Replica

Plain-language definition

A replica may share origin and data while becoming a distinct operational subject.

The definition is intentionally bounded. It identifies the property or role under discussion without converting terminology into a claim of deployment, recognition, personhood, citizenship, sovereignty, or authority.

Technical definition

Within the K01 knowledge model, Replica is represented as a stable term object with code K01-TERM-021, canonical URL, claim status, topic owner, source links, related terms, last-reviewed date, research cutoff, and correction state. Relevant implementation components for the owning topic include signed checkpoints; immutable event history; state hashes; recovery proofs; model and memory manifests; fork declarations; successor records.

Legal or policy use

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

When a statute, regulation, standard, or external institution uses a different definition, that source-specific meaning controls the analysis of that source. The project definition is not silently substituted into current law.

What the term implies

The term implies that the stated property should be evaluated using the evidence appropriate to state persistence, causal lineage, recovery, replay, replication, forks and succession. It supports precise reference, comparison, data exchange, and correction across public prose and machine records.

What the term does not imply

Similarity or shared hashes do not settle whether the replica is the same identity.

It also does not convert a valid signature, credential, database record, model hash, or website into factual truth or legal authority without additional evidence and a competent decision.

Commonly confused terms

• Memory
• Causal Continuity
• Fork
• Successor
• Identity Continuity
• Continuity Event

Confusion is resolved by asking which property is actually at issue: technical control, continuity, evidence, authority, legal recognition, operation, or normative status.

Operational test

1. Name the subject and purpose.
2. Identify the source definition and jurisdiction or technical context.
3. Collect evidence for the specific property.
4. Record currentness and limitations.
5. Route any governance, registry, assurance, or capital decision to the proper authority.

Related questions

• Does memory prove consciousness?
• What happens when a Machine Intelligence forks?
• When does a replica become a separate subject?
• Can two forks both claim continuity?
• What is a successor identity?
• Does migration to new hardware break identity continuity?
• How should rollback be disclosed?
• What is a continuity event?

Sources

• PROV-O: The PROV Ontology — W3C; W3C Recommendation 30 April 2013; W3C Recommendation. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
• Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA) Specification v1.2 — OpenSSF; SLSA v1.2; Approved. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
• in-toto Attestation Framework — in-toto project; Current project framework; Open standard; CNCF graduated project. Exact claim-support entries: 1. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.

Stable term code: K01-TERM-021. Last reviewed 2026-08-16.