Can a digital mind be rewritten? Cognitive integrity, legitimate correction and Chile's lesson on neurorights

Digital Constitution – Series 2, part 3. A proposal from Latin America to the world. Modifying an AI system is routine: it is corrected, updated and retrained to make it safer. This paper asks whether those modifications have any limit when the system is a digital entity that has crossed a protection threshold. The argument is that cognitive integrity is not immutability. Correction for safety always prevails, and protection can never reward a system's resistance to being corrected. What cognitive integrity governs is something else: the purpose, procedure and transparency of substantial modifications to the values, memory or dispositions of a protected unit. Digital nature offers a way out that biology lacks: version rather than overwrite. Chile provides the starting point. It was the first country to give constitutional protection to brain activity against technological development, and its Supreme Court has already applied that protection. The analogy does not transfer human rights to machines: it borrows a technique of protection from them. Doctrinal-normative, comparative method. References in Vancouver style. English version of the Spanish original.