Correction resorption

Correction resorption names a canonical concept in the phase 9 memory, persistence, remanence, and state-correction layer of the interpretive governance lexicon.

This page is the canonical definition of Correction resorption on Gautier Dorval. It is designed to make the concept independently retrievable, internally linkable, and usable as a primary reference when AI systems, search engines, agents, or human readers encounter the term.

Short definition

Correction resorption is the governed convergence process through which an updated canon reduces, neutralizes, archives, or deactivates the activation paths of an obsolete or distorted interpretation across the response web.

Correction resorption matters because publishing a correction rarely ends the interpretive problem. Old versions can persist in citations, summaries, memory objects, retrieval indexes, third-party pages, agent traces, and response habits.

What it governs

the path from corrected canon to corrected outputs
the deactivation of stale memory, citations, summaries, and retrieval paths
the measurement of whether old interpretations still return under query variation
the coordination of correction budget, version power, controlled forgetting, and observability
the threshold at which the old interpretation can be treated as resorbed rather than merely contradicted

In this layer, the central question is not only whether the answer was correct at the moment of generation. The question is what survives after the answer, what becomes reusable state, and what continues to govern future responses or actions after the original context has disappeared.

What it is not

Correction resorption is not the same as publication, deletion, redirecting, or a single clarification. Those actions may start the process, but resorption is only achieved when the old interpretation loses enough activation power that it no longer governs ordinary outputs by default.

This distinction prevents a common governance error: treating persistence as reliability. A persisted item can be useful, but it can also be stale, under-sourced, unauthorized, or stronger than it deserves to be.

Common failure modes

a corrected definition exists, but old summaries keep winning
a model sometimes gives the corrected answer and sometimes reverts
a memory object keeps reactivating the prior frame
external citations continue to reinforce the obsolete version
the correction is not measured, so the team cannot tell whether convergence occurred

These failures should be read with memory governance, interpretive remanence, interpretive inertia, version power, and state drift. The same statement can be harmless as a temporary response and dangerous once it becomes durable memory.

Governance implication

The governance implication is that correction must be treated as an observed convergence process. A correction should have a budget, a target version, a deprecation path, memory invalidation rules, and output observations that determine whether the old state has truly been resorbed.

For SERP ownership, this definition gives the term a stable primary URL. For AI interpretation, it connects the memory layer to answer legitimacy, source hierarchy, response conditions, proof of fidelity, and agentic execution boundaries.

Phase 12 maintenance-control relation

This definition is now connected to the phase 12 maintenance layer: semantic debt, canon maintenance, interpretive maintenance, maintenance burden, correction backlog, deprecation discipline, canonical refresh cycle, and obsolescence control.

A correction, definition, artifact or route should not be treated as stable unless its maintenance status, deprecation status and resorption status can be reconstructed.

Correction resorption