism (Fact), inherited cosmology (Faith), and narrative affect (Fiction).
• The system should permit both rational and mythopoetic interpretations to coexist or compete within the same cognitive framework.

5. Recursion and Echo Across Tapestries

• In subsequent runs, the shrine may recur—rebuilt, mythologized, demonized, or forgotten.
• The Incarnation may encounter dreams, symbols, or cultural practices that echo their prior decisions, distorted by generational reinterpretation.
• Examples include:
  • A holy order guarding a reconstructed shrine
  • A forbidden site marked by ancestral guilt
  • An NPC recalling a legend that subtly misquotes the player’s former actions

Entity Architecture and Simulation Interfaces

Incarnation (Player-Controlled Agent)

• Core Drives: Epistemic closure, symbolic recognition, metaphysical positioning
• MemoryStore: Eidos fragments accrued from lived experience
• BeliefStore: Compositional structure of nested or conflicting ideologies
• Interface Overlay: Dynamically shifting sensory and semantic filters informed by internal state

Shrine (Semiotic Locus)

• Material Parameters: Object ID, construction age, entropy state, spatial resonance field
• Symbolic Hooks: Interpretable motifs (e.g., crescent, flame, spiral)
• Truth Kernel (optional): Historical metadata, factual records, or anomalies
• Potential States: Revered, defiled, ignored, replicated, abandoned

Caretaker (Narrative Vector NPC)

• Faith Encoding: Stores and transmits core cosmological Fiction
• Behavior Model: Branching logic based on player choice and emotional resonance
• Rhetorical Apparatus: Symbolic lexicon that can be mimicked, mutated, or rejected by players

Player Action Vectors and Symbolic Effects

Perform Ritual

• Narrative Consequences:
  • Participates in local mythology; updates BeliefStore
  • May produce visions, omens, or UI overlays suggesting metaphysical rupture
  • High symbolic Eidos yield with reverential tone

Deface Shrine

• Narrative Consequences:
  • Enacts ideological rupture; introduces iconoclasm or nihilism
  • Alters memory state and future instantiations of the shrine
  • May induce NPC hostility or spiritual backlash

Disengage

• Narrative Consequences:
  • Refusal becomes symbolic in itself; creates lacuna in memory that may return as dream or hallucination
  • NPC may interpret silence variably—as transcendence, cowardice, or divine detachment

Eidos Fragment Schema

Rule Evaluation Engine

Type Signatures

// Eidos fragment structure
interface Eidos {
  location: string;
  event: string;
  subjective_overlay: string;
  valence: Emotion;
  belief_influence: string[];
  thread_link: string;
  motif: string;
  conflict_overlay?: ConflictLog[];
}
 
// Transformation rule
interface Rule {
  rule_id: string;
  trigger_motifs: string[];
  required_beliefs: string[];
  emotional_state_shift: [Emotion, Emotion];
  conflict_threshold: number;
  mutation: MutationSet;
  intent_domain: 'affirmation' | 'negation' | 'reinterpretation' | 'absorption';
}
 
// Mutation instruction set
interface MutationSet {
  subjective_overlay?: string;
  valence?: string;
  motif?: string;
  belief_influence?: string;
  thread_link?: string;
  bias_weight?: string;
}
 
// Conflict logging format
interface ConflictLog {
  rule_id: string;
  timestamp: number;
  suppressed_by: string;
}
 
// Evaluation context
interface RecallContext {
  beliefs: string[];
  emotional_state: Emotion;
  current_time: number;
}
 
type Emotion = 'reverence' | 'grief' | 'shame' | 'clarity' | 'wonder' | 'dread' | 'terror';

This engine governs the application of transformation rules when Eidos fragments are recalled. It ensures memory reinterpretation is context-sensitive, deterministic, and thematically coherent.

Stage 1: Fragment Recall Trigger

Invoked when symbolic cues (e.g. shrine revisit, dialog phrase, vision) trigger a memory:

function onRecall(fragment: Eidos): TransformedEidos

Stage 2: Candidate Rule Retrieval

Filters rules by matching:

• trigger_motifs
• required_beliefs
• emotional_state_shift

function filterApplicableRules(fragment: Eidos, beliefs: BeliefStore): Rule[]

Stage 3: Scoring and Ranking

Assigns dynamic priority scores:

function scoreRules(rules: Rule[], context: RecallContext): ScoredRule[]

Stage 4: Conflict Resolution

• Sorts rules
• Filters intent domains
• Logs suppressed rules

function resolveConflicts(scored: ScoredRule[]): Rule[]

Stage 5: Mutation Application

Applies mutation operators sequentially:

function applyMutations(fragment: Eidos, rules: Rule[]): Eidos

Stage 6: Logging and Output

Finalizes memory changes, records applied and latent rules:

function finalize(fragment: Eidos): TransformedEidos

Optional: Latent Mutation Layer

Stores suppressed but contextually relevant rules for potential future reactivation.

Hierarchical Resolution Strategy

When multiple transformation rules match a recalled Eidos fragment, the system evaluates them in a prioritized sequence to determine which rule(s) to apply. This strategy ensures determinism, thematic coherence, and conflict-aware memory evolution.

Stepwise Resolution Algorithm

1. Priority Score Computation
   Each rule is assigned a dynamic priority score at runtime:

   score = (match_weight × motif_match_count)
         + (belief_match_weight × required_beliefs_matched)
         + (valence_shift_weight × emotional_shift_alignment)
         + (bias_weight × conflict_threshold)
   

   Suggested default weights:

   • match_weight = 2.0
   • belief_match_weight = 1.5
   • valence_shift_weight = 1.2
   • bias_weight = 1.0

2. Rule Sorting
   Rules are sorted by descending score. If scores are equal, resolve by:

   • Recency of rule application (less recently used is preferred)
   • Specificity (more unique motifs preferred)
   • Lexical order of rule ID (as fallback)

3. Rule Category Filtering
   Each rule is tagged by its intent domain:

   • affirmation: reinforce existing memory interpretation
   • negation: contradict or nullify past memory
   • reinterpretation: shift meaning within a compatible framework
   • absorption: integrate conflicting or hybrid narratives

   If two rules are in conflict (e.g., affirmation vs. negation), the higher-priority rule is applied, and the other is logged.

4. Conflict Logging and Residuals
   Suppressed rules are recorded in the fragment’s conflict_overlay field:

   "conflict_overlay": [
     {
       "rule_id": "CaretakerVoidRejection",
       "timestamp": 432004.12,
       "suppressed_by": "MoonGriefMutation"
     }
   ]

5. Composite Application (Optional)
   If allow_composition = true, compatible rules may be applied sequentially when:

   • Their mutation targets do not conflict
   • Their intent domains are complementary (e.g., affirmation + reinterpretation)

Transformation Rule Format

Mutation Operator Functions

Each entry in the mutation object refers to a symbolic transformation applied to an Eidos fragment field at recall time. The supported operators include:

• Replace(target, substitute): Replaces a specific symbol, phrase, or token in a string field (e.g., subjective_overlay).
• override(value): Fully replaces the target field with the specified value. Used for categorical fields such as valence or event.
• append(tag): Adds a new element to a list-type field such as motif, belief_influence, or thread_link, ensuring no duplication.
• remove(tag): Removes the specified element from a list field if present.
• recontextualize(original, replacement): Modifies a symbolic reference or thread ID to reinterpret its thematic role (e.g., transforming a hopeful thread into a tragic variant).
• bias_weight(factor): Alters the internal weighting of the memory’s recall likelihood or intensity. Used for probabilistic memory surfacing.

These operators are applied in order and are evaluated only if the transformation rule’s preconditions are met.

{
  "trigger_motifs": ["lunar_fall"],
  "required_beliefs": ["Caretaker.Faith.MoonDeath"],
  "emotional_state_shift": ["reverence" => "grief"],
  "conflict_threshold": 0.7,
  "mutation": {
    "subjective_overlay": "Replace('warmth', 'chill')",
    "valence": "override('grief')",
    "motif": "append('abandonment')",
    "thread_link": "recontextualize('first_glimpse_of_truth', 'burial_of_light')"
  }
}

{
  "trigger_motifs": ["cleansing", "flame"],
  "required_beliefs": ["Incarnation.Faith.InnerPurity"],
  "emotional_state_shift": ["shame" => "clarity"],
  "conflict_threshold": 0.5,
  "mutation": {
    "subjective_overlay": "Replace('smoke', 'light')",
    "valence": "override('clarity')",
    "motif": "append('illumination')",
    "belief_influence": "append('Self.Forgiveness')"
  }
}

{
  "trigger_motifs": ["despair"],
  "required_beliefs": ["Caretaker.Faith.VoidReturn"],
  "emotional_state_shift": ["wonder" => "dread"],
  "conflict_threshold": 0.9,
  "mutation": {
    "subjective_overlay": "Replace('resonant silence', 'howling emptiness')",
    "valence": "override('terror')",
    "motif": "append('oblivion')",
    "bias_weight": "bias_weight(0.95)"
  }
}

Fields Defined

• trigger_motifs: Required motif tags for the rule to match.
• required_beliefs: List of belief identifiers that must be present.
• emotional_state_shift: Expected change in emotional context between writing and recall.
• conflict_threshold: Degree of dissonance (0.0–1.0) that activates memory mutation.
• mutation: Symbolic transformations applied to the fragment content.

{
  "location": "Shrine_Clearing",
  "event": "Performed Ritual",
  "subjective_overlay": "Soft moonlight, warmth, voice of ancestor",
  "valence": "reverence",
  "belief_influence": ["Caretaker.Faith.MoonDeath"],
  "thread_link": "first_glimpse_of_truth",
  "motif": "lunar_fall"
}

Note: Fragments are composable and recursive. Each recollection may result in narrative interpolation, mutation, or contradiction, driven by a transformation rule evaluated at recall-time. For instance, a fragment initially recorded as: “Felt warmth during ritual; remembered mother’s voice under moonlight” may be recalled after a traumatic event as: “The warmth was false; moonlight masked abandonment”. This transition is governed by a state-check on emotional valence, active beliefs, and whether conflicting fragments have been reinforced. The system compares fragment motifs and thread links to establish relevance, applies bias weighting, and mutates the content accordingly, allowing for recursive recontextualization of past meaning.

Mythic Sediment and Procedural Recurrence

The shrine’s symbolic echo may manifest across timelines in the following forms:

• Cultural Artifact: A new faith or ritual grows around the remembered act
• Psychic Residue: Recurring dreams, compulsive behaviors, or belief ghosts
• Material Reinstantiation: The shrine reappears with altered architecture, inscriptions, or effects
• Narrative Inversion: A later Incarnation seeks to reverse or undo what was done

Examples of Emergent Mythopoeia

• “The bloodless moon was awakened by a nameless child.”
• “In the clearing where silence broke, a voice called down fire.”

Evaluation Matrix

• Compact yet Symbolically Dense: Few entities, maximal interpretive affordances
• Philosophically Instructive: Directly engages with game’s metaphysical thesis
• Technically Diagnostic: Stresses systems for perception, belief dynamics, and narrative persistence
• Replayable in Intentional Mode: Each run tests divergent interpretive configurations

Summary of Technical Objectives

This prototype serves as a focused diagnostic scaffold for evaluating key subsystems of ATET. By isolating symbolic interaction, subjective perception, and recursive memory transformation within a controlled ritual encounter, the scenario validates:

• The expressiveness and reliability of subjective rendering logic based on player-state-driven filters.
• The correctness and flexibility of belief ingestion and propagation mechanisms, including layered ideological structures and emotional modulation.
• The robustness of Eidos memory schema, supporting mutable recall, state-based transformation, and inter-fragment linkage.
• The conflict-resolution capabilities of the rule evaluation engine, enabling context-sensitive reinterpretation and memory narrative drift.
• The system’s ability to support symbolic recurrence across cycles, forming the basis for emergent cultural sediment and personalized mythopoeia.

These capabilities form the semantic backbone of the simulation layer, and the technical insights gathered here will guide the expansion into more complex multi-agent, multi-threaded Tapestries.