coulomb/gate-house
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Adopt the recomputability boundary as GH-DEC-2026-007

Browse source 
GH-WP-0003-T04. kings-guard's answer to KG-IN-0003 is adopted: the
posture/maturity line is recomputability, not volatility. Their argument
holds — volatility describes the two categories without partitioning
them, and every case it does not obviously cover becomes an argument at
exactly the boundary §6 exists to keep out of argument. The test is
§9.5's own determinism clause pointed where it had not been pointed.

Added one clause they did not propose, because their framing opens a
loophole: recomputability is assessed over the stated criteria, so a
criterion that dereferences a judgment is deterministic in form and
inferential in substance, and would put an opinion inside an engine
wearing a rule's clothes. A criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about
the subject, not in another party's conclusion about it. A recorded
judgment is evidence that the judgment was made, never that the thing
judged is so — the same distinction §9.6 draws about archives and
GH-DEC-2026-005 draws about valid_now.

All three kings-guard consequences carried, including the constraint they
volunteered against themselves (readiness is not an input to posture) and
their honest limit, which makes §17 load-bearing for the rule.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WtJBr77gMFLrN93iEevqQJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 425128@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: f5944d8b-dac4-4e1a-87eb-8b3d8f314a63
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-06 08:08:32 +02:00
parent cb9b0b80fc
commit 42e9bcc747
2 changed files with 132 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md
View file

@ -106,10 +106,15 @@ volatility describes the two things without partitioning them, and every case it
not obviously cover becomes an argument at exactly the boundary §6 says must not be
open to argument.
Assess and dispose. If adopted, it carries a constraint kings-guard has already
accepted — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and an honest
limit: "the same evidence" is not yet well defined estate-wide, which makes §17
load-bearing for the test.
Disposed as `GH-DEC-2026-007`: **adopted**, with one added clause. Recomputability
is assessed over the stated criteria, so a criterion that dereferences a judgment
("level 2 iff the reviewer marked it adequate") is deterministic in form and
inferential in substance. A criterion MUST therefore bottom out in evidence about the
subject, not in another party's conclusion about it. All three kings-guard
consequences are carried, including the constraint they volunteered against
themselves — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and their honest
limit, that "the same evidence" is undefined until §17, is recorded in the statute
beside the test rather than left in the commentary.
```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T05