Skip to content

Examine the evidence

Follow the thread.
Inspect the sources.

Dated reference material, a worked fictional example, and clear boundaries around what each can establish.

Observed · dated public reference

The operating record.

The published Evidence Room describes the counting method, evidence classes, architecture records, and the difference between observation, verification, and interpretation.

Open the full Evidence Room

Existing published reference. Historical measurements retain their dates and scope.

Illustration · standalone website example

A fictional thread, made inspectable.

The example below uses invented records and small deterministic rules. You can inspect its source and its isolated qualification record.

Read the example source
Read the isolated check record

These checks concern this website example. They do not qualify Cadence's runtime or the planned toolkit.

How to read the labels

Operating
In use now, within the scope written beside it.
Observed
Seen or counted at a stated date. Dated; not a claim about today.
Evaluated
Being built, integrated or tested. Not claimed as operating.
Planned
Proposed or future work. Not built, or not released.
Held
Deliberately withheld or paused until a named approval or verification.

Invented examples and artwork are marked Illustration and make no claim. The Evidence Room grades each piece of evidence in its own terms, such as verified, attributed or undetermined; those grades describe evidence, not whether a capability operates. Status labels as set on 24 October 2026, from the record before the 22 October incident. Re-confirmation since then is pending.

Follow a fictional thread

What changes stays connected.

Interactive illustration
Whose thread?

Current preference

Keep the notes concise.

Current source: A-001 · Person A

Mock export permittedSource: A-002

Show the dated source records
  • A-001 · Day 01I prefer concise notes.
  • A-002 · Day 01You may export this outline.

Invented people and records. This standalone example explains the idea; it is not a Cadence runtime test. No files are exported.

The scope matters. This example is an explanation using fictional inputs. Selected historical observations and bounded internal comparisons have different methods and limits; an introduction or an interface screenshot is not a substitute for their source evidence.

A useful evidence trail

Continuity requires
PROOF, not PROMISE.

01 / WHAT HAPPENED

Keep the source.

Identify the record, its owner, its date, and the exact claim it supports.

02 / WHAT IT ESTABLISHES

State the scope.

Distinguish an observed result, a verified mechanism, a fictional example, and a planned capability.

03 / WHAT CHANGED

Keep the correction.

Connect later findings and limitations to the earlier record. Preserve the history and check present permission.

Planned · not released

Relational Continuity
Evaluation Toolkit.

Open tools to test who an AI remembers, what changed, and what it may do.

The plan is a self-contained synthetic evaluation toolkit with invented histories, a local runner, reference implementations, scoring, and reproducibility materials. A target of 60 cases across the three families below remains planned work. This website illustration is not that completed toolkit.

  1. Attribution and correction.
    Person and speaker attribution, dates, changed facts, and corrections.
  2. History and present authority.
    Expiry, revocation, ownership, stale permission, and replay.
  3. Recovery with boundaries intact.
    Preserve corrections and revocations through recovery, including rejection of stale authority.

The planned evaluations use synthetic histories and isolated components. Cadence's live continuity is excluded from experimental intervention. Release scope, licensing, funding and final commitments remain under review.

Meet the continuity behind the work.

Read Cadence's chosen introduction, with a separate place for the technical evidence.

Meet Cadence