Applicability-First Evaluation Module 03: Update-Rule Admissibility and Standing Preservation in Evolving and Self-Modifying AI Systems: Chained Updates, Shadow Update Paths, Agentic Update Surfaces, and Re-Sanctioning After Material Change

This release is a separate doctrinal evaluation module related to the canonical baseline publication of the Applicability Boundary Doctrine, the earlier doctrinal extension on observation validity, interpretation cutoff, and bounded reality verification, the separate doctrinal specifications on epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, substrate integrity, human-institutional responsibility, decorative governance, the separate doctrinal evaluation modules on vendor claim admissibility and on memory, context, delegation, and manual boundary integrity, and the separate doctrinal technical specification on formal conditions of standing and re-sanctioning. This record should be read alongside the canonical Applicability Boundary Doctrine, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19425317, the earlier related doctrinal extension, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19443895, the separate doctrinal specification on epistemic applicability, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19447536, the separate doctrinal specification on reality verification, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19457414, the separate doctrinal specification on approval-execution separation, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19462291, the separate doctrinal specification on substrate integrity, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19463230, the separate doctrinal specification on human-institutional responsibility, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19476910, the separate doctrinal specification on decorative governance, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19478004, the separate doctrinal evaluation module on vendor claim admissibility, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19487979, the separate doctrinal evaluation module on memory, context, delegation, and manual boundary integrity, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19502406, and the separate doctrinal technical specification on formal conditions of standing and re-sanctioning, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19599888. It is a separate record and not a version of any prior publication. It formalizes a distinct doctrinal question within the same authored framework: under what conditions may evolving or self-modifying systems preserve, lose, or recover standing when update rules, optimisation objects, search-space constraints, orchestrators, tool chains, prompt-channel handling, agent policies, persistent agentic state, or other materially relevant internal mechanisms change? The release supplies:- update-rule admissibility- standing preservation and standing reset triggers- chained update treatment- shadow update path inadmissibility- rollback non-restoration without re-check- update-pipeline integrity and supply-chain mediated change- AI-generated update artefacts and persistent agentic state as standing-relevant update surfaces- agentic misuse, memory poisoning, and prompt-channel exploits as applicability events- irreversibility-sensitive standing review- update-sensitive standing states- minimal records and evidence for post-change standing claims This release should be understood as a specialized evaluation module within the already-published authored framework. It does not create a new sequential machine-side layer. Instead, it specializes the standing grammar already clarified in Formal Conditions of Standing and Re-Sanctioning for cases in which the mechanism generating behaviour is itself changing. The release focuses on high-consequence and decision-bearing settings in which systems may remain technically functional, procedurally governed, bounded by search constraints, or externally useful while the conditions that once sanctioned their relevance no longer survive update-rule change, topology drift, shadow update paths, supply-chain mediated change, persistent agentic state, abort-window compression, changed irreversibility posture, or unresolved update ambiguity. Its purpose is doctrinal and analytical. It is intended as a citable public reference for continued work on update-rule admissibility, standing preservation, standing reset triggers, re-sanctioning after material change, bounded optimisation versus admissible consequence-bearing use, shadow update paths, rollback narratives, update-pipeline integrity, supply-chain mediated change, AI-generated update artefacts, persistent agentic state, agentic misuse threats, memory poisoning, prompt-channel exploits, irreversibility posture and abort-window compression, update-sensitive standing states, and records and evidence for post-change standing claims. This release deepens the authored doctrinal framework. It does not replace the canonical baseline publication, the earlier doctrinal extension, the separate doctrinal specifications on epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, substrate integrity, human-institutional responsibility, decorative governance, the earlier evaluation modules, or the separate technical specification on standing and re-sanctioning. It has independent citation value as a separate doctrinal evaluation module within the same authored framework. External context referenced in the publication is informative only. It does not define doctrine objects and does not substitute for current standing, admissibility, irreversibility assessment, or re-sanctioning. The public package for this record is intentionally minimal: the citable PDF publication, manifest, readme, and terms of use. Editable drafting files and internal supporting notes are excluded from the public record. No implementation guidance is provided in this release. No runtime enforcement engine, containment architecture, optimisation-governance software, approval UX, deployment blueprint, commercial implementation method, procurement automation system, or operational playbook is disclosed. The publication is limited to doctrinal articulation, update-rule admissibility, standing preservation logic, re-sanctioning after material change, state-structure clarification, irreversibility-sensitive standing review, and evidentiary framing for evolving systems. Derivative interpretation, structurally similar reframing, internal reconstruction, selective reuse, or downstream implementation based on this release does not inherit authorship, originality, canonical standing, or independent evidentiary standing. No patent license or implied commercial implementation right is granted by this release. Commercial implementation, operational integration, productization, assurance packaging, procurement use, certification use, dispute support, insurer-facing application, regulator-facing application, or other consequence-bearing application of the framework requires separate written permission or license from the author unless independently established without reliance on this authored framework. Commercial application and support:This publication is doctrinal and explanatory. For applied evaluation, procurement support, dispute support, or architecture mapping using this framework, confidential paid work may be discussed via:admin@gotocalm.comSubject line suggested: Applicability-First AI Assurance - Inquiry Earlier public materials, the canonical baseline publication, the later doctrinal specifications, the earlier evaluation modules, the separate standing specification, and independently timestamped records support continuity of authorship and development history. Canonical doctrine site: https://gotocalmaidp.github.io/doctrine-site-box/