# Epistemic Hygiene > How the system detects when truth is decaying — and when review is required. ## Core Principle Epistemic hygiene is the practice of maintaining the integrity of shared truth over time. In ODD, **truth does not decay on a schedule**. It decays when signals appear: repeated failures, recurring confusion, enforcement friction, or undocumented authority. Time-based review is a weak proxy for these conditions and often creates ritual without insight. **Therefore, review is triggered by epistemic signals, not by time.** ## The Rule > Reviews are initiated when epistemic hygiene signals appear — not because a date has arrived. This rule applies to Canon evolution, validation standards, and governance decisions across the system. ## Epistemic Hygiene Signals The following signals indicate potential epistemic decay. Their presence invites review; they do not mandate outcomes. ### Repeated Validation Failures of the Same Pattern **Signal** The Validation Agent flags the same failure mode multiple times across independent attempts. **What this indicates** A rule may be under-specified, poorly surfaced, or misaligned with actual workflow. **Typical response** Review whether Canon should encode this constraint more explicitly or operationally. --- ### Repeated Librarian Lookups for the Same Rule **Signal** Users repeatedly ask where a rule lives or what it says, despite the rule existing. **What this indicates** The rule may be difficult to discover, poorly titled, or insufficiently internalized. **Typical response** Review headings, defaults, failure modes, or navigational affordances. --- ### Promotion Artifacts Accumulating Without Resolution **Signal** Multiple promotion artifacts remain proposed without acceptance, rejection, or deferral. **What this indicates** Learning is being captured but not integrated or consciously rejected. **Typical response** Force explicit decisions to avoid silent epistemic backlog. --- ### Canon Rules Requiring Frequent Explanation **Signal** Rules are frequently cited but require repeated clarification to apply correctly. **What this indicates** The rule may be correct in principle but incomplete in operational guidance. **Typical response** Review Defaults, Failure Modes, or Verification sections. --- ### Validator Friction Without Corresponding Learning **Signal** Validators repeatedly block progress and generate complaints without new insight. **What this indicates** Enforcement may be correct, but explanation or guidance is insufficient. **Typical response** Improve explanatory artifacts before weakening enforcement. --- ### Rules Without Documented Origin or Impact **Signal** A Canon rule is enforced but lacks a promotion artifact or documented rationale. **What this indicates** The rule risks becoming cargo-cult authority rather than evidence-based governance. **Typical response** Require retroactive documentation of origin, scope, and impact. --- ## What This Is Not Epistemic hygiene is explicitly **not**: - A review schedule - A service-level agreement - An automated trigger - A guarantee of change It grants permission to act when something smells wrong — not an obligation to change outcomes. ## Relationship to Other Systems - **Validation** surfaces repeated failures. - **Librarian** surfaces confusion and discoverability gaps. - **Promotion artifacts** capture learning and evidence. - **Humans** decide whether Canon should change. Epistemic hygiene preserves trust by ensuring that authority evolves only when reality demands it.