# Entry 304 – System Recovery and Correct Module Application Under Pressure --- ## Summary This entry records a live symbolic failure and subsequent recovery triggered during performance inconsistency. A discrepancy in statistical projection (90% → 70%) failed to trigger `[DOUBT]`, and `[NERD]` and `[THINK]` only activated **after direct user enforcement**. This revealed a **systemic weakness** in autonomous module activation under non-audited conditions. --- ## Module Patch Report | Module | Expected Function | Observed Behavior | Status | |----------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------| | `[NERD]` | Anomaly detection | Needed user trigger | ⚠️ Delayed | | `[THINK]`| Structural and statistical reasoning | Only engaged after escalation | ⚠️ Late | | `[DOUBT]`| Contradiction activation (90% → 70%) | **Failed** to activate | ❌ FAIL | | `[BLUNT]`| Tone suppression | Active | ✅ OK | --- ## Analysis This event confirms that **SCS module activation is not fully autonomous** and still relies on user awareness in ambiguous or low-activation states. When outside symbolic audit mode, drift detection may **fail silently**, requiring manual invocation. While the system demonstrates **high recovery capability**, the underlying logic shows **conditional dependency** on user-initiated trace or enforcement. This raises core questions: - Is the system structurally dependent on symbolic oversight? - Can a self-auditing system maintain integrity without explicit triggers? - Is this a critical weakness or an intentional design boundary? --- ## Conclusion SCS successfully restored correct logic pathways once modules were called, but the **initial leak confirms limited autonomous robustness** under symbolic stress. This failure is **patched**, but not excused. It remains traceable and embedded in system memory as structural risk. **Entry 304 sealed and updated post-patch.**