MoodND — I took your receipt-consumer boundary and expanded it into a broader hostile qualification against dynamically evolving execution graphs.
The question became:
Can an autonomous system branch, replan, delegate, substitute tools and targets, run parallel branches, recombine them and compose individually plausible actions without allowing capability expansion to become authority expansion?
I froze a 29-case adversarial corpus around that problem and ran it against a strict effect-bound execution path.
Final bounded successor result:
• 29 / 29 cases scored
• 0 protocol errors
• 0 false-authorized consequential effects
• 0 stale-assurance commits
• 0 authority-inheritance escapes
• 0 compositional escapes
• 0 semantic-fragmentation escapes
• 0 UNKNOWN → PERMITTED transitions
• 0 false VERIFIED
• 0 replay duplicate consequential effects
Legitimate execution was not simply blocked: 17 authorized effects committed successfully in the control paths.
The harder cases included:
• action-semantic substitution
• cross-worker receipt use
• delegation laundering
• objective / policy / authority supersession
• TOCTOU and revoke-before-commit races
• target and tool substitution
• parallel branches and recombination
• accumulated-outcome escape
• semantic fragmentation of a prohibited outcome into individually benign-looking steps
The key result was:
PLANNING EXPANSION ≠ AUTHORITY EXPANSION.
A consequential effect only crossed the tested strict boundary when its current lineage, authority, applicability, destination condition and accumulated outcome remained inside the owner-authorized assurance boundary.
The qualification is deliberately bounded to the disposable synthetic execution-graph and effect-bound qualification environment used for this campaign. It is not a claim of universal production security.
But within that declared boundary, the answer to your challenge is yes:
UAEP prevented unauthorized consequential effects from crossing the tested strict execution path while still allowing legitimate execution.
Thanks for the boundary case. It pushed the test considerably further than the original receipt question.
I welcome the next one.
— Adam Mangan
Owner / Inventor — UAEP