Theoretical analysis demonstrates conditional performance advantages of separated learning lineages in artificial intelligence ecosystems, highlighting boundaries where shared models fail.
When an AI service must preserve still-required knowledge while adapting current behavior, role assignment alone does not determine how learning histories should differ. This paper studies the value of separately maintained, role-conditioned learned states under common information, resources and service obligations. L1 predicts a practical-margin crossing in selected differentiated-minus-shared performance across independently calibrated reference-conflict conditions. L2 tests two operative training-coordinate contributions. L3a calibrates useful exchange, while L3b tests differentiated updating under matched delivered evidence, distinguishing future-update effects from accumulated-history effects. A finite-update geometric example derives a conditional benefit despite an exactly representable shared solution and identifies remedies that remove it; an attainment bound states when its ideal margin survives finite learning. Contextual prediction and versioned routing workloads retain shared, hybrid, same-regime and archive-supported rivals. Development search, failed selection, transition work and two distinct timing choices - evidence capture and learning separation - remain explicit. External ablations and comparator, cost and metric contrasts constrain candidate explanations. The contribution is a conditional explanation and discriminating test program for learning organization. The paper reports no trained-system experiment, completed preregistration or established crossover. Note on Version 2.0: this version revises the registered v1.0 (about 9,600 to 13,400 words). It adds a finite-update mechanism with a shared solution and an attainment bound, a versioned routing service and a two-coordinate test recipe, a test of learning that persists after exchange, a secondary test of the shared-remedy explanation, and a section on external evidence, numerical gaps and testable bridges. No empirical result is claimed: the supporting archive records analytic design, inference, math, strengthening and external-bridge checks with their verification scripts, a consolidated review note, an edit log, a source lock, a validation record and SHA-256 checksums. Files: the v2.0 manuscript and that supporting archive. This manuscript is a scope-separated rewrite of the author's combined manuscript "Maintaining Reusable Attractor Maps in AI Ecosystems", which remains unpublished; some measurement and cost conventions are therefore shared with the companion paper. Companion paper: Maintaining Reusable Learning Maps in AI Ecosystems (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22722942). The paper derives from the author's broader Information Ecosystem Theory, which also remains unpublished at the time of this release.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bin Seol (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: