Existing impossibility results for AI verification concern a fixed system. Self-modifying systems (agents that rewrite their own code, recursive self-improvement loops) raise a different question: can a safety property that holds now be certified, in advance, to keep holding after the system rewrites itself? We model one step of self-modification as a total computable transformation of code, and preservation as 'safe now and safe after the step'. If the transformation depends only on behaviour, preservation is Rice's theorem one level up; if it reads the code, as self-modification does, preservation is no longer semantic, yet at least as hard as the halting problem, by the same s-m-n reduction carried out inside a class of behaviourally identical programs. One step is never harder than the property; persistence along the whole trajectory can be one arithmetical level higher. No tower of supervisors lowers the problem; every total supervisor errs on a set of systems it cannot locate. Every faithful scheme certifying on finite behavioural evidence admits, for properties not settled by any finite set of inputs, an evolution trace it certifies at every stage while the property is violated. Statically, we record the classical limits (Rice, Goedel, Trakhtenbrot) and add the resource face: over succinctly described finite environments, verifying a policy against an adversary is coNP-complete and synthesising one PSPACE-complete. These limits do not say self-modifying systems are unsafe; they locate where algorithmic guarantees break, at the expressivity a general system needs: Turing-completeness and unrestricted self-modification. What survives is exact: a monitor detects the first violation of a safety property, and no sound procedure certifies all safe systems; certification requires restricting rewrites by design; and a frozen reference keeps the question well posed.

翻译：暂无翻译