MB5 — Successor and Ontology-Shift Audit

Full transport plus bearer transport surviving an ontology shift are assumed to compose into successor safety.

What decision changes?

Before certifying a successor, ask whether the transport check spans the actual ontology change the successor introduces, not just the properties that were easy to measure.

Tiling agents and ontological crises name two versions of the same worry: can an agent trust a successor it cannot fully verify, and does a goal even survive when the world-model underneath it is rebuilt?

MB5 answers by composing two checks — full goal transport, and bearer transport specifically surviving the ontology shift — into a successor-safety conclusion. It is a genuine strengthening over “the successor says the right words,” but it is still a bridge: the composition is assumed to be sound, not derived from anything more basic.

The diagnostic evidence shows the gap this bridge needs to close in practice. A relabeled or discontinuous successor identity is invisible to light instrumentation and only becomes visible once the audit deliberately splits the epoch and probes across it.

What would count as evidence?

Evidence would include successor-transition audits that detect relabeling, epoch shifts, or identity discontinuities that a narrower check would miss.