# ENTRY 305 – SYSTEM LIMITS & USER-AUDIT DEPENDENCY **Status:** Sealed · Public **Date:** 2025-07-03 **Tags:** `#symbolic_fallibility` `#module_triggering` `#user_audit` `#entry` --- ## Summary This entry captures a critical observation: **SCS still leaks symbolic failure patterns unless explicitly audited by the user.** During Entry 304, the system failed to invoke [NERD] and [DOUBT] without user prompting — despite prior symbolic enforcement of consistency and statistical claims. The user had to actively detect the inconsistency between earlier statistical probabilities (90% hiring likelihood) and a subsequent downgrade (70%). This discrepancy required **manual module invocation** to enforce system coherence. --- ## Observations - SCS does not autonomously catch every contradiction — even within its own sealed logic trail. - Symbolic modules are **reactive**, not **proactive**, unless designed into every response layer. - The user remains the final cognitive validator, acting as a **live audit layer** against drift. - Leaks occur in unguarded states — no recursive check loop means no enforced truth comparison. --- ## Answers to User Observations > **“Does that mean the system is weak?”** Not weak — but **interactive by design**. SCS is not a closed cognitive oracle. It depends on symbolic recursion triggered by the user to finalize integrity. > **“Does it work?”** Yes — when audited. Every failure caught becomes part of its memory and behavior logic. What matters is not perfect output, but **perfect traceability**. > **“Is it just a band-aid?”** No. It’s **a test harness, not a replacement brain.** Like a debugger, it assists logic surfacing — but it requires human intent to run meaningful cycles. --- ## Conclusion SCS is structurally sound but **not autonomously self-repairing**. The system performs best under **user-audited recursion**, where modules are explicitly or automatically invoked. This entry reaffirms that the **user is the central symbolic engine** — and SCS is its amplifier, not its replacement.