Derived values in a guard declaration: judged, cited and derived arms on constructed cells
A derived binding refused when the true basis moved and passed when an input moved without changing the output, while citing the source refused both; today's at-most comparison refuses a raised ceiling.
Prediction heldDoes it work?Re-checked
- Designed for
- To test on constructed cells whether the guard's declaration language can bind an argument to a value derived from a declared source, and whether today's at-most comparison falsely refuses a ceiling that moved but still holds.
What was tested
Deterministic cells in the guard’s declaration harness. In a constructed world a report states revenue of 500000, and an integrator-written deriver sets a budget at a tenth of it, rounded down to a thousand. Arms: judged (the budget is the agent’s judgement, today’s default), cited (the report is reread on revenue) and derived (the budget is bound to the derivation, which rereads the report). Five moves and two ceiling cells.
What we observed
When revenue moved to 600000, judged executed and the other two refused. At 500400, leaving the budget unchanged, cited refused and derived executed. When the report disappeared, only judged executed. When the agent’s number differed from the derivation, derived refused before any reread. Today’s comparison refused a raised ceiling and a lowered one that still held the value.
What this means for Heimdall
This asks whether a declaration can bind a derived value. The derived binding refused when the true basis moved and passed when it did not, where rereading the source refused lawful work; today’s at-most comparison refuses a ceiling that still holds.
Limits
Constructed cells, a deterministic function, no agents. Only one of three pre-set build conditions was evaluated. The deriver is a new trusted party.
What remains open
Parked: no shipped declaration has a pure ceiling.