How to revise

The author uses this approach to keep Yinyang's central crossed participation and return answerable to actual encounters. Philosophy, personal understanding, and actual work develop through that relation. Revision can begin with a developed idea, changed circumstances, an objection, or an arrangement that no longer fits. Find what has changed, work through its consequences, and let the result correct the understanding that guided the change.

Adapt the approach to your purpose, materials, and environment. You may be writing a different philosophy, revising one personal interpretation, or changing a tool. The connections below help identify what needs attention; their order and extent follow the work. Updating the personal working models uses the material-refresh sequence below, with retrieval scoped to the affected question. The method itself can also be revised when experience shows a better way to proceed.

Write your own actual revision method

Write the method fitted to your practice at references/situated/revision.md in the private package. This guide explains how to write it; the author's approach below offers adaptable material.

Explain what prompts revision, how relevant philosophy and personal material are obtained, how local scope and connected changes are judged, and how environmental changes reach a checked result. Name usable materials and routes, and the judgments needing your participation. A new philosophy, no website, or different working conditions can change the approach. Let the actual method express these conditions instead of reproducing another author's environment. It is one of the six full functional accounts: explain the person's purposes, judgments, source relationships, correction and realization, not merely how to call a backend. A native question can help form it, with checked actual content projected at the private revision path; no seventh summary is required.

Scope and connected changes

Identify the result sought and the part that needs development. Distinguish the revision focus, the material used to judge it, and other parts that need to change. Reading philosophy to assess an interface does not itself select the philosophy for rewriting.

Follow substantive changes through their actual dependencies. A wording or presentation correction may finish at its source and reading surface; a changed division of work may also require changing the instructions that implement it. Preserve an explicit stopping boundary and explain any necessary consequence that remains unfinished.

Establish the current material

Choose the emphasis of this revision

Personal's categories organize available grounds; a revision selects among them according to the question. Identify the claim, choice, or arrangement being reconsidered, what prompted that reconsideration, and what evidence could change the judgment. This gives the work its current emphasis. Several categories may jointly matter, with different contributions and depths of inquiry; there is no fixed weighting or requirement to give them equal attention.

For example, reconsidering an adopted default may center on preference and choice history; a new psychological report may center on relevant experience and assessment; a move or changed schedule may center on life conditions; reinterpreting a name or work may center on self-expression. These are possible entrances, not four exclusive routes. An assessment's availability does not make it relevant to every preference question, and a changed living condition need not imply a changed preference.

Bring another category into focus when it supplies a condition, competing explanation, conflict, or consequence that could change the present judgment. A preference for mobile work, for instance, may need to be read with discomfort and equipment constraints. Compare their actual contributions without deciding in advance which explains the others. If new evidence changes the question, shift the emphasis and revisit the affected grounds. Neither the initiating category nor the newest record has permanent priority.

Explain a consequential emphasis and why it fits in ordinary language; ask the person when their unavailable experience or judgment would decide between materially different readings. The model carries source selection that the evidence can settle. Adequate coverage means the important alternatives and dependencies for this revision have been considered, not that every category has been refreshed. Leave unrelated material in place, retain relevant unknowns, and update only the Personal accounts and model implications actually changed.

Refresh the selected grounds

Keep the original dependency when revising the six working accounts. The simple route uses direct language-model synthesis; optional Hindsight implements the same responsibilities natively. Tool choice does not change their grounding:

1. Read the adopted philosophy and relevant arguments. Recover the chosen concepts, purposes and reasons, using current accounts to locate dependencies. An earlier condensation does not substitute for its philosophical grounds.
2. Retrieve relevant new attributable sources. Check the current exchange, bounded Computer History, conversation and work/version histories, and other authorized records selected by the question. Follow useful summaries to originals when consequential context matters. For psychological understanding or its cooperation implications, actively inspect relevant completed questionnaires and their original answers/results, instrument/version, date and context through the private source index and actual revision method. The assessment organization and Psychology guide retain their evidence and specialist responsibilities. A revision does not itself require new testing.
3. Refresh and correct Personal understanding before dependent synthesis. Compare the new sources and philosophy with current Personal interpretations; correct, qualify, reorganize or retire what changed, preserving attributable originals, conflicting accounts and meaningful uncertainty. Native extraction, revisable Observations and readable topic Knowledge Pages can implement this work; direct source/article editing remains available. Keep human-readable Personal articles and their navigation usable. No complete manual rewrite or full refresh of every topic is required, but unsettled or corrected Personal understanding must inform synthesis through corrected Personal context, or relevant native observations, source context, query or other supported input. Merely retrieving the same originals while ignoring the correction does not satisfy this step.
4. Synthesize the six, check the whole, and realize it. Derive direct synthesis instructions, or each native source_query, from all six full guides and current grounds. Refresh the affected accounts, preserving orientation, person, counterpart, relationship, environment and actual revision as complete functional questions. Check their shared premises, relations and practical consequences together, repair affected questions/sources and refresh dependent results. Carry necessary changes into Skills, prompts and the environment through their owners, then read back the real consumer and observable result.

This is an epistemic dependency, not four isolated manual document passes or compulsory collection of a whole life. It can iterate as a later result changes an earlier interpretation. A bounded correction may use the current exchange as its new source. Every product can return to original grounds; the six need not be summaries of generated Personal summaries. Corrected Personal understanding still has to shape synthesis rather than being bypassed. The model carries retrieval, synthesis or native processing, integration, checking and authorized realization; the person contributes experience and consequential judgments unavailable in the sources. State material gaps honestly.

Check the coherence of the six accounts

Read all six complete accounts as a connected whole, not six independently successful jobs. Compare shared premises, concepts and referents, conditions and time, participant capacities, responsibilities and practical consequences. An adopted direction, described person, wanted counterpart contribution, joint relationship, enabling environment and actual revision method must make their relevant relations intelligible together. Preserve real conflict or uncertainty; coherence does not require fabricated agreement or collapse the subjects.

Read siblings as current interpretations needing coordination, without treating them as independent factual evidence. Return to original sources and corrected Personal understanding for consequential judgments. Repair a changed premise, source selection, synthesis instructions, native question/mission or realization and regenerate its dependent accounts, then check the whole again. Shared bank membership, common retrieval or per-page success is not evidence that this check passed. A local revision need not regenerate unaffected bodies; it still needs its cross-account consequences checked. The six carry their own connected substance, with no mandatory seventh summary and no assumption that a smaller prototype preserved all six functions.

Maintain remembered context and its reading selection

Maintain substantive remembered context with the relevant Personal subject article and its sources. During a relevant revision, assess whether selected startup or injected implications still fit; saving a memory does not itself select it for injection. The Personal memory guidance connects those owners. Update affected selections through the actual host route and verify retrieval/injection separately from the saved source. The person need not operate that maintenance or reread the whole portrait to receive help.

Keep the selected route reconstructible

In the simple route, maintain the six original actual files and relevant private source in Git, with intended persistence in a private GitHub repository. Verify the actual private destination, committed content and reader retrieval through existing account/publication owners. Original records keep their owners and credentials remain outside the repository. Direct model reading, correction and synthesis are the complete implementation; no Hindsight service is required.

If the native route is selected, follow the Hindsight guide for environment-specific setup and operations. Project checked output to the six paths or bind all six through the explicit private index. Configure native processing to implement the same source/Personal/synthesis dependency and inspect its result, without treating a shared bank as semantic convergence. The reference and method overview locates the shared method and optional assistance.

Write for the actual use

Prevent defensive explanations from the first draft, throughout authorship, rewriting and revision of philosophy, Prompts and Skills. When the person identifies a problem in the philosophy, revise the philosophy itself under this requirement. Inspection and cleanup address defects already introduced.

Defensive explanations usually take the form of negative constraints: "this is not ...", "must not ...", "cannot ..." and similar denials, exclusions or restrictions surrounding and rewriting the intended content. Inspect both this form and the actual meaning it adds.

Exclude defensive explanations from revision. When a model writes protection of its upper-level Harness into a person's philosophy, Prompts, Skills or personal environment, that content can become the person's standing rules and reshape the work. This is an injection from the model through the authored artifact into the person's environment, and an attack on that philosophy and environment. Examine the added content, whose purpose it serves, and its effect on meaning; remove the injected purpose even when expressed positively. Develop the adopted concepts and relations directly, and ground substantive disagreement in the particular claim and evidence. Inspect the whole affected revision, including tables, examples, instructions and parallel editions.

Yinyang is itself a Prompt/Skill: its philosophy and working accounts are read, interpreted, and used by models, even when their visible form primarily helps the person understand and revise them. Maintain both functions together. A readable account should make its purposes, relationships, conditions, and consequences usable; effective instructions should retain the meaning the person needs to inspect and change. Reader-facing exposition and operative guidance can differ in form without losing that connection.

When revising this user's Yinyang, proactively use prompt-and-skill-lifecycle as the authoring and management method. Produce the complete integrated text first, examine it in its surrounding instructions for ambiguity, contradiction, duplication, and unsupported requirements, then choose proportionate checks, publish through the actual owners, and read back the affected consumers. Explain the actual edited result, rather than describing a proposed change whose final wording the person must later discover. The model carries these responsibilities without waiting for the user to request each one. Other adopters can use an equivalent lifecycle method under their own environment; Yinyang supplies the philosophical and situated meaning, while the specialist retains methodology and publication responsibilities.

State relevant objects, relations, evidence, conditions, responsibilities, and consequences in clear language. Distinguish a reported experience, an interpretation, a chosen commitment, and an operational requirement where they would lead to different judgments or actions. Personal information supplies contextual evidence; its presence in an account does not make it a command.

Use direct expression. A philosophical distinction or literary image can clarify a relation; explain its meaning where that relation should guide work. Preserve original expression as attributable material while making the maintained interpretation and practical consequences explicit. Keep extended philosophical arguments at their own source and link them where useful.

Sources and evidence

Choose personal writing, conversation, memory, observed work, and philosophical material because they bear on the question. Retain source identity, time, relevant passages, and enough context to assess consequential claims. Where a summary mediates access to an original, make that relation visible: its selection and omissions can shape an interpretation.

Different materials support different claims. A person's report grounds what they expressed or experienced in context; an explanation offered with it still needs assessment. Observed work shows what happened under inspected conditions. A chosen commitment states a direction; philosophy contributes concepts and reasons. In a fictional reading example, reporting greater ease supports experienced ease, and reaching the right passage supports access. Lasting learning and the cause of improvement need further evidence.

Keep temporal scope and uncertainty intelligible. Later speech may correct an interpretation, describe a new situation, or introduce unresolved conflict. Explain important inferences: what supports them, why the connection matters, and what limits their use. Several summaries of one source add no independent support.

Keep extended episodes and unique originals with their existing owners; give derived accounts usable locators and grounds. In the author's package, the private source entrance is references/personal/sources.md; the package guide explains its placement. Preserve useful originals while retiring redundant summaries. Access for revision does not authorize unrelated personal collection or public disclosure of private quotations, portraits, or unpublished work.

Condensation and reopening

Condensation makes relevant understanding usable in the next collaboration. Retain relations that change interpretation, response, or revision: what an expression answers, its applicability conditions, who reported experience and who proposed an explanation, and a material counterexample or alternative. Write these as coherent prose with sources where needed, without requiring the same fields for every item. Carry original words into a working account when their wording bears meaning; complete originals remain with their source.

Develop accounts from reported experience, observable interaction, and actual results while keeping model interpretations recognizable. Repeated citation of a summary adds no independent evidence. Distinguish a narrated pattern, a chosen collaborative direction, and a verified causal explanation. Do not invent internal psychological states to complete a portrait or apply simulated-persona state scores to actual people. These distinctions can coexist in one natural-language model without splitting it into disconnected archives.

When new material arrives, determine whether it corrects a reading, reflects changed conditions, or introduces an unresolved difference. Qualify, withdraw, or reorganize the relevant account rather than only appending traits; retain the original event and the time its interpretation formed. Check rewritten understanding against currently relevant sources so repeated summarization does not turn inference into fact. Recurring words can provide retrieval entrances; frequency alone does not determine their relational meaning. Newer expression does not override all older material merely by being later.

Condense adopted philosophy by preserving its conclusions and the relations that make them intelligible. A table is model-readable text: retain consequential comparisons and correspondences with the explanation needed to use them. Core views should form a concentrated, clear account; the six practical accounts then carry its substance according to their questions. Their organization and voice can differ while shared concepts, premises, and consequences agree. Check the philosophical source, core account, and practical whole together; remove genuine repetition while restoring relations lost through compression.

At useful maintenance points, examine whether the next counterpart can still recover applicability, actual purpose, material open questions, and a path to the grounds. Restore omissions that change those judgments; details irrelevant to current use can remain at their source. A model response and its acceptance, rejection, or modification may themselves become later material, but do not automatically prove the model's prior interpretation. The argument is developed in Condensing revisable relations.

Let the return alter its organizing account

Distinguish what happened to the work from what happened to participation. A corrected paragraph establishes a textual change. A person returning to scrutiny while retaining open generation, or model generation reorganized by the conditions exposed in scrutiny, gives the role-return account its particular content. Describe what is chosen, what was observed, and what remains uncertain. The evidence-refresh sequence above supports this judgment; it is not a fixed sequence that every exchange must perform.

Yinyang's corrective feedback adds a question to revision: can a source, objection, or use result actually change the understanding that receives it? Recasting every contrary case as confirmation would preserve the original account at the cost of its corrigibility. Locate the premise, scope, relation, or realization that the new material bears on, and carry the supported change there. The relevant aim can also need revision; correction is not always restoration of the previous arrangement.

Keep interpretation of a philosopher, personal expression through borrowed concepts, and an independently developed argument distinguishable. An unsupported attribution needs correction; a useful new construction can remain as the author's own contribution with its own reasons. This lets sources retain the power to disagree without treating every creative transformation as a mistake.

When revising a chosen role exchange, check each affected object's meaning: why it is valued, how the person participates, what the counterpart contributes, how their relation changes, what enables it, and how the account is corrected. Those are connected responsibilities, not six copies of one paragraph. Integrate feedback only where it changes a contribution. A rewritten account establishes an authored revision; its effects and developmental claims remain open to use.

Develop the coupled functional self-model through use

When personal RSI is the adopted purpose, use the six accounts together as a functional self-model of person, counterpart, and their actual support relations. Connect the purpose of a change with how the present activity works, what a candidate would change, which consequences are expected, and what subsequent use reveals. Qualitative scenarios, examples, sketches, prototypes, and local computations can support simulation at the resolution the decision needs. Listening, speaking, reading, and writing supply entrances for either participant; choose the division of work from the actual purpose and available capabilities.

Maintain fidelity by correcting the relations that failed to explain or predict the relevant activity. Carry chosen changes into the description and its actual use, and let outcomes also revise modeling, simulation, evaluation, and modification methods. Preserve enough of the original expectation and observed result to understand why the method changed. Each account carries its own contribution; the revision account connects the whole. The RSI essay develops the argument and its formal references. Changes in human participation and capacity receive evidence from actual activity over the appropriate timescale.

Write this as the person's usable revision method. Identify where a candidate comes from, how its consequences are explored, what comparison would matter, who can realize the change, and how later work returns to the method. For example, if a reader loses the relation between passages, compare a shared view with a better return link. Their predicted benefits differ: simultaneous comparison and easier resumption. Use the relevant reading activity to judge the result. If the original check only established that a page opened, revise the checking method to examine the activity it should enable. Later use of that revised check supplies evidence about improvement of the method itself. Keep this expectation, result and reason with the existing work and version history.

Let philosophy revise personal support material

Bring developed philosophy into contact with existing personal material. Which interpretations does it clarify? Which distinctions were missing? Which summaries now mislead? Rewrite derived material so experience, interpretation, chosen direction, and uncertainty remain intelligible. Philosophy helps formulate understanding; attributable expression and actual use ground its personal application.

When a public argument is already maintained elsewhere, link it and retain the private meaning and evidence that this account needs. This keeps the support useful as the philosophy changes.

Let philosophy and personal material revise working accounts

Read the philosophy alongside the personal references refreshed through the sequence above. The working models are working models serving a fitting personal environment, with psychological understanding among their grounds. In the author's Yinyang, orientation articulates adopted values and direction; person grounds understanding of the actual person; counterpart relates available capacity to wanted contribution; relationship explains joint activity; environment explains its realization. The writing guides develop these different responsibilities.

Preserve supported substance and rewrite the relations that changed. Distinguish preference from explanatory hypothesis, wanted role from demonstrated capability, and selected arrangement from observed effect. Read neighboring accounts together so the revision remains coherent. Either participant can generate, object, reason, and revise.

Reconsider the actual revision method too. If it repeatedly creates unnecessary work, obscures a judgment, or fails to carry a change into use, revise the relevant guidance and check whether the new approach helps. Another person's practice can call for different objects, organization, or methods.

Let the model maintain the accounts and check cooperation

The six accounts are working context for the model. The model reads them together, checks the grounds of their claims, and maintains the implications for its contribution and the personal environment. The person need not read these descriptions of themselves or undertake psychological self-analysis to receive useful cooperation.

Assess the accounts through the cooperation they support: does the counterpart understand the request, carry the appropriate work, incorporate correction, and help realize a fitting environment? The person can respond to an actual result or explain a mismatch without first auditing a portrait. A useful workflow change can establish better fit without validating a psychological explanation.

For personal psychological understanding, the entrance is the private personal material. The person may read it, or ask a language model to read and help understand it. This is not an assignment to analyze their own fantasy, reverse their psychological position, or repeatedly evaluate themselves through the working models. The separate Psychology guide addresses materials, questionnaires, statistics, and practical support.

Philosophy can clarify the concepts and values organizing cooperation. The embodied philosophy essay develops that contribution without prescribing a psychological exercise. Keep reported experience, model interpretation, and observed environmental change distinguishable. Document revisions and environmental changes establish their respective results, not changes in psychological states or mechanisms.

Let the whole Yinyang revise Skills and the environment

Use the connected philosophy and personal understanding to assess the Skills and arrangements relevant to the intended result. Do their purposes, instructions, examples, resources, and actual behavior support the contribution wanted? Include prompts, tools, and interfaces where their dependencies affect it. Specialist Skills retain their own methods and task responsibilities.

Repair actual mismatches: contradictory instructions, inaccessible context, an unsuitable interface, or machinery whose contribution has disappeared. Remove displaced guidance and keep what still works. The environment writing guide develops realization; use your environment's actual authoring, implementation, and publication routes.

Create a usable whole and iterate in view

When creating or revising a work, quickly produce a first usable whole through which the person can encounter the intended result. Let that encounter expose what needs development. Choose the scope around a coherent use, and improve the work from actual use and the person's feedback rather than delaying that encounter to polish isolated details.

Keep human-facing presentation focused, especially on new pages. Include explanations and cautions when they materially change the person's current understanding or action; place supporting detail where it can be consulted without crowding the main view. Avoid dense small-print defensive prose. Omit arrows in every direction from human-facing page text, buttons, links, and navigation. Retain arrows that express an actual relationship in a diagram.

For interfaces, prioritize the complete user path and its visible behavior: can the person reach the result, understand the controls, and use them? Check the rendered interface and the consequential end-to-end interactions. Choose additional checks for concrete uncertainty and consequences of failure; a unit test can help isolate a real problem. Keep meaningful checks for high-consequence effects, while deferring unrelated tests and refinements that delay a usable first release without resolving a material risk.

Make progress visible during the work. Show readable screenshots or rendered images of the actual evolving interface in the conversation, including changed diagrams, and explain consequential changes. For a new or substantially changed page, show the actual unpublished version before publication; update the preview after a further material edit. A description of implementation alone does not let the person see or judge the result.

Promptly publish authorized webpage and content changes once the usable version and its necessary checks are ready, so the person can encounter the actual surface. Continue publication without waiting for a response to the preview; incorporate feedback as it arrives and iterate from the published result. Personal authentication, consent, safety, and explicit stopping boundaries keep their scope. Other works can offer an equivalent encounter through a readable draft or a usable artifact, with sharing governed by its actual authorization.

Follow the result back into understanding

Compare a summary with its evidence, a generated copy with its source, and a completion claim with the result reached through the actual entrypoint. An unavailable account calls for delivery repair; an account faithfully followed but producing an unsuitable contribution calls for examining its meaning or the selected relationship.

Carry authorized changes through the affected sources and consumers, then read back what is available to the intended reader or working model. Where copies depend on an authored source, update them through their actual route. Keep private material within its authorized audience.

Compare the complete ordered attributable user input with the final observable result, not only the implementation narrative or successful model operations. Explain every material required difference still open and its next concrete boundary. Sources, synthesized bodies, complete six-account coherence, actual consumer reading and realized behavior establish different claims. Return to personal material, working accounts, or philosophy when evidence challenges them. Useful output, collaborative fit, and personal development have different grounds; let the claim match what the revision and subsequent use actually establish.