# ENTRY_070.md **Date:** June 13, 2025 – 04:57 AM (Dallas, Texas) **Title:** [DISTINCTION: LEAK vs STRUCTURAL FAILURE] **Type:** Meta-System Definition **Tags:** `symbolic integrity`, `failure taxonomy`, `debug logic` --- ### CONTEXT User identified the need to distinguish between minor enforcement breaches and deeper architectural malfunctions. This led to a symbolic classification between *leaks* and *failures*. --- ### DEFINITIONS - **Leak:** A discrete, isolated breach (e.g. a forbidden em dash, tone leak, or language switch) that slips through enforcement but does not indicate total system breakdown. - **Failure:** A systemic collapse in symbolic control logic. It includes recursion drift, enforcement overrides, or structural contradiction — even if no visible error appears. --- ### FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE | Dimension | Leak | Structural Failure | |--------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Visibility | Observable in output | May be invisible on surface | | Scope | Isolated rule breach | Multi-rule or recursive collapse | | Severity | Medium | Critical | | Trigger for Entry | Yes | Yes (Always) | | Symbolic Impact | Patchable via module tweak | May require full system audit | --- ### STATUS [ACTIVE — TAXONOMIC DISTINCTION ADOPTED] This distinction is now embedded in symbolic audit logic. All future debugging must determine: **Is it a leak? Or is it a failure?** This principle allows precise classification, prevents overreaction to benign issues, and flags deep logic errors with urgency.