{"id":"reusable-paths-and-rigidity","title":"Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened","regions":["computation","representation","reflexivity"],"question":"How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?","formulation":"Treat memory as both a computational resource and a constraint: recurrent paths can be shortened, but exceptions, reverse paths, and opportunities for restructuring must remain accessible.","representations":[{"name":"A shortcut for a recurring path","affords":"Reduces repeated traversal.","loses":"May hide intermediate conditions and exceptions.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"A shortcut retaining its expansion and exceptions","affords":"Allows inspection and revision.","loses":"Uses storage and maintenance effort.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"The map that makes action fast can make revision difficult.","challenge":"What evidence triggers reopening a shortcut rather than fitting new cases into it?","development":"historical_branch","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity"],"next_move":{"text":"Test a learned shortcut on changed conditions, compare exception handling, and measure the cost of rebuilding it.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?","What evidence triggers reopening a shortcut rather than fitting new cases into it?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"cfe1d08aacf0ac668d1106661b9d8c4b8e1c3bb1a0b5548cc17e8c7275ad859a"}