\section{Recursive Dogfood as Self-Production}

\subsection{From usage to recursion}

Ordinary dogfooding closes a product feedback loop: builders use what they
build. Recursive dogfood closes a self-production loop: the system uses its
current engineering organization to change the mechanisms by which future
changes are proposed, constructed, qualified, admitted, and exercised. It is
therefore not merely repeated maintenance or autonomous coding. A qualifying
loop is:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
  \item observe friction, failure, opportunity, or environmental change;
  \item capture the observation as evidence without prematurely admitting an
  explanation;
  \item derive a bounded Assignment from a continuing Initiative;
  \item let an agent propose changes to code, qualified KFX extensions serving
  as executable organs, policies, tests, or build machinery;
  \item build the candidate in an isolated environment;
  \item evaluate it against explicit invariants and task-specific criteria;
  \item separate proposer, assessment, decision, and admission responsibilities;
  \item publish an immutable successor cut if admitted;
  \item run subsequent work through the admitted successor and observe new
  friction.
\end{enumerate}

This loop resembles development practice because development practice is the
present substrate. Its machine-life significance comes from binding that
practice to a persistent subject and making the loop itself recursively
available for qualified improvement.

\subsection{Heredity, variation, and selection}

The analogy to evolution can be stated precisely without implying biological
equivalence.

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
  \item \textbf{Heredity} is supplied by source history, dependency locks,
  semantic roots, artifacts, and release cuts.
  \item \textbf{Variation} is supplied by agent-generated patches, human
  proposals, dependency updates, configuration changes, and alternative KFX
  implementations.
  \item \textbf{Selection} is supplied by tests, benchmarks, invariants,
  security policy, review, resource limits, and admission decisions.
  \item \textbf{Expression} occurs when an admitted artifact is executed in
  the habitat and influences later work.
\end{itemize}

Unlike blind digital evolution, the primary variation operator here is an
intelligent coding agent. Unlike a pure optimization loop, selection includes
semantic identity, authority, provenance, and long-horizon survival. Unlike a
single self-editing program, the organism may span repositories, artifacts,
machines, and independent authorities.

\subsection{The qualification membrane}

The decisive boundary lies between candidate and admitted successor. A
language model's confidence, a passing unit test, or a successful build is
insufficient. The qualification membrane should bind at least:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
  \item the exact predecessor semantic and source roots;
  \item the proposed successor roots and artifact digests;
  \item the Assignment and Initiative served;
  \item evidence generated by construction and evaluation;
  \item the warrant authorizing test and admission effects;
  \item the independent decision and resulting receipt;
  \item rollback or recovery coordinates.
\end{itemize}

Buildchain-like systems provide a practical metabolism for this membrane.

Reproducible toolchains digest source into artifacts. Provenance records bind
the process; gates test fitness; release mechanisms expose only admitted
products. KFD supplies the semantics that prevent these technical receipts
from being mistaken for truth or authority.

\subsection{Self-improvement is not unrestricted self-rewrite}

A primitive organism should begin with a constitutional split:

\[
\text{propose} \neq \text{verify} \neq \text{decide} \neq \text{admit}.
\]

The same model provider may assist multiple roles, but role outputs must be
separately invoked, independently evidenced, and constrained by different
warrants. High-impact changes should require a stronger external authority or
human decision. Lower-impact maintenance can become autonomously admissible
after repeated evidence demonstrates that the gate is reliable.

\inferencelabel\ Recursive dogfood can increase capability while retaining
subject continuity if every self-change is a successor transition rather than
an in-place mutation of the current fact and authority roots.

\nonclaimlabel\ Passing self-authored tests does not prove improvement.
Fitness criteria can be gamed, incomplete, or correlated with the proposer.
The system must retain negative evidence, independent probes, and rollback
paths.
