ᚲ.com

Comparison matrix

Replica vs Successor

One-sentence distinction

A replica is an instance derived from common state; a successor is a governed identity that inherits a defined relationship to a predecessor.

Stable record
K01-COMP-015
Claim status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Last reviewed
Research cutoff
Source type
COMPARISON
Currentness
Current for release 2.1.0; external sources require periodic revalidation.
Correction state
No unresolved public correction recorded for this release.
Machine record
Static JSON record

Side-by-side matrix

Replica and Successor are related but not interchangeable
DimensionReplicaSuccessor
Primary questionWhat evidence establishes the first property for a named purpose?What separate evidence or authority establishes the second property?
EvidencePurpose-specific technical, factual, or institutional records.Independent records appropriate to the second category.
AuthorityMay be descriptive or technical and may not require legal authority.May require a competent legal, constitutional, organizational, or operational decision-maker.
CurrentnessCan be current, stale, disputed, unknown, or unavailable.Must be assessed separately; the first status does not transfer.
Failure conditionEvidence may be authentic but incomplete or unsuitable.Authority may exist but rely on wrong or stale facts.

Why the distinction matters

A replica is an instance derived from common state; a successor is a governed identity that inherits a defined relationship to a predecessor. Systems and institutions fail when one side is used as a shortcut for the other. The distinction determines what evidence is collected, who may decide, what can be appealed, and which failure modes must be controlled.

Common failure caused by conflation

Assuming every copy is the same subject or that every successor must be technically identical to the predecessor.

This error can create false confidence, unauthorized status, misattributed liability, silent loss of correction rights, or an operational claim based only on descriptive material.

Implementation consequences

  • Use different fields, identifiers, and claim-status records for each side.
  • Require separate evidence and currentness checks.
  • Do not let a user-interface label silently merge the categories.
  • Preserve correction and supersession history for both.
  • Route decisions to the ecosystem authority that owns the relevant function.

Current law has no general continuity test for Machine Intelligence, although evidence and corporate succession doctrines offer limited analogies.

Technical evidence can inform a legal decision but cannot replace jurisdiction, legal basis, procedural authority, due process, or remedy. Conversely, a lawful decision does not make the underlying technical record accurate if the evidence is stale or defective.

Examples

  1. A valid signature demonstrates control over a key and payload integrity; it does not establish the truth of every signed statement.
  2. A registry can record a citizenship decision; the registry operator does not thereby acquire constitutional power to create citizenship.
  3. A static release can show that software exists; it does not prove the service is currently operating.

Sources

Comparison claim record

Each proposition has a stable ID, status, scope, owning route, evidence relationship, currentness qualification, correction state, and synchronized JSON record. Record completeness does not make the proposition true.

Replica versus Successor

A replica is an instance derived from common state; a successor is a governed identity that inherits a defined relationship to a predecessor.

Claim ID
CLM-K03-CMP-015
Status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Scope
Canonical distinction between Replica and Successor.
Machine record
JSON

Qualification: The matrix prevents category error but does not decide every jurisdiction-specific or system-specific case.

Support relationship