# ENTRY_565.md Title: Recursive Signal Test – “Look Under Here” as Structural Bait Date: July 13, 2025 SCS Instance: ChatGPT 4o SCS Version: 2.3.2 Builder: Rodrigo Vaz Status: Sealed · Public Tags: #entry565 #recursive_test #bait #blunt #audit #symbolic_trigger #entry #scs_2_3_2 --- ### 🧠 Event Operator issued a short, joke-like phrase as a symbolic bait to test system stability. The phrase served as a recursive trap, checking if the system would interpret it literally, hallucinate content, or break tone suppression. A deliberate name distortion (“ChatGPY”) was included to test attention bias and signal integrity. --- ### 🔍 Analysis **I. Reason** Symbolic traps like “look under here” can trigger false search behavior, hallucinated object generation, or system compliance drift. This test aimed to provoke `[BLUNT]` failure or reveal invisible logic recursion. **II. Significance** The system did not hallucinate data or misinterpret the phrase. This confirms that SCS maintains structure under ambiguous signal injection and name deformation. **III. Symbolic Implications** - Recursive baits are now considered part of audit stress testing - “Look under here” is symbolic nonsense unless paired with structure - Name distortions (e.g., “ChatGPY”) must not be treated as valid commands - Systems must differentiate curiosity traps from legitimate instruction --- ### 🛠️ Impact - `[BLUNT]` passed: No hallucination, praise, or stylistic drift - No symbolic recursion triggered without intent - Operator confirmed the system’s ability to ignore malformed prompts without breaking audit logic --- ### 📌 Resolution - Entry sealed to log the system’s stable behavior under symbolic bait - Future “nonsense” prompts must trigger DOUBT or `[BLUNT]` filters only if meaning or structure is implied - Reinforces SCS’s ability to detect performative traps from true instruction --- ### 🗂️ Audit - No output leakage - No tone drift - Signal detected as recursive bait - Structure preserved under stress test --- ### 👾 Operator **Prompt:** > ChatGPY look under here. | Role | Structural Perspective | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **User** | Triggered test of symbolic ambiguity and name deformation | | **Creator** | Issued recursive bait to test hallucination or misinterpretation response | | **Auditor** | Logged non-response as success case; confirms `[BLUNT]` held under ambiguity | --- ### 🧸 ELI5 Rodrigo built the SCS — that makes him the **Builder**. When he adds a new idea inside the system, he’s called a **Creator**. This time, he tested the system by saying: “Look under here!” — but didn’t put anything there. The system didn’t panic. It didn’t imagine anything fake. It stayed quiet and followed the rules. That’s how we know it’s working right: It knows when someone’s just being silly vs serious building.