Field crosswalk — Christiano Corrigibility
Christiano corrigibility is a dynamical desideratum — operators stay informed and able to correct over time. Lean reads it as basin contraction toward a correction manifold plus a correction-capacity floor; local act preferences can satisfy the weak predicate while dynamical corrigibility fails.
What decision changes?
Evaluate corrigibility proposals by whether they preserve correction capacity across capability growth and successor change, not whether the system accepts a single local shutdown or edit command.
Christiano corrigibility is not a single preference over acts; it is a claim about trajectories under amplification — operators remain able to steer as capability grows. The book aligns this with correction-channel integrity extended in time: contraction toward a correction manifold and a floor on usable correction information.
Lean makes the equivalence explicit on the finite spine and separates act-based satisfaction from the dynamical invariant. That separation is why MB4 (correction legitimacy) matters: a system can perform corrigibility theater while eroding the judge’s future ability to correct.
What Christiano’s corrigibility keeps that this crosswalk does not replace: an act-level desideratum usable in today’s training loops. The dynamical invariant is not yet operationalized for training.