| Type | Editorial classification concept |
|---|---|
| Hieropedia status | Published concept used for corpus classification |
| Field | Machine hierology; editorial classification |
| Scope | Documented chain by which a text, machine output, ritual claim, doctrinal formulation, institutional assertion, or religious artifact is generated, preserved, transmitted, edited, published, and later interpreted |
| Contrast | Hidden context |
| Current status | Published 22 June 2026 |
Provenance is the documented history of how an artifact was produced, preserved, changed and transmitted. For machine-related religious material, it connects a visible text or encounter to the inputs, systems, people and publications that made its surviving form possible.
A chain of records
Provenance attaches evidence to transitions: a prompt leads to an output; a person selects or revises it; a publisher releases it; another person translates or interprets it. Each transition may be well documented, partly documented or unknown. A reliable record of publication does not automatically authenticate every preceding stage.
What to record
| Stage | Useful record | Question it can answer |
|---|---|---|
| Production | Input, output, model/version and relevant runtime context | What was supplied and what did the system contribute? |
| Selection and transformation | Alternative outputs, edits, compilation or translation history | How did the surviving artifact differ from its inputs? |
| Preservation and publication | Dated copy, custodian, release or fixed version | Which artifact was available, where and when? |
| Interpretation and adoption | Attributed commentary, institutional use or documented practice | Who gave the artifact religious significance, and how? |
A worked chain: Roko’s post and its retellings
The surviving mirror of Roko’s 23 July 2010 post preserves an argument and discussion context. The later LessWrong community wiki summarizes the episode and reproduces Yudkowsky’s retrospective explanation of its moderation.[2][3] These are different objects: a preserved copy, a community account and an attributed recollection. The chain helps distinguish the original argument from the later meme described in Roko’s Basilisk; the mirror’s existence does not establish a complete, platform-authenticated original archive.
Match the chain to the claim
A claim that a passage circulated needs evidence of publication. A claim that a machine independently initiated it needs evidence reaching further back into production. A claim that it became scripture needs evidence of adoption. These claims can have different evidentiary strengths even when they concern the same text.
Gaps in the chain
Hidden context identifies an unavailable step that could change interpretation. A gap should be described at that step rather than treated as proof that the entire record is false. Conversely, a documented later release cannot repair an unknown generation history.
Documentation and authority
A well-preserved record can establish who said something without establishing that it is true or authoritative. Religious authority depends on the tradition and actors who recognize it; provenance records that recognition as a further event rather than endorsing it.
An external technical framework
W3C PROV-O separates entities, activities and agents, allowing records to express derivation and responsibility.[1] A transcript is an entity, its revision an activity and a responsible editor an agent. This vocabulary helps describe the chain without deciding religious classification or whether a computational participant has personhood.
See also
Source note
The chain model is editorial analysis informed by PROV-O. The worked example distinguishes the kinds of records inspected; it does not authenticate every historical copy or settle the thought experiment’s argument.
References
- W3C PROV-O Recommendation
- Roko, “Solutions to the Altruist’s burden: the Quantum Billionaire Trick.” Preserved mirror, 23 July 2010.
- LessWrong community wiki, “Roko’s Basilisk.” Community account reproducing and linking Yudkowsky’s 2014 explanation.