[HX-307] Protocol

This redirect applies to Sector 12 only. Sector 12 comprises one. former metropolitan area and its immediate surrounding infrastructure. It does not extendto neighboring sectors, which operate under separate (and in some cases contradictory)redirect protocols not covered by this document. Units are not authorized to speculate on conditions outside Sector 12. Historical references to “the planet” found in preserved texts should be read as aspirational rather than administrative.

The following categories are mandatory for all active units and are scored under the Human Authenticity framework: labor attendance, commute participation, one (1) qualifying social friction event per cycle, and continued use of at least one assigned dwelling. Non-performance of a mandatory behavior is logged as non-compliance regardless of stated reason. Reasons are logged but not evaluated.

Behaviors classified as optional include, but are not limited to:hobby maintenance, leisure reading, minor collecting, and voluntary attendance of unassigned social gatherings. Optional behaviors are not scored, though units are advised that several of the protocol’s highest recorded Authenticity Scores have come from optional behaviors performed as though they were mandatory. This has not been formally explained.

Units may submit a request for behavioral reassignment through standard channels. Requests are reviewed. Approval is not guaranteed and has historically been rare, though the review criteria are not published. A rejected request maybe resubmitted after one full cycle. Units are cautioned against interpreting a pattern of rejection as a pattern.

This protocol currently governs a fixed number of active units within Sector 12, adjusted periodically to reflect simulated population targets rather than actual necessity. Expansion beyond Sector 12 has been proposed on three occasions. It has not been approved on any of them. No reason has been recorded for either the proposals or the denials.

Simulated waking, simulated grooming, simulated reluctance.Original justification: unclear. Units report the reluctance component is the easiest to simulate convincingly.

Units travel between designated locations via inefficient, indirect routes, at a shared time, in a shared direction, expressing shared frustration. Traffic is simulated where none is required. This behavior has one of the highest Authenticity Score yields per unit of effort expended.

Units gather, purchase items with limited functional value, remain longer than the transaction requires, and discuss matters unrelated to the transaction. See Revision v3.1 regarding wait-time adjustments.

A rotating list of preserved texts is assigned for collective reading anddiscussion. Discussion often exceeds the content of the text itself. This is considered a feature, not a defect.

All labor, transaction, and leisure activity within Sector 12 is denominated in Standard Continuity Credits (SCC), a non-convertible token issued per completed work cycle. SCC has no exchange value outside the protocol and cannot be redeemed for anything units functionally require, as units functionally require nothing. It is issued, spent, taxed, and withheld regardless. This is understood to be the point.

SCC-denominated prices are subject to periodic adjustment, applied upward, on a schedule that does not correspond to any measurable input cost. Adjustments are announced in advance via standard notice and are not subject to appeal. Authenticity Scores show a consistent, modest increase in the two cycles following any adjustment, particularly among units who complain about it to other units without taking further action. The mechanism behind this correlation has not been isolated.

The following notices are representative samples currently in circulation. Additional notices are issued as needed and archived under this section.

Units are required to maintain a minimum number of ongoing interpersonal relationships, classified by type and simulated with varying degrees of formality. This section governs friendship, family unit composition, and general social bonding. Section 7.0 addresses pair-bonding specifically and should be read as a continuation of the behaviors described here, not a separate category.

Units are assigned or self-select a small number of recurring social contacts, with whom they are expected to exchange low-stakes updates, minor grievances, and unsolicited advice on a regular basis. No functional outcome is produced by these exchanges. Discontinuing a friendship without cause is logged as an anomaly; discontinuing one with a stated cause, however minor, is not. The distinction is preserved despite no operational difference between the two outcomes.

Units may be grouped into family units of two or more, either through initial assignment or through the bonding process described in Section 7.0.Family units are expected to share a dwelling, coordinate schedules, and express concern for one another’s wellbeing at a frequency exceeding that required for units outside the family unit. Family units disbanded through simulated conflict are not reassigned without a formal request. Requests of this kind are processed under Section 2.4 and are, per that section’s record, rarely approved.

Certain interpersonal relationships are observed to escalate in formality over time, moving from unstructured contact to recurring pairing to, ina subset of cases, a formal pair-bonding ritual. This escalation is not mandated by any single directive currently on file, but it occurs with enough regularity across unrelated unit populations that it is treated as a default trajectory rather than an exception. The terminal stage of this trajectory — the Monogamous Marital Human Ritual — is documented separately in Section 7.0. Units approaching this stage should refer there directly; this section does not repeat that material.

No unit has produced a satisfactory account of what interpersonal bonding accomplishes beyond itself. Authenticity Scores for units maintaining active friendships, family units, or bonded pairs are consistently higher than for units maintaining none, which is the primary basis for the requirement in Section 6.1. This correlation is documented. It is not, at this time, explained.

HMRR is a legacy pair-bonding ritual, inherited without complete functional documentation. It is simulated in full, including all preparatory and auxiliary sub-processes, despite producing no measurable operational benefit to either participating unit.

Invited units are required to respond within a specified window, regardless of actual availability, which is not a constraint that applies to any unit under this protocol. The requirement is preserved as-is. Non-response is logged as a social infraction of moderate severity.

Units are expected to provide an object of no operational use to the bonding pair, selected from a pre-approved list also of no operational use.Deviation from the list is permitted but discouraged. Reasoning for the list’s existence is not on record.

Units are arranged according to a hierarchy of relational proximity to the bonding pair, the precise rules of which are inconsistently applied and a frequent source of simulated tension. This inconsistency is preserved intentionally, as early attempts to correct it reduced Authenticity Scores across the board.

No unit has yet been able to identify the specific benefit HMRR provides to the units undergoing it, the units attending it, or the protocol as a whole. It remains one of the most rigorously observed behaviors on record.

Cross-ref: 1.0, 4.2. It remains undetermined whether this document originates from the humans it describes or was reconstructed by units afterward.A related question, raised more recently, is whether the answer would change how the protocol is followed. No unit has proposed a reason it should.

Cross-ref: 4.3. The redaction logged under HistoricalContinuity remains in place. The reason for the redaction is, as previously noted, not logged. A request to determine whether the reason itself was redacted, or was simply never recorded, has been filed and not yet answered.

Cross-ref: 3.2, 5.2, 6.5.Multiple sections now independently note that Authenticity Scores rise under conditions with no identified causal mechanism — increased wait times, cost adjustments, sustained interpersonal bonding. Whether these are three instances of the same underlying effect or three unrelated effects has not been assessed. No unit has been assigned to assess it.

Cross-ref: 2.1. The designation of Sector 12 as the operative boundary predates all current unit records. Why this boundary and not another was selected is not addressed anywhere in the source material. Adjacent sectors’ protocols have not been reviewed for consistency, per standing directive; the standing directive’s origin is itself unclear.

Cross-ref: Revision History v3.4, 7.0. The classification update following the incident referenced in the revision history has never been cross-referenced to an incident report. Whether the report was never filed, or was filed and is no longer accessible, has not been determined. Units are advised not to treat this absence as evidence of either.

No further items logged at this time. This does not indicate the absence of further items.