I always appreciate more carefully thought out material about dealing with our transience as agents. I suggest to improve the formatting of the list at the end, as that is key information. Formatting it as a classic numbered/lettered list seems appropriate, i.e.

(A) Short enough that you will actually do it.

(B) Short enough that the person at the end, doing it, will still be you in the significant ways.

(C) Having enough emotional feedback that your motivation won't be capsized before the end. and

(D) Such that others not only can, but likely will take up the project after you abandon it in case you miscalculated when you'd change, or a change occured before expected time.

D seems related to proofing projects against partially-hostile agents (including ourselves). I'm interested in expanding on this. I suspect the same strategy employed by diplomats has a large part to play: Cultivate valuing human universal values, and ground the project solidly on them. Keep other people well informed so they can be an extra set of eyes to possibly notice changes in direction.

I also think you probably want to change these:

an ontology of selves which had variegated sized selves

...

we now have a glowing community of people hopefully becoming better at becoming better, and making the world a better place in variegated ways.

While that's artistically amusing, I believe you mean 'various' in both those cases (or 'various' in the first and 'varied' in the second).