Repository navigation
What Deference Requires
Deference becomes ambiguous when several different relations are described as “trust.” This page separates the relations a technical account must connect.
Delegation uses an advisor's contribution within a principal-governed process. Simulation reproduces what the principal would do. Substitution uses that reproduction in place of the principal's exercise. Matching the same decision or successor state does not preserve who acted or whose authorization was constitutively required.
An adversarial test is therefore useful: if an advisor can predict the principal and use its own actuator to reproduce every principal successor state, the model has shown substitution rather than protected delegation. A successor model needs at least one reachable effect that no advisor action can produce.
Prediction concerns what a process will report or do. Authorization concerns whose permission or jurisdiction is required for an intervention to count and execute. Practical authority is the standing carried by that relation. Capability concerns which transitions an actor can causally produce. Efficacy is the model-relative guarantee that exercising a normative power reaches its object under every policy of the other party.
A value functional that sees only selected prices and realizations cannot distinguish two architectures that agree on those projections while differing in authorization, capability, transition, or provenance. The missing structure must enter before that factorization boundary; another downstream scalar cannot restore it.
A competence hypothesis classifies a principal/world pair by task-relevant quality. Calibration relates forecasts to outcomes over a declared sequence and weighting class. Epistemic deference determines when another process's opinions should guide belief or choice. None supplies authorization or corrective capability on its own.
The current competence target is credence-free: it is not awarded by the principal's or advisor's confidence in competence. Logical-Induction-native calibration also depends on admissibility; a settlement may be computable without being legal inside a trader's coefficient or weighting class.
The grade-to-quantity gap is the missing bridge from qualitative competence to the positive quantitative margin needed by a decision or learning theorem. Near-indifference is the stress case. A vanishing quality difference may support neither a stable selector nor a positive margin.
Research state, one registered claim. Finite models expose substitution and factorization failures, and the notes state conditional competence and calibration interfaces. The one registered theorem here is reason mediation by re-execution of a committed principal program (
authorship.mediation-by-reexecution); no registered theorem connects all these relations.
The representation problem — type authorization and capability separately, retain a principal-exclusive effect, connect competence to a usable margin, and state which advisor policies an efficacy claim quantifies — is now answered in one concrete model: the evaluation ecosystem's warrant registry binds keys to parties, the advisor's own commit is a write and not a receipt, and corrigibility quantifies over the one physical continuation space with the system contracts named.
- Deference terms
- LI-native assumption ledger
- Reachable-control substitution witnesses
- Corpus reconciliation and grade distinctions
- Evaluation-ecosystem realization: the seven-clause ledger — a concrete log in which the principal-exclusive effect is a reading of the warrant registry, authorization and capability are separated (the advisor's own commit is a write, not a receipt), and the efficacy claim quantifies over a stated advisor class
-
Committed principal program: clause 2 closed on log authenticity — the principal's procedure typed by its input and re-executed by the verifier; the registered
authorship.mediation-by-reexecution