Use Add memory to fill the network past its capacity. Memories start to interfere and drop out. Then do the thing you are not supposed to do: Graft new neurons into it, live, while it is still working. It should come apart, explode, cause a flood... but it won't, and the memories it lost come back.
Starts undersized on purpose. Capacity is neuron count, not a tax for staying live.
Add until green cells start going amber, then red. That is interference, not a bug. Grow when it plateaus. Do not grow the instant a cell flickers — give it a moment to consolidate.
Each cell is one association the network has to hold at the same time: a key in, a value back. The network starts undersized so the budget is visible. Teaching continues the whole time. Nothing is pre-loaded.
Past that budget, adding one more makes the others interfere. Recall of older memories decays. That is the capacity law, live. Grow adds neurons to the running network. The original weights stay in place; new cells weave in; the set re-consolidates.
The tick on each cell is the target; the white dot is what the network answers now.
Network size is a design-time decision. Run short of capacity in the field and the fix is to train a bigger model and ship a replacement while the deployed unit waits or comes out of service.
The bound is what makes the surgery survivable. Grafting neurons into a live network injects new pathways into a state that is mid-flight. In an ordinary network nothing constrains where that goes: the perturbation is free to compound as training continues, which is divergence. Here the state and the weights are confined by construction, so a graft can cost recall for a moment — it does — but it cannot destabilize. That is why the old weights can be carried across untouched, bit for bit in the isolated graft, and why the same mechanism can add new input channels to a unit that never stops running.
Capacity is finite and measured. Extra neurons raise the budget because learning is additive below it. This is not a claim that size is free, or that a graft is instant.
Growth is also not monotonic: each graft perturbs what is already held, so repeatedly growing the moment a cell flickers lands worse than growing once and letting the set re-consolidate. More neurons is not automatically better. The claim is narrower and stranger — that the budget can be raised at all on a running, bounded network, without throwing away what it already holds.
Everywhere else, how many neurons you shipped is the end of the conversation. Here it is a number you can raise on a unit that is still running, without downtime, without divergence, and without discarding what it already knew.