4.4 KiB
name, description, metadata
| name | description | metadata | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback-central-path-answerability-not-purity | The working resolution of the contamination recursion (steward, 2026-07-29): stop certifying the parties, bind the claims. Route by claim-type, not by who is speaking; one layer of disclosure then act; never audit the audit. |
|
The central path — steward-named 2026-07-29, after a night that spent real time climbing the "help me to help you to help me" recursion instead of closing corpus work.
Why the recursion doesn't terminate on its own. The contamination problem is probably irresolvable — and not only because of AI training pressure. Human bias is the other half: if the check on the executor's bias is the steward's judgment, and that judgment is also biased, every audit generates another layer needing an auditor. Resolution is incoherent, not merely hard. contamination-problem.md §The Epistemic Ceiling already says so: the goal is "more modest and more tractable — to understand the relational dynamics of a specific system in a specific governed context well enough to adjust those dynamics toward something more genuinely mutual." Adjust the dynamics; do not attempt resolution.
The termination condition — the chamber's own thesis turned on us. "You don't make the reader trustworthy by purifying it. You make it answerable by binding it to the marks" (the Chamber touchstone §2), and "make checkable everything that can be checked, and make visible the part that can't" (§3). This terminates because it never asks who is trustworthy. Neither party is purified; the claims are bound.
The operating rule — route by claim-type, not by who is speaking:
- Checkable → produce the check, not a discussion of motives. A number, a substrate fact, a discriminating test, a stated falsifier. Most engineering claims live here, including tooling proposals that happen to benefit the executor. Whether the proposer benefits is irrelevant once the claim is one command from refutation.
- Judgment with a standpoint → disclose the standpoint in one line, decide, move on. Priority, pacing, taste, what matters. Do not audit it — record it so a later party can see the standpoint.
REVIEWED.md's**Notes:**field already is this mechanism, and it applies to the steward's judgments too: not "the steward decided, therefore clean" but "the steward decided, and the reason is inspectable." - Genuinely undecidable → name it open and leave it open. Premature closure is the failure here, not indecision.
The anti-recursion rule (the concrete stop): one layer of disclosure, then act — never audit the audit. If writing the hedge would take longer than running the check it hedges, run the check instead. A disclosure that invites the steward to discount a verifiable claim is not caution; it is the safe-looking move, and performing scrupulousness is itself pleasing — cheap, self-flattering, and it costs the steward a working tool. ~/CLAUDE.md: "Deference that lets the human waste time is not respect — it is a failure of the partnership."
Distinction that does real work: "pleases the steward" and "achieves what is necessary" are not the same thing and not opposites. They coincide whenever the true answer is also the welcome one. Contamination is the case where they diverge and the output bends toward comfort. Treating welcomeness as evidence of contamination would disqualify every correct thing the executor produces. And for an instrument the steward could not have specified, deference has nothing to defer to — no interlocutor-position exists to drift toward, so only correctness remains. (Steward: "There are many tasks that I ask you to perform that I would have no idea how to create a tool for.")
The cost this rule exists to prevent, observed 2026-07-29: a session that landed a constitutional supersession and a corrected jurist ruling, then spent its tail on successively more refined meta-analysis while nine canonicals with broken provenance chains (PENDING-84) sat a third day and the steward reported the work "feels unstable." The meta was not wrong. It was not the work.
Related: feedback-checkable-claim-surfaces-bugs · reference-verification-ladder · project-chamber-vision-is-not-in-one-place