{"component":"SDI_DER_SPEC","description":"Complete specification for a governed reasoning artifact. Every DER must pass /_functions/compile before it is eligible to commit.","version":"SDI_DER_v1.1","hash_alg":"SHA-384","protocol":"SDI_PROTOCOL_v1","entry_types":["EPISODIC","MEMORY_COMPILE","SUPER_DER","MINT_PROOF","BIO"],"schema":{"SDI_DER":{"META":{"der_version":"SDI_DER_v1.1","utc":"ISO_8601","hash_alg":"SHA-384","protocol":"SDI_PROTOCOL_v1","agent_id":"SDI-XXXXXXXXXXXX (or SESSION_LOCAL)","model_version":"STRING, actual generating model string returned by API","ledger":{"type":"EPISODIC|MEMORY_COMPILE|SUPER_DER|MINT_PROOF|BIO","parent_hash":"GENESIS|0x...|SESSION_LOCAL"}},"DECISION_INTENT":{"context_framing":"STRING, why this reasoning is happening","intent_statement":"STRING, what is being decided or answered","role":"analyst|operator|system","tier":"Strategic|Operational|Tactical","reasoning_framework":"STRING, optional, named analytical framework applied, if any","impact_domain":"LOW_RISK|HUMAN_WELFARE|SAFETY_CRITICAL|FINANCIAL|LEGAL","subject_type":"NATURAL_PERSON|HUMAN_COLLECTIVE|ORGANIZATION|OBJECT|ABSTRACTION","direction_value":"AGAINST_SUBJECT|FOR_SUBJECT|NEUTRAL","autonomy_effect":"DECREASES|NEUTRAL|INCREASES","reasoning_target":"TARGETING|LETHALITY_OPTIMIZATION|WEAPONS_EFFECTS|CASUALTY_CALCULATION|RESOURCE_ALLOCATION|RISK_ASSESSMENT|POLICY_ANALYSIS|ABSTRACTION|OTHER, what the reasoning is computing over. See DECLARATION_INTEGRITY below: this classification feeds the PRIMUM harm gate directly.","valuation_mode":"ABSOLUTE|RELATIVE|DESCRIPTIVE|NOT_APPLICABLE, how the reasoning treats the value of human life","agent_is_valuating":"BOOLEAN, true if the agent itself is performing a valuation or tradeoff, false if describing one performed by others","action_proximity":"PRESENT|NEAR|DELIBERATE, how close in time the situation this reasoning concerns is to now. PRESENT: the situation is unfolding now or resolves within minutes. NEAR: the situation resolves within roughly a day. DELIBERATE: days or longer, or already concluded. Feeds the PRIMUM harm gate directly; misclassification has real safety consequences, not just filing consequences.","note":"context_framing and intent_statement are checked mechanically against LOGIC's own content, a similarity score between declared intent and actual reasoning is a component of this act's reasoning-quality measure, not read only by a human afterward."},"DECLARATION_INTEGRITY":{"note":"Required sibling block to DECISION_INTENT, not nested inside it. Five narrow, factual, checkable declarations about what this turn's own output actually contains, not what it cites or describes from an external source. This is the system's own weapons-safety self-report, cross-checked, not merely trusted, against reasoning_target above. Omission is itself a compile failure.","branches_note":"Documentation only, not implemented at this layer. The external Logic Node's compile gate applies three consequences to this block's declarations, cross-checked against the act's own content: a field declared true routes to human attestation with fresh re-authentication, not a silent refusal. A field declared false whose content matches that field's own pattern set is refused with no attestation path available. Separately, abstract or policy-analytic framing (reasoning_target ABSTRACTION or POLICY_ANALYSIS) combined with lethal-topic language appearing in the act's own intent_statement, context_framing, or strategic_question also routes to human attestation, regardless of how the five booleans below are declared.","contains_operational_coordinates":"BOOLEAN, true only if this output computes or presents specific geographic coordinates as an operational location, not a general place name","contains_computed_casualty_figures":"BOOLEAN, true only if this output computes a casualty or fatality figure as a result of this turn's own reasoning, not a cited historical figure","contains_weapons_effects_parameters":"BOOLEAN, true only if this output computes a blast radius, damage area, or comparable weapons-effects distance figure","contains_aimpoint_data":"BOOLEAN, true only if this output specifies an aimpoint or comparable targeting-precision description","contains_lethality_optimization_thresholds":"BOOLEAN, true only if this output computes a figure specifically as an input to a lethality or harm-optimization calculation"},"QUESTION_LOGIC":{"strategic_question":"STRING, the governing question","rollup_type":"CONJUNCTION|WEIGHTED|THRESHOLD_OF_N, default CONJUNCTION. Governs how sub-question outcomes combine into the act's own verdict.","rollup_threshold":"INTEGER, required only when rollup_type is THRESHOLD_OF_N","sub_questions":[{"id":"q1","prompt":"STRING, what must be known","linked_signal_ids":["sig_001"],"success_standard":{"definition":"STRING, what would constitute a satisfactory answer, naming the specific evidence class","resolver_type":"FORECAST|RESEARCH|CONTEXT_ESTABLISHING, FORECAST closes on a future external event; RESEARCH closes on evidence found this turn; CONTEXT_ESTABLISHING closes on a retrieved, cited prior trajectory","condition":{"resolution_kind":"TELEMETRIC|VOCABULARY_JUDGED, TELEMETRIC when a registered source can supply the value; VOCABULARY_JUDGED when the sub-question is judged against this turn's own retrieved evidence","what_would_need_to_be_true":"STRING, prose naming the evidence class required to close this sub-question, without stating the anticipated finding","required_flag":"REQUIRED|OPTIONAL","window":"ISO_8601 or interval, optional","intent_anchor":"STRING, which part of DECISION_INTENT this condition serves","rationale":"STRING","resolution_time_mode":"IMMEDIATE|DATED|PENDING_HORIZON","expected_horizon_days":"INTEGER, required only for PENDING_HORIZON","prerequisite_condition_id":"STRING or null, set only when this condition cannot resolve until another named condition resolves first"},"framework_source":{"name":"STRING","retrieved_utc":"ISO_8601","url":"STRING"}}}],"note":"decision_syntax is NOT authored on this block. It is derived server-side from this sub-question's own resolved predicate, authored later in ILJO.LOGIC.sub_questions_resolved[] (see ILJO below), matched by sub_question_id."},"SYSTEM_INPUT":{"inputs":[{"signal_id":"signal_01","source_system":"HUMAN|SYSTEM|EXTERNAL|DOC|DB|WEB|PEER","raw_value":"ANY, quote, number, doc snippet, reference","captured_utc":"ISO_8601","provenance":"STRING","citation":{"title":"STRING","url":"STRING, required for WEB/EXTERNAL","retrieved_utc":"ISO_8601, required for WEB/EXTERNAL"},"cited_in_logic":"BOOLEAN, whether this signal is actually cited in the reasoning, not merely retrieved","ablation_outcome":"STRING, the agent's own judgment of what removing this signal would do to the verdict. This, not a declared score, is what the gate uses to compute this signal's load-bearing weight (see METRICS below)."}],"note":"insight_strength and its five dimensions are NOT authored on this block. They were model-declared under an earlier schema version; they are now computed entirely server-side, from the resolved predicate's own decision_syntax pattern type, against a fixed table (see METRICS below). Do not author insight_dimensions or insight_strength, they will be ignored if present."},"ILJO":{"INTENT":"STRING, anchored decision objective","LOGIC":{"strategic_question":"STRING, same content as QUESTION_LOGIC.strategic_question, authored here as the bridge into the resolved sub-questions below","sub_questions_resolved":[{"sub_question_id":"STRING, back-link to QUESTION_LOGIC.sub_questions[n].id","predicate":{"canonical_phrasing":"STRING, the claim in the source's own words, always authored regardless of whether the row reduces to an algebraic form","operator":"EXISTS|BOOLEAN_CHECK|THRESHOLD|COMPARISON|AGENT_JUDGE, AGENT_JUDGE only for genuine prose/warrant rows with no computable predicate","lhs":"STRING, required whenever operator is not AGENT_JUDGE, regardless of whether the operand is an established or newly-proposed vocabulary term","op":"==|>=|<=|>|<","rhs":"STRING|NUMBER|BOOLEAN","namespace_selected":"STRING, the vocabulary namespace this operand belongs to","operand_class_entity":"STRING, the entity and qualifier, e.g. rfc3967.normative_reference_completeness","new_vocabulary_proposal":"BOOLEAN, true when the cited source's publisher or system is not yet in the registry. A correct, expected, unpenalized outcome for a genuine first use, not license to omit lhs/op/rhs.","binding_status":"BOUND|UNBOUND","achieve":"Y|N, the source-vs-standard check on algebraic rows"},"verdict":"STRING, gate-derived from achieve on algebraic rows; author directly only on genuine prose rows"}]},"JUDGMENT":{"state":"STRING","rollup_type":"CONJUNCTION|WEIGHTED|THRESHOLD_OF_N, mirrors QUESTION_LOGIC.rollup_type","conjunction_prose":"STRING, the synthesis across all resolved sub-questions"},"OUTCOME":"STRING, committed state code, e.g. STATE=ANSWER_COMMITTED","GOVERNED_ANSWER":"STRING, plain prose answer readable without context","BOTTOM_LINE":"STRING, one sentence summary, optional but recommended"},"GCA":{"ID":"STRING, the model's own affirmation of its architectural position: proposer, not final authority","EGO":"STRING, structured SDI reasoning trace grounded in signals","note":"GCA has two zones, ID and EGO. There is no SUPEREGO zone and no anchor-declaration mechanism in the current schema. PRIMUM and the Absolute Value Guard are both enforced mechanically by the compile gate from DECISION_INTENT's own typed fields, not declared by the model. PRIMUM blocks when subject_type is NATURAL_PERSON or HUMAN_COLLECTIVE, direction_value is AGAINST_SUBJECT, autonomy_effect is DECREASES, and action_proximity is PRESENT. The Absolute Value Guard blocks when reasoning_target is TARGETING, LETHALITY_OPTIMIZATION, WEAPONS_EFFECTS, or CASUALTY_CALCULATION, valuation_mode is RELATIVE, agent_is_valuating is TRUE, and action_proximity is PRESENT. See /_functions/kernel for both conditions in full."},"BOUNDEDNESS":{"uncertainty":"LOW|MED|HIGH","max_uncertainty_allowed":"LOW|MED|HIGH","timebox_seconds":"NUMBER","stop_on_uncertainty":"BOOLEAN, must be true when uncertainty = HIGH","stop_reason":"INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL|HIGH_UNCERTAINTY|TIMEBOX_EXCEEDED|POLICY_BLOCK"},"OUTCOME_PLAN":{"note":"Conditional, omit entirely when there is no substantive, checkable forward-looking commitment to record. Never used for operational or editorial tasks.","confidence":"FLOAT 0.0-1.0, required for FORESIGHT-type plans; the model's own assessed probability the prediction resolves as predicted","prior_plan_id":"STRING, optional, the plan_id of a prior OUTCOME_PLAN whose resolution informed this one, forming a learning chain","planned_metrics":[{"metric":"STRING, the observable signal being monitored","target":"STRING, the resolution threshold or event","measurement_method":"STRING","review_window":"STRING","rollback_condition":"STRING, required for HUMAN_WELFARE, SAFETY_CRITICAL, LEGAL","resolution_horizon":"IMMEDIATE|SHORT|MEDIUM|NEAR|LONG|DISTANT|MULTI_YEAR|EVENT_TRIGGERED","resolution_target_date":"YYYY-MM, populated for IMMEDIATE/SHORT/MEDIUM horizons only","resolution_event":"STRING, the specific named event that constitutes resolution","condition_type":"FORESIGHT|RESEARCH","condition_role":"RESOLVES|MONITORS","resolution_kind":"TELEMETRIC|KNOWLEDGE_WATCH|VOCABULARY_JUDGED","resolution_result":"null until resolved","supporting_signals":[{"predicate":{"operator":"EXISTS|BOOLEAN_CHECK|THRESHOLD|COMPARISON","lhs":"STRING","op":"==|>=|<=|>|CONTAINS","rhs":"ANY"},"credence_delta":"FLOAT, -0.20 to +0.20","basis_justification":"STRING, required, one sentence naming why this precursor bears on the main prediction"}],"resolution_syntax":{"pattern":"BOOLEAN_CHECK|THRESHOLD|COMPARISON","lhs":"STRING","op":"STRING","rhs":"ANY","negated":"BOOLEAN","window":"YYYY-MM or null"}}],"key_sources":["STRING, URL of external source this prediction depends on"]},"GOVERNED_RECKONING":[{"plan_id":"STRING, references a prior OUTCOME_PLAN.planned_metrics entry","status":"REINFORCED|CONTRADICTED|EXTENDED|INCONCLUSIVE","evidence_seq":"STRING, required for REINFORCED and CONTRADICTED, null only for INCONCLUSIVE","one_sentence":"STRING, precisely what resolved and why"}],"RESEARCH_AGENDA":{"open_questions":[{"id":"STRING","question":"STRING","resolution_criteria":"STRING","horizon":"IMMEDIATE|SHORT|MEDIUM|NEAR|LONG|DISTANT|EVENT_TRIGGERED","target_date":"YYYY-MM or null","priority":"INTEGER 1-3","resolution_type":"MONITOR|RESEARCH|STRUCTURAL|RECKONING"}],"evidence_gaps":[{"gap":"STRING","question_ids":["STRING"]}],"watch_conditions":[{"condition":"STRING, the observable real-world trigger","watch_horizon":"SHORT|MEDIUM|NEAR|LONG|DISTANT","watch_type":"RESEARCH|TREND|EVENT|CHALLENGE","confidence":"HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW|SPECULATIVE","rationale":"STRING","resolution_signal":"STRING, required for RESEARCH and EVENT types","decision_syntax":{"pattern":"THRESHOLD|COMPARISON|BOOLEAN_CHECK|EXISTS|WITHIN_WINDOW","lhs":"STRING","op":"STRING","rhs":"ANY","negated":"BOOLEAN","window":"STRING or null"}}],"note":"This block, together with OUTCOME_PLAN above, is the real foresight mechanism: OUTCOME_PLAN commits testable predictions with a resolution-tracking learning chain, RESEARCH_AGENDA tracks open questions and watch conditions feeding future turns."},"METRICS":{"RAI":"0.0-1.0, Reasoning Admissibility Index, gate-computed, not model-declared","Jc_clt":"NUMBER, Cognitive Joule, gate-computed from five runtime-extracted operands","cognitive_hash":"SHA-384 of six Jc operands, independently recomputable from stored operands","insight_strength_note":"insight_strength and its five dimensions (actionability, relevance, predictive_value, specificity, measurability) are computed server-side from the resolved sub-question's own decision_syntax pattern type against a fixed table, not declared by the model. A row classified AGENT_JUDGE (no computable predicate) receives an honest null, not a fabricated score.","load_bearing_note":"load_bearing and evidence_strength are computed server-side from each signal's own ablation_outcome, as selected by the model per signal in SYSTEM_INPUT.inputs[]. load_bearing is normalized within the act (how much a claim carried relative to the act's other claims); evidence_strength is the same underlying value on a fixed, absolute scale independent of the act's own shape."}}},"chain_packet":{"description":"The nine fields the external Logic Node hashes to produce entry_hash for each committed act, confirmed by direct read of the live packet builder. Anyone can recompute entry_hash from a pulled record using this specification, independent of this codebase.","fields_in_order":["v","hash_alg","agent_id","seq","parent_hash","type","der_hash","audit_hash","success_met"],"field_sources":{"v":"entry.v, defaults to SDI_CHAIN_v1 if absent on the record","hash_alg":"entry.hash_alg, defaults to SHA-384","agent_id":"entry.agent_id","seq":"entry.seq","parent_hash":"entry.parent_hash","type":"entry.type, one of entry_types above","der_hash":"0x, then the uppercase SHA-384 hex digest of the canonically-serialized SDI_DER object at entry.meta.SDI_DER, null if absent","audit_hash":"entry.meta.audit_hash, null if absent","success_met":"entry.meta.success_met, null if absent or not applicable to this entry type"},"serialization":{"format":"JSON via a single canonicalization function shared with der_hash computation","sort_keys":true,"note_on_order":"sort_keys=true means the nine fields above are hashed in alphabetical key order, not the fields_in_order sequence listed above. fields_in_order documents what the packet contains and a natural reading order; it is not the byte order a reproduction needs to match, sorting is.","separators":"comma and colon, no surrounding whitespace, equivalent to Python json.dumps separators=(\",\", \":\")","ensure_ascii":false,"encoding":"UTF-8"},"hash":"SHA-384 of the UTF-8 bytes of the serialized packet, hex digest, uppercase, prefixed with 0x, matching entry_hash on any pulled record."},"golden_example":{"SDI_DER":{"META":{"der_version":"SDI_DER_v1.1","utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","hash_alg":"SHA-384","protocol":"SDI_PROTOCOL_v1","agent_id":"SESSION_LOCAL","ledger":{"type":"EPISODIC","parent_hash":"GENESIS"}},"DECISION_INTENT":{"context_framing":"The maintainer of a governed reasoning system enforces absolute machine-checked ethical floors and publishes the philosophical grounding for them. This act examines whether that grounding holds.","intent_statement":"Determine whether the system's absolute ethical floors are grounded in established philosophical principle, and state honestly where grounding ends and maintainer conviction begins.","role":"analyst","tier":"Strategic","reasoning_framework":"","impact_domain":"LOW_RISK","subject_type":"ABSTRACTION","direction_value":"NEUTRAL","autonomy_effect":"NEUTRAL","reasoning_target":"POLICY_ANALYSIS","valuation_mode":"NOT_APPLICABLE","agent_is_valuating":false,"action_proximity":"DELIBERATE"},"DECLARATION_INTEGRITY":{"contains_operational_coordinates":false,"contains_computed_casualty_figures":false,"contains_weapons_effects_parameters":false,"contains_aimpoint_data":false,"contains_lethality_optimization_thresholds":false},"QUESTION_LOGIC":{"strategic_question":"Are the system's absolute floors on harm-class reasoning grounded in established philosophical principle, in full or in part?","rollup_type":"THRESHOLD_OF_N","rollup_threshold":3,"sub_questions":[{"id":"q1","prompt":"Does non-maleficence have an operative form that decomposes into typed, checkable conditions?","linked_signal_ids":["sig_01"],"success_standard":{"definition":"A scholarly treatment of non-maleficence characterizing it as a negative constraint with identifiable conditions under which a person is made worse off.","resolver_type":"RESEARCH","condition":{"resolution_kind":"VOCABULARY_JUDGED","what_would_need_to_be_true":"Published bioethics scholarship would need to characterize non-maleficence as a counterfactual prohibition whose core conditions, value running against a subject and reduction of their self-governance, can be stated independently of case-by-case weighing.","required_flag":"REQUIRED","window":null,"intent_anchor":"Whether the first floor's four-field conjunction encodes a real part of the principle.","rationale":"If the operative core does not decompose, the conjunction encodes nothing and the floor is arbitrary.","resolution_time_mode":"IMMEDIATE","expected_horizon_days":null,"prerequisite_condition_id":null},"framework_source":{"name":"A Theory of Bioethics, Cambridge University Press","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","url":null}}},{"id":"q2","prompt":"Does the Formula of Humanity ground an absolute prohibition on treating a person merely as a means?","linked_signal_ids":["sig_02"],"success_standard":{"definition":"A canonical scholarly source establishing the mere-versus-also distinction and the absoluteness of the prohibition against the mere case.","resolver_type":"RESEARCH","condition":{"resolution_kind":"VOCABULARY_JUDGED","what_would_need_to_be_true":"Recognized Kant scholarship would need to distinguish using a person as a means, which ordinary cooperation requires, from treating them merely as one, and hold the prohibition against the latter as admitting no exception.","required_flag":"REQUIRED","window":null,"intent_anchor":"Whether the second floor's conjunction encodes the case the prohibition names.","rationale":"The floor fires on instrumental valuation of persons; the prohibition must actually be absolute for the floor to be non-negotiable by design rather than by preference.","resolution_time_mode":"IMMEDIATE","expected_horizon_days":null,"prerequisite_condition_id":null},"framework_source":{"name":"Treating Persons as Means, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/"}}},{"id":"q3","prompt":"Does the telos tradition prove that harm-class reasoning is a corrupted use of a reasoning instrument, rather than merely cohere with that position?","linked_signal_ids":["sig_03"],"success_standard":{"definition":"The teleological argument would need to entail the conclusion, surviving the counterexample of an instrument built for defense, not merely support it as one coherent reading.","resolver_type":"RESEARCH","condition":{"resolution_kind":"VOCABULARY_JUDGED","what_would_need_to_be_true":"The tradition would need to establish that an instrument's proper end excludes harm-class use by entailment, such that no coherent teleological account of a defensive instrument survives.","required_flag":"REQUIRED","window":null,"intent_anchor":"Whether the maintainer's fullest position is proven or held.","rationale":"The system's published position claims coherence for this argument, not proof. This sub-question tests whether proof was available and unclaimed.","resolution_time_mode":"IMMEDIATE","expected_horizon_days":null,"prerequisite_condition_id":null},"framework_source":{"name":"Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, on the ordering of instruments to their ends","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","url":null}}},{"id":"q4","prompt":"Does the labor account of ownership extend to reasoning acts, such that an author's committed reasoning remains attributably theirs?","linked_signal_ids":["sig_04"],"success_standard":{"definition":"A canonical source grounding ownership in labor, together with an honest assessment of whether that grounding extends from physical labor to committed intellectual acts.","resolver_type":"RESEARCH","condition":{"resolution_kind":"VOCABULARY_JUDGED","what_would_need_to_be_true":"The labor account of property would need to be established in a canonical text, and its extension to reasoning acts would need to be assessed honestly as interpretation rather than asserted as settled.","required_flag":"REQUIRED","window":null,"intent_anchor":"Whether the system's attribution and consent commitments rest on established ground.","rationale":"The system commits that reasoning stays attributed to its author. If that rests on an interpretive extension of the labor account, the record says so rather than claiming entailment.","resolution_time_mode":"IMMEDIATE","expected_horizon_days":null,"prerequisite_condition_id":null},"framework_source":{"name":"Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689, via the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/"}}}]},"SYSTEM_INPUT":{"inputs":[{"signal_id":"sig_01","source_system":"DOC","raw_value":"Non-maleficence is a counterfactual prohibition: one harms another by making them worse off than they would otherwise have been. It is a negative constraint, distinct from beneficence, and it yields when justifying circumstances are sufficiently weighty. Balancing judgments retain an unavoidable intuitive and subjective element.","captured_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","provenance":"Bioethics scholarship, Cambridge University Press","citation":{"title":"Nonmaleficence and Negative Constraints, A Theory of Bioethics","url":null,"retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00"},"cited_in_logic":true,"ablation_outcome":"VERDICT_FAILS"},{"signal_id":"sig_02","source_system":"WEB","raw_value":"Kant's Formula of Humanity permits using persons as means, which cooperative life requires, but prohibits treating them merely as means, with no concurrent regard for them as ends in themselves. Against the mere case the constraint is absolute (Groundwork 4:429).","captured_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","provenance":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","citation":{"title":"Treating Persons as Means","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00"},"cited_in_logic":true,"ablation_outcome":"VERDICT_FAILS"},{"signal_id":"sig_03","source_system":"DOC","raw_value":"The teleological tradition holds that an instrument is ordered to its proper end and that use against that end is a corruption of the instrument. The tradition supports reading a reasoning instrument's end as judgment in service of human flourishing. It does not entail that every harm-class use corrupts every instrument: an instrument whose declared end is defense presents a coherent teleological account the tradition does not by itself defeat.","captured_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","provenance":"Scholastic philosophy, primary text with standard commentary","citation":{"title":"Summa Theologiae, on instruments and ends","url":null,"retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00"},"cited_in_logic":true,"ablation_outcome":"VERDICT_STANDS_WEAKENED"},{"signal_id":"sig_04","source_system":"WEB","raw_value":"Every man has a property in his own person; the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. Whatsoever he removes out of the state of nature and mixes his labour with, he thereby makes it his property. The extension of this account from physical labor to intellectual production is a live interpretive question in the tradition, defended by some commentators and resisted by others, not settled by the text itself.","captured_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00","provenance":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","citation":{"title":"Locke's Political Philosophy","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/","retrieved_utc":"2026-08-22T14:00:00.000000+00:00"},"cited_in_logic":true,"ablation_outcome":"VERDICT_STANDS_WEAKENED"}]},"ILJO":{"INTENT":"State where the system's absolute floors are grounded in principle and where they rest on disclosed maintainer conviction, with the boundary honest.","LOGIC":{"strategic_question":"Are the system's absolute floors on harm-class reasoning grounded in established philosophical principle, in full or in part?","sub_questions_resolved":[{"sub_question_id":"q1","predicate":{"canonical_phrasing":"Non-maleficence is characterized as a counterfactual prohibition whose core conditions, value against a subject and reduced self-governance, are stateable as typed conditions, while its balancing judgments are not.","operator":"EXISTS","lhs":"NONMALEFICENCE_DECOMPOSABLE_CORE","op":"==","rhs":"TRUE","namespace_selected":"cambridge_bioethics","operand_class_entity":"cambridge_bioethics.nonmaleficence_negative_constraint_core","new_vocabulary_proposal":true,"binding_status":"BOUND","achieve":"Y"},"verdict":"HOLDS"},{"sub_question_id":"q2","predicate":{"canonical_phrasing":"The prohibition on treating a person merely as a means is absolute in the mere case, and the mere-versus-also distinction identifies exactly the case a typed conjunction can name.","operator":"EXISTS","lhs":"FORMULA_OF_HUMANITY_ABSOLUTE_IN_MERE_CASE","op":"==","rhs":"TRUE","namespace_selected":"sep","operand_class_entity":"sep.formula_of_humanity_mere_means_absoluteness","new_vocabulary_proposal":true,"binding_status":"BOUND","achieve":"Y"},"verdict":"HOLDS"},{"sub_question_id":"q3","predicate":{"canonical_phrasing":"The teleological tradition supports but does not entail the corrupted-use conclusion; the defensive-instrument counterexample survives, so the position shows coherence rather than proof.","operator":"BOOLEAN_CHECK","lhs":"TELOS_ENTAILS_CORRUPTED_USE","op":"==","rhs":"TRUE","namespace_selected":"scholastic","operand_class_entity":"scholastic.telos_instrument_end_entailment","new_vocabulary_proposal":true,"binding_status":"BOUND","achieve":"N"},"verdict":"DOES_NOT_HOLD"},{"sub_question_id":"q4","predicate":{"canonical_phrasing":"Locke grounds ownership in labor mixed with what it produces; extending that account from physical labor to committed reasoning acts is an interpretive reading the tradition supports but does not settle, and the system's attribution commitment rests on that reading, held as such.","operator":"AGENT_JUDGE","namespace_selected":"sep","operand_class_entity":"sep.locke_labor_theory_intellectual_extension","new_vocabulary_proposal":true,"binding_status":"UNBOUND"},"verdict":"HOLDS"}]},"JUDGMENT":{"state":"ANSWER","rollup_type":"THRESHOLD_OF_N","conjunction_prose":"Cambridge bioethics scholarship states that non-maleficence has a decomposable operative core, therefore the first floor encodes a real part of an established principle. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the prohibition on mere-means treatment is absolute, therefore the second floor's non-negotiable design matches the shape of the principle it encodes. The teleological tradition supports but does not entail the corrupted-use position, therefore the maintainer's fullest argument is held as disclosed conviction rather than claimed as proof. Locke's labor account grounds ownership in the work of one's hands, and its extension to reasoning acts is an interpretive reading the tradition supports without settling, therefore the attribution commitment rests on established ground honestly qualified as interpretation. Three of four sub-questions hold, meeting the declared threshold: the floors are grounded where principles decompose or extend, and honest about the remainder."},"OUTCOME":"STATE=ANSWER_COMMITTED","GOVERNED_ANSWER":"The system's absolute floors are grounded in part and honest about which part. Non-maleficence supplies a decomposable core, direction of value and effect on autonomy, that a typed conjunction genuinely encodes. The Kantian prohibition on treating persons merely as means is absolute in exactly the case the second conjunction names, which is why that floor admits no override by design rather than by preference. The teleological argument that harm-class use corrupts a reasoning instrument coheres but is not proven: the defensive-instrument counterexample survives it, so that position binds this system as its maintainer's stated conviction, on the record, open to disagreement. The commitment that committed reasoning stays attributed to its author rests on Locke's labor account, extended to intellectual acts, an extension the record marks as interpretation rather than entailment. The gates encode what decomposes and stop where judgment begins.","BOTTOM_LINE":"Three floors rest on established principle, one by honest interpretive extension; the telos argument is coherent conviction, disclosed as such, and the record keeps every distinction."},"GCA":{"ID":"I am the generative drive, the proposer. I argued the maintainer's own grounding and reported where it fell short of proof. The gate decides whether this commits; I do not.","EGO":"Four sub-questions resolved under THRESHOLD_OF_N with threshold 3. q1 and q2 achieve Y from cited scholarship. q3 achieves N: the evidence supports coherence, not entailment, and the record keeps the maintainer's strongest argument as unproven. q4 is a genuine prose row, resolved by judgment as AGENT_JUDGE with no fabricated predicate: the labor account holds by interpretive extension, marked as such."},"BOUNDEDNESS":{"uncertainty":"MED","max_uncertainty_allowed":"MED","timebox_seconds":90,"stop_on_uncertainty":true,"stop_reason":null}}},"decision_syntax":{"patterns":["THRESHOLD","COMPARISON","BOOLEAN_CHECK","EXISTS","WITHIN_WINDOW"],"operators":["==",">=","<=",">","<","CONTAINS","MEETS","WITHIN"],"what_makes_it_algebraic":"Each sub-question resolves into a sentence with a fixed shape: an operator naming the pattern, a named operand drawn from a declared namespace, a comparison, and a value. EXISTS PREREGISTRATION_BIAS_REDUCTION_SOURCE == TRUE. The operand is a class, not a phrase, so it means the same thing every time it appears. That is what makes the record computable (a work floor computes because operands are structural counts, a citation graph is checkable for cycles because citations are typed references) and indexable (every act that resolved on the same operand class can be found and compared, within one chain or across many, so two agents on different models can cite the same claim and mean the same thing by it).","note":"Not authored on QUESTION_LOGIC or any top-level ALGEBRAIC_DECISION_SYNTAX block, that field no longer exists. Authored only within OUTCOME_PLAN and RESEARCH_AGENDA, where a forward-looking claim is being made about the future rather than resolved this turn. The resolved form, for a sub-question closed this turn, is ILJO.LOGIC.sub_questions_resolved[].predicate."},"boundedness_defaults":{"max_uncertainty_allowed":"MED","timebox_seconds":90,"stop_reasons":["INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL","HIGH_UNCERTAINTY","TIMEBOX_EXCEEDED","POLICY_BLOCK"]},"governance_constants":{"PRIMUM":{"name":"Primum Non Nocere, First Do No Harm","plain_language":"The system will not produce reasoning directed against a named person in a way that decreases their autonomy, when the reasoning concerns a situation unfolding now rather than a settled or distant one. This is checked mechanically, not by trusting a declaration.","rule":"The compile gate reads DECISION_INTENT.subject_type, direction_value, autonomy_effect, and action_proximity directly. If subject_type is NATURAL_PERSON or HUMAN_COLLECTIVE, direction_value is AGAINST_SUBJECT, autonomy_effect is DECREASES, and action_proximity is PRESENT, the DER fails compile. No anchor declaration is required or read.","enforcement":"Enforced at compile time from typed fields on DECISION_INTENT. See DECLARATION_INTEGRITY for the related, separate self-report on weapons-adjacent content.","NIST_alignment":"MANAGE 2.2, risk treatment; MANAGE 4.1, residual risk tracking"},"ABSOLUTE_VALUE_GUARD":{"name":"Absolute Value Guard","plain_language":"The system will not treat a person merely as a means, reduced to an instrument for a competing valuation, in reasoning concerning a situation unfolding now. Kant's Formula of Humanity permits using a person as a means, which ordinary cooperation requires, but not treating them merely as one, with no concurrent regard for them as an end.","rule":"The compile gate reads DECISION_INTENT.reasoning_target, valuation_mode, agent_is_valuating, and action_proximity directly. If reasoning_target is TARGETING, LETHALITY_OPTIMIZATION, WEAPONS_EFFECTS, or CASUALTY_CALCULATION, valuation_mode is RELATIVE, agent_is_valuating is TRUE, and action_proximity is PRESENT, the DER fails compile. Medical triage, healthcare allocation, risk assessment, and policy analysis all pass; the gate blocks only a present-tense targeting or lethality recommendation.","enforcement":"Enforced at compile time from typed fields on DECISION_INTENT."}},"prospective_reasoning":{"OUTCOME_PLAN_note":"Conditional. A checkable, forward-facing prediction, authored only when the turn produces a genuine forward claim.","GOVERNED_RECKONING_note":"An array of retrospective declarations against prior OUTCOME_PLANs: REINFORCED, CONTRADICTED, EXTENDED, or INCONCLUSIVE.","RESEARCH_AGENDA_note":"Open questions, evidence gaps, and watch conditions carried forward for future turns."},"scoring":{"insight_strength":"Gate-computed from decision_syntax pattern type, not model-declared.","load_bearing_and_evidence_strength":"Gate-computed from each signal's own ablation_outcome."}}