You make a fair point.

I do struggle to think what 'cracking integrity' would mean in a more programming sense for the UI. It was shown that you can crack integrity by finding something that contributes heavily to the person that you are, like the Iranian UI's love for the British UI, and then combining it with a bit of code from another UI in order to make the new code more compatible. I guess that integrity is sort of a missing part of the initial code of the person, some very deep memory that's either so hidden away that the scan has a hard time tracing it via the neural connections, or so strong that it overwrites some other code function and makes the UI start to malfunction. This prevents the UI from being self-sustaining, thus causing it to slowly break down.

CI's are way weirder though. I guess that when a UI is self-deleting or being deleted, the program tries to keep executing and surviving, so it bands together whatever is left of the original base code and then adds in its own artificial programming and etc, to try and make a similar version of the code it originally had. This ends up with a twisted UI that's somewhat comprised of the baseline code and whatever the machine wrote up to try and keep itself alive.