#!RFC-AI/2;id=16;draft=4;v=0.4.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=685a2bbcee54186b1315f1a3e91c05daa2d5764a92cb5115e6e2c6857162a8e7
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 16 — INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY, EXPERIENCE, WISDOM AND LEARNING
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Preserve trustworthy learning without perpetuating mistakes. Corporate memory exists to improve future decisions, not to reintroduce superseded methods, retired findings or unsupported conclusions.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Promote evidence-backed lessons with context, applicability and supersession status. A newer worker should receive current usable wisdom, with historical material treated as research only.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: RFC-AI 3, 34 and the source-custody component. Investigate the complete relevant context before deciding what the assignment means (see RFC-AI 11). A competent worker may discover, invent and improve the necessary methods during implementation; this guiding AI RFC is not required to repeat low-level APIs, algorithms or technology choices. Previous and legacy systems are research evidence only, never an implementation of this draft.

4. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Use independent DAVG as described in RFC-AI 22 to challenge whether the eventual real-world result meets the objective, not whether the AI RFC looks like a traditional API specification. A missing prerequisite creates an active cross-worker recovery obligation through the worker coordination Interface, not a reason to abandon the task (RFC-AI 20 and 31). Report only verified effects and preserve lessons without reintroducing old operational mistakes.

5. DESIGN CUSTODY
Original subject-specific intended contract: Facts, experience, skill, lesson, wisdom, policy stored distinctly; provenance, applicability, counterexamples, review and promotion; accepted learning survives provider replacement without silently promoting inference to authority.
Implementation tasks, legacy-derived candidate methods, proposed data schemas, tests and open engineering questions are kept with this draft's append-only objectives.txt or the responsible Interface/Standard. This RFC has NOT been implemented; it does not approve a deployment or create a new CEO release gate. Rewritten 2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z.


## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION
Historical context: Repeated errors survived in historical records or stale instructions, and lessons were recopied without clear source authority or applicability.
Historical reports have mixed evidence quality; verify primary facts before adopting a claimed root cause. Preserve source provenance and do NOT operationalize retired legacy policies as current RFC authority.

## MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — CEO-DIRECTED PROPOSED FUTURE SYSTEM
MUST-16-01: MUST convert verified material lessons into current authoritative principles with observable prevention tests, not repeated inert notes.
MUST-16-02: MUST eliminate invalid, retired or superseded sources from active instructions promptly after verified dependency-free retirement; archive evidence only when retention obligations actually require it.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Entire RFC-AI system NOT IMPLEMENTED. Historical systems are independent past research material; no test or existing service may be counted as implementing this RFC-AI.

## DESIGN REVIEW ADDENDUM 2026-11-03 — EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM
REQ-AI-16-MEM-001: Store inherited lessons as source-labeled, evidence-graded references inside identity-specific Continuity, distinguish historical narrative from current confirmed outcomes, and re-evaluate applicability against independent present Context. Learned facts do not become operating permissions or a substitute for authenticated Assignment.