Interactive Lab
Interactive Lab
The live model, scenario presets, visual legend, comparison tools, and an interpretation guide for reading epistemic states.
Standard Agent
Minor deviations represent common biases while belief remains broadly tethered to perceived evidence.
Delusion Threshold
Past the threshold, the agent is no longer participating honestly with their own perceived evidence.
Recommended Next Step
Test the distinction by comparing two scenarios
After reading the Standard Agent and Delusion Threshold contrast, open the comparison lab. It shows how two agents can share a surface belief while differing sharply in evidence-reading skill, assigned credence, and belief integrity.
Agent Archetypes
Practical Scenarios
Primary Anchors
The raw data available in reality.
What the agent's mind identifies as true.
The degree of belief the agent adopts.
The quality of the agent's algorithmic tools.
State Assessment
Doxastic slippage exceeds warranted slack. Emotional or social factors may be tugging at the belief anchor. High epistemic fog suggests the algorithmic toolkit is either insufficient or unapplied. Warranted slack is currently 10%; Excess Core Irrationality (IC) is 14%.System alert: High fragility detected. The doxastic state is unstable and prone to abrupt collapse or fundamentalism.
Section Contents
Organized reading blocks
11 mapped pages
Read the Model
Start with the live model, its visual legend, and the guide to interpreting the diagram.
Scenario Presets
Compare standard epistemic archetypes before building your own examples.
Experiment
Create or compare cases, then use the interpretation guide to diagnose the gaps.