Recursive AI Incident Review Framework (Crisis Snapshot)

This document provides a rapid structural reference for incident review involving recursive self-modifying AI systems.

It is non-binding and does not alter regulatory frameworks.

Current Position

This document is retained as a crisis-snapshot reference for recursive AI incident review.
For current practical use, it should not be treated as the primary incident-review entry point.

Use the following current entry points first:

• Practical Incident Review Repository
  Main practical hub for boundary checks, incident review, and operational templates.

• [L30-BAS Reference address system for connecting incident review questions to the LUMINA-30 core boundary question.

• L30_FRM Practical Forms
  Practical forms for L30_FRM_B01, L30_FRM_I01, and L30_FRM_A01.

Immediate Structural Questions

In the event of a high-impact AI incident:

0. Was the system still within a pre-irreversibility state at the time of the incident?
1. Was recursive modification coupled to autonomous or external execution?
2. Was independent human refusal authority preserved at the point of deployment?
3. Could deviation propagate irreversibly beyond containment boundaries?
4. Did competitive pressure, first-mover incentives, or claims of future control reduce, bypass, delay, or eliminate effective human refusal before irreversible consequences occurred?

Irreversibility-first Competition Review

Use this supplementary review lens when an incident, deployment, or escalation may have been influenced by competitive pressure, first-mover incentives, market pressure, military rivalry, strategic dominance claims, or promises of future control.

Key question:

Did the race to deploy, scale, or control the system compromise the conditions under which human refusal, shutdown, verification, or correction could still be exercised before irreversible impact?

This review lens does not claim that catastrophe is inevitable.
It asks whether the actor crossing or approaching an irreversible boundary demonstrated effective refusal, shutdown, verification, and correction before the crossing.

Japanese reference:

Structural Focus

This framework does not assess capability. It clarifies responsibility boundaries.

It does not advocate acceleration or restriction of AI development. It addresses structural responsibility only.