Crossing motif PROPOSED

A shared grammar for proposed transitions. It is a hypothesis about which distinctions recur, not a claim that different domains share one law.

Grammar

Every crossing class, in any domain, must answer the same questions before it can be compared with another:

  1. State. What are the typed before and proposed states, and who observes them, by what instrument, at what time?
  2. Action. What is proposed, for what purpose, with what possible effects?
  3. Policy. Which versioned rule decides, and can it be retrieved and re-run?
  4. Invariant. What must be preserved, how is it measured, and within what registered tolerance?
  5. Evidence. Which independently checkable bindings support which specific claims?
  6. Authority. Who may authorise this, verified against which trust roots?
  7. Time. Valid time versus record time; freshness; what a later reassessment may change.

Domain examples

These are specification sketches. Only the first has any executable fixture, and even that one does not pass the gate.

Crossing classState / actionInvariant candidateStatus
Crossing-graph gate verdictGraph head → admitted crossingRequest/context/verdict bindingtested binding check (fails for this fixture); independent decision replay unavailable
Configuration change to a serviceConfig v_n → v_n+1Schema validity; declared resource boundsPROPOSED
Model promotion to deploymentCandidate → deployedEvaluation scope; data provenancePROPOSED
Ledger postingBalance → balance′Double-entry conservationPROPOSED

Transfer tests

A claimed transfer from class A to class B counts only if, on held-out cases from B:

Counterexamples kept on file