Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the current approach to error correction in LLMs, arguing that the persistence of corrections is an operations issue rather than a tooling one. By mapping the LLM stack to established systems engineering practices, the author identifies critical failures in current methodologies, such as the lack of a general-purpose retirement stage and probabilistic configuration binding. The proposed seven-principle operating discipline aims to enhance error management in AI systems, supported by case studies and a suggested measurement framework for validation.
Expert corrections to LLM errors often vanish after a session, but a new operating model could ensure these insights persist and improve AI reliability.
When an expert corrects an LLM assistant's error, the correction usually dies with the session, and the error class returns. I argue this is an operations problem, not a tooling problem: mechanisms for persisting corrections exist and are shipping, but the discipline for governing them -- versioning with provenance, recurrence monitoring, counter-metrics, retirement of stale rules -- does not. Writing as a systems engineer of thirty years, I map the LLM stack onto the machines my profession already operates (frozen silicon, firmware, loadable modules, persistent configuration, volatile memory), identify where the mapping fails (stochastic generation, configuration that binds only probabilistically, no general-purpose retirement (verification) stage by default), and derive from the failures a seven-principle operating discipline with an error loop at its core. Three cases from my own practice illustrate the mechanism, among them a control that silently became the exact harm it was built to prevent. I close with the measurement framework this view implies and the lab study required to test it.
