Compositional Accountability
When Local Accountability Records Compose Into One Challenge-Time Account, and When They Do Not
When do local accountability records compose into one challenge-time account across owners?
The source-only finite profile computes an exact model-relative query-answerability margin and replayable erasure certificate; it does not assess occurrence truth, non-equivocation, authority, remedy, or external validity
The flagship theorem gate failed; the surviving technical profile exactly assesses finite query-relative evidence survivability without claiming new cut mathematics.
Abstract
The candidate flagship asks when local accountability evidence descends to one challenge-time account across owners. The program separates four properties that must not be compressed into a single notion of contestability: occurrence coverage, non-equivocation, authority and evidence binding, and remedy reachability. The mathematical search runs on two axes. One represents challenger-relative evidence fibers and temporal persistence. The other asks whether authenticated pairwise translations admit one global principal gauge, where nontrivial cycle holonomy certifies that this descent fails. Observation ambiguity is deliberately not called cohomology. The theorem gate closed negative, and the surviving artifact is a query-answerability profile computing an exact model-relative margin and a replayable erasure certificate.
The proposed packing-separator, administrative-cut, and complexity contributions reduce to temporal-separator, Minimum Label Cut, and Test Cover prior art; the lane is engineering-only.
A differential mismatch, an accepted tampered certificate, a case where control-domain or occurrence binding is ignored, or any public claim promoting the model-relative result to occurrence truth invalidates the profile.
packet prepared
- motivated-by Seam
- motivated-by Tarski Coherence
- is superseded by Interpretability Frontier
- is operationalized by No Free Precedent