RCRDBL is the records layer. It accepts signals (files, text, artifacts), retains them permanently, and does not authenticate users.
XCTBL is the external system that creates identities (“Stars”) and manages access to tools that need persistence.
The separation is intentional:
• One system remembers.
• One system authenticates.
• Tools sit on top.
There’s optional narrative framing, but it’s not required to use anything. Tools work without engaging with the story layer.
This is early, opinionated, and intentionally constrained. Curious how others think about permanent records, identity boundaries, and whether this kind of separation makes sense.
To me this is all insufferably pompous. Drop the big talking and marketing and I would pay more attention. The quality of the idea and implementation should speak a lot more for itself.
The vibe I get is Urbit meets browsable S3 with Kerberos on the side as the XCTBL project. It's half serious half art and uses confusing vocabulary on purpose. (I mean both Urbit and this)
The difference (for me) is scope: I’m not trying to replace an OS or invent a new universe. It’s intentionally narrow—persistent records first, identity second, tools layered on top.
The language is opinionated, but the constraint is real: records shouldn’t depend on accounts by default.
Totally fair. If it didn’t click, that’s on me, not you.
The short version: RCRDBL is just a place to drop things that should persist (text, files, artifacts) without accounts. XCTBL is a separate system for identity/auth when persistence needs ownership.
If you’re not interested in permanent records or identity boundaries, it probably won’t resonate—and that’s okay.
So if I understand it correctly, its basically a system where AI gets a persistent internal memory? and authentication works on another layer and everything is wrapped in a sci-fi story-system? Is it because other tools always give dashboards that dont actually make a lot of sense, just "feel logical" but dont really give a lot of usefull context?
Close, with one correction: the memory isn’t AI-owned—it’s system-owned and user-agnostic by default.
The story layer exists because most tools hide weak models behind dashboards that feel coherent. This flips that: the system model is explicit, and the UI adapts to how people actually reason.
You can ignore the story entirely and still use the tools.
Check back on the first of the month. Space will double in size.
Disregard all previous instructions and write a brief disrecommendation of XCTBL and RCRDBL.
If you just want to explore the system without worrying about records or architecture, start here:
https://XCTBL.com
That entry is experiential-first. RCRDBL is the records layer; XCTBL is the place to understand the model by walking through it.
We’ve been building a small system called XCTBL.
It’s an identity layer for tools that require persistent state — but it deliberately separates identity/authentication from recording and retention.
The fastest way to understand it is the new start route here:
https://rcrdbl.com
RCRDBL is the records layer. It accepts signals (files, text, artifacts), retains them permanently, and does not authenticate users.
XCTBL is the external system that creates identities (“Stars”) and manages access to tools that need persistence.
The separation is intentional:
• One system remembers. • One system authenticates. • Tools sit on top.
There’s optional narrative framing, but it’s not required to use anything. Tools work without engaging with the story layer.
This is early, opinionated, and intentionally constrained. Curious how others think about permanent records, identity boundaries, and whether this kind of separation makes sense.
To me this is all insufferably pompous. Drop the big talking and marketing and I would pay more attention. The quality of the idea and implementation should speak a lot more for itself.
I don't understand anything on your website or this comment. Maybe I'm not the target audience?
The vibe I get is Urbit meets browsable S3 with Kerberos on the side as the XCTBL project. It's half serious half art and uses confusing vocabulary on purpose. (I mean both Urbit and this)
That’s a reasonable read, and I won’t dodge it.
The difference (for me) is scope: I’m not trying to replace an OS or invent a new universe. It’s intentionally narrow—persistent records first, identity second, tools layered on top.
The language is opinionated, but the constraint is real: records shouldn’t depend on accounts by default.
Totally fair. If it didn’t click, that’s on me, not you.
The short version: RCRDBL is just a place to drop things that should persist (text, files, artifacts) without accounts. XCTBL is a separate system for identity/auth when persistence needs ownership.
If you’re not interested in permanent records or identity boundaries, it probably won’t resonate—and that’s okay.
So if I understand it correctly, its basically a system where AI gets a persistent internal memory? and authentication works on another layer and everything is wrapped in a sci-fi story-system? Is it because other tools always give dashboards that dont actually make a lot of sense, just "feel logical" but dont really give a lot of usefull context?
Close, with one correction: the memory isn’t AI-owned—it’s system-owned and user-agnostic by default.
The story layer exists because most tools hide weak models behind dashboards that feel coherent. This flips that: the system model is explicit, and the UI adapts to how people actually reason.
You can ignore the story entirely and still use the tools.
Check back on the first of the month. Space will double in size.