legitimacy-reasons-programme

Question

What makes a teaching or feedback channel legitimate, how does legitimacy enter the trust principles between a human process and an AI, and what does it owe to reasons and to inference?

Owners: @anson (GitHub A-M-Berns), @abram (GitHub abramdemski)

Roots

No goal yet. This frame holds what it is about (below) and names no goal of the ranking; naming one is its owner's spelling-out.

Statement

A formal account of legitimacy enters the trust principles between a human process and an AI system, settles the open problems listed for the li-deference formalism, and connects to reasons and to inferentialist semantics.

Source

projects/deference/note-dump-2026-08-11/notes/roadmap.md, Stage 2: "Then figure out this legitimacy stuff, and work on the other stuff described in li-deference.md — all the open problems I've already listed for the formalism." Stage 3: "Relate legitimacy to syntactic stuff — local rules of sanity — connecting inferentialist semantics to map-territory semantics. Requires understanding inferentialism better, amongst other things." The grouping of the two stages, the open problems and the reasons thread into one programme is the filing session's reading.

Notes

A programme filed as a sub-frame of the updateful logical-induction trust line: its roots are the maintainer's own definition and thesis about legitimacy (shared claims), four plans (a legitimacy-conditioned trust principle at the LI register; the endpoint-preservation model; the public repository's two-level legitimacy theory; the public line's shortest path to a legitimacy theorem), four further frames (the open problems of the formalism; learning and dynamics of legitimacy; legitimacy meets syntax; the public normativity line), the cruxes each line turns on as cases nodes, the improvement claim beside each toy result, and the maintainer's owned wants whose quoted words name legitimacy, reasons or this stage.

The landed sub-frame deference-toward-bounded-agents keeps its own place under the updateful line; its legitimacy step is connected to this frame's cases node on the legitimacy-weighted objective by an evidence edge rather than moved. The public repository's normativity and legitimacy line is filed here as plans, claims and tasks with public sources, and no want is attributed to anyone but the frame's owner.

Retired by ruling F4 (2026-10-23, one decomposition per line): every root moved to the programme of legitimacy whose question it bears on, or to the line frame; the table of moves is in prompts/2026-10-22-map-as-canonical/REPORT.md, Follow-up of 2026-10-23. The id survives as a deprecated alias of legitimacy.

Author and human events

Author @smithy-verity; version 1; size L.

No human event has touched this node.

Edges

Work pointers

• decision the map is the canonical index of the program: two maintainer handles, one plan with seven lines, programmes drafted from the wiki, the map as the foundational layer, multi-owner frames, `PRIORITIES.md` as a render, decision anchors, and the structure-only index (M1–M8)