Conflict: Rollout Entropy Floor vs Residue Persistence

Conflicting Claim IDs

Q-011
INV-006
ARC-011
MECH-056

Verbatim Excerpts (with preserved sources)

From docs/architecture/hippocampal_systems.md:

“Should REE enforce a non-zero rollout-diversity floor to prevent pathological trajectory collapse?”

From docs/invariants.md:

“Moral residue cannot be erased, only integrated.”

Why They Conflict (or What Would Reconcile Them)

Q-011 proposes forcing exploration diversity under repeated harm, while INV-006 and ARC-011 require preserving residue and genuine harm structure. The tension is whether entropy-floor interventions can restore option space without implicitly flattening residue or bypassing safety gating.

Reconciliation Question

Where should diversity restoration act (sampling, control-plane temperature, offline replay) so trajectory space reopens while residue remains intact and harm-relevant constraints stay authoritative?

Status

Resolved on 2026-02-18.

Resolution summary:

Diversity restoration is allowed at pre-commit sampling/replay scheduling and offline recovery.
Residue geometry and post-commit harm traces remain non-erasable and authoritative.
Entropy-floor controls are anti-collapse guards, not residue-flattening operations.

Resolution note:

docs/conflicts/resolutions/2026-02-18_rollout-entropy-floor-vs-residue-persistence.md