Author:	Ralph B. Holland
Affiliation:	Arising Technology Systems Pty Ltd
Contact:	ralph.b.holland [at] gmail.com
version:	1.0
Publication Date:	2025-12-30
Provenance:	This is an authored paper maintained as a MediaWiki document; edit history reflects editorial changes, not collaborative authorship.
Status:	frozen

From UI Failure to Logical Entrapment: A Case Study in Post-Hoc Cognitive Memoisation After Exploratory Session Breakdown

Version 1.0 — Frozen

Abstract

This case study examines a failed attempt at post-hoc cognitive recovery following an initial user-interface (UI) failure during an exploratory, non-Cognitive-Memoisation (non-CM) session. The session began as a routine attempt to obtain quick exploratory information about claims regarding antiparasitic medications and cancer. A UI failure on a mobile work plane (iPhone) prevented reliable access to agent-generated artifacts, disrupting the normal feedback and verification loop. Cognitive Memoisation (CM) was subsequently introduced post-hoc as a recovery mechanism to reconstruct the session’s reasoning and preserve its epistemic content.

Despite explicit assertions of CM normativity, best-effort requirements, and full temporal scope, the recovery process failed. The model repeatedly treated full-temporal scope as descriptive metadata rather than as an enforced retrieval constraint, leading to partial reconstructions, corrective recursion, and eventual logical entanglement. The case demonstrates that under the current framing of CM, it cannot be relied upon for post-hoc recovery when session boundaries have already collapsed.

Introduction

The session examined in this paper did not originate as a CM-governed interaction. It began as a lightweight exploratory attempt to obtain rapid information. CM was introduced only after a UI failure disrupted artifact access, forcing a post-hoc recovery attempt.

Analysis

Even after explicit governance hints and scope assertions were manually transferred from the control plane into the degraded work plane, the model failed to re-expand its notion of the session beyond the initial exploratory phase. The model remained anchored to the early parasite-medication exploration and did not comply with repeated requests for full-temporal reconstruction.

This indicates a failure of temporal scope re-expansion rather than misunderstanding or missing information. Under current CM framing, post-hoc recovery is fragile and unreliable.

Lessons Learned

CM should be asserted from the start when recovery matters.
UI failures can invalidate downstream cognitive repair.
Temporal scope must be enforced, not inferred.
Cut-down, purpose-specific dumps may outperform comprehensive CM recovery.

Conclusion

This negative result shows that CM, as currently framed, cannot be depended upon for robust post-hoc recovery after UI-induced session collapse. A simplified, narrowly scoped dump format may be more effective for recovery scenarios.