2026-10-23-normative-inductor-consolidation

PR #129 — Final Normative Inductor Consolidation

Continue working on the existing branch for PR #129 in A-M-Berns/alignment-workspace. Do not merge the PR.

The previous integration round was successful. It produced a substantially unified construction:

• A canonical NormState.bundle with grounded survivor semantics.
• A warrant enforcer operating on the actual augmented deductive market.
• An odds-based liability bound and preservation of Logical Induction.
• Finite-time rowwise conformance at the realized market.
• Certificate transport from enforced rows to displayed prices.
• A nonconstant soft-gate adapter with derived PracticalUptake and Progress.
• A nontrivial Lean witness discharging computability and liability.

Do not repeat that work or start another broad research round.

Our objective is to make the existing result a coherent, mathematically honest, and externally intelligible endpoint for this PR.

The standard is:

After merging, we should have one canonical conditional Normative Inductor theorem, one convincing dynamic example, and an architecture whose remaining limitations are explicit rather than concealed by interfaces.

I want you to focus on four specific matters.

1. Clarify admission, entitlement, and authorization

The first remaining issue is the gap between the intended normative interpretation and the existing formal admission interface.

Currently, WarrantInductor.Admission primarily establishes that every warrant occurrence maps to an exposed occurrence in the accounted obligation state.

This is a useful provenance link, but it does not establish that the warrant was legitimately incurred, faithfully expresses the originating obligation, or was authorized for enforcement.

At the same time, the framework has NormState.Licensed and the authorization of verdict-selection events, but the market enforcer does not consume those verdict licences.

These are different concepts, and we should not conflate them.

Tasks

First, identify and distinguish the following roles:

1. Historical provenance: which accounted occurrence a warrant originates from.
2. Warrant admission or entitlement: what authorizes this particular substantive constraint to participate in the market.
3. Verdict support and licensing: what authorizes a particular certificate-backed selection of a credal verdict.
4. Operative enforcement: what makes the admitted constraint influence the market.

Determine whether the present Admission structure should retain its name or be renamed to reflect its weaker contents.

Consider whether an explicit, parametric admission/entitlement condition would be appropriate, with a theorem saying that the compiler enforces only admitted warrants.

This condition should not purport to solve legitimacy. It may be a typed external input whose intended semantics are stated clearly.

However, it should be more than a rhetorical label for an arbitrary origin mapping.

In particular, investigate whether the existing legitimate-evolution, provenance, or entitlement machinery can supply a more meaningful interface without undertaking a new theory of normative legitimacy.

Do not make verdict licensing a prerequisite for enforcing a warrant unless there is a substantive reason to do so. A licence to announce or select a verdict is not automatically the same as authority to introduce a constraint.

The desired outcome is a clean specification of how a legitimately incurred normative commitment is admitted to the system, and which parts of that specification are actually proved.

If making admission substantive requires future legitimacy research, state that openly and preserve an appropriately named assumption.

2. Make compilation failure accountable

The second issue concerns WarrantInductor.compileAt.

Currently, an unsuccessful feasibility check produces the empty bundle, withholding enforcement.

This is a reasonable safety behavior for the trader. It avoids attempting to enforce an inconsistent constraint system.

But an empty enforcement bundle does not explain what happened to the obligations that generated it.

The existing Normative Inductor architecture requires something stronger: when a joint constraint cannot be compiled or serviced, the system should not silently erase the corresponding commitments or pretend they were discharged.

Tasks

Investigate the current failure path and determine the smallest clean way to distinguish:

• No operative obligations.
• A successful compilation of operative obligations.
• Obligations present but enforcement withheld because compilation or feasibility failed.

Ideally, compilation should produce a typed outcome, with successful compilation carrying the enforced bundle and unsuccessful compilation carrying enough information to account for what was not serviced.

Use the existing compiler-conflict and Farkas-certificate machinery where applicable. Do not invent a second conflict theory merely to satisfy this task.

The central desiderata are:

Conservation: withholding force must not extinguish an obligation from the accounted record.

Transparency: the construction must distinguish the empty region, a failed certificate or witness check, and genuinely having no constraints to enforce.

Evaluation: obligations not serviced should remain eligible for residual-mass accounting, rather than disappearing because no enforcement position was created.

Preservation: the market's LI-preservation guarantee should survive legitimate withholding of enforcement.

Do not require the enforcer to keep trading against an infeasible region. The purpose is to account for failure, not to force inconsistent commitments into a market.

If a fully unified accounting theorem would require substantial new machinery, implement the smallest principled representation and state the remaining interface obligation explicitly.

3. Strengthen the dynamic witness

The current witness is significantly better than its predecessor, but two limitations remain.

First, its principal warrant is undercut at date 5, removing the dependent strength occurrence. When the conclusion is refuted at date 8, the strength occurrence is no longer active.

Thus the fixture does not directly exhibit rebuttal of a still-active conditional warrant.

Second, the response adapter is evaluated on the principal decision at date 4, then on a different decision involving the independent \(Z\) warrant at date 9.

This demonstrates continued responsiveness to a surviving commitment, but not how the same decision question changes when its supporting warrant is revised.

Tasks

Add the smallest informative dynamic test that addresses these issues.

I suggest separating the scenarios if that produces cleaner mathematics:

Scenario A: Undercutting.

Keep the existing example in which a warrant's applicability is defeated and its dependent strength constraint ceases to be operative.

Demonstrate precisely what guidance is lost, what survives, and what changes in the space of admissible credences.

Scenario B: Direct rebuttal.

Construct a companion path in which the conditional warrant remains active until its consequent is refuted.

Demonstrate:

1. The warrant is operative before the refutation.
2. The consequent settles false while the relevant antecedent can remain true.
3. The conditional row is withdrawn by the rebuttal semantics.
4. Withdrawal prevents the unwarranted contraposition that would otherwise suppress the antecedent.
5. The remaining constraints are feasible and continue to be enforced.
6. The financial liability guarantee survives the revision under explicitly demonstrated conditions.

Where possible, examine the same decision question before and after revision, rather than substituting a different independent question.

The ideal result would show that a previously warranted behavioral recommendation ceases to be warranted, or that a newly supported response becomes appropriate.

But be careful:

Removing a reason to act does not prove that the agent must reverse its action.

Do not force a behavioral reversal by changing the declared adequate set arbitrarily between dates. If the same-question adapter can no longer guarantee the original recommendation, that is already a meaningful result.

Distinguish:

• The constraints actually changing.
• The region of admissible prices changing.
• The guarantees about the adapter changing.
• The adapter's actual behavior changing.

Prove the strongest claim justified by the construction, without conflating these.

Retain the existing witness's actual-market results. Do not replace them with a stipulated clearing-price history.

The preferred endpoint is a compact pair of complementary examples, not an enormous collection of fixtures.

4. Reconcile the canonical mathematical exposition

The wiki and older architecture still describe the Normative Inductor primarily as a projection-based enforcer with public defect

\[ d_t=\operatorname{dist}_\infty(P_t,K_t). \]

The new warrant construction instead uses a rowwise violation-proportional trader and establishes per-row conformance. Its adapter's operative defect is based on certified inadequate-score excess.

These are related, but they are not identical.

The discrepancy is mathematically legitimate; the documentation should no longer leave readers guessing about it.

Tasks

Produce a coherent description of the current architecture that distinguishes:

• The general Normative Inductor interface, which should be implementation-independent.
• The projection-based realization, with its distance-to-region guarantee.
• The rowwise warrant-enforcement realization, with its per-row tolerance and certificate-mass transport.
• The decision adapter, which consumes the relevant quantitative guarantee and derives a practical certificate.

Do not declare one realization obsolete without a mathematical reason.

If a general interface accommodates both, state it. The right abstraction might concern a quantitative defect together with a certified bound on the response-relevant functionals, rather than require every realization to provide the same geometric distance.

Prefer using the existing Progress and practical-certificate interfaces rather than introducing another redundant abstraction.

Ensure that wiki/Normative-Inductor.md, wiki/Normative-Induction.md, wiki/Normativity.md, the theorem spine, and the new THEOREM_STORY.md tell a consistent story.

In particular, distinguish the claim

Normative warrants constrain the prices of the market,

from

Normative warrants produce warranted guidance about the behavior of the decision adapter.

The first follows from enforcement under feasibility and affordability. The second additionally requires substantive adequacy semantics and the appropriate certificates.

Neither independently establishes that the admitted warrants are morally correct.

5. Audit the flagship theorem

Before concluding, reread the exact statement and proof of WarrantInductor.warrant_inductor and its instantiation in WarrantInductorWitness.

Ask whether every assumption is indispensable, meaningful, and correctly categorized.

In particular:

• Is the admission hypothesis substantive, or is it merely an arbitrary labeling of occurrences?
• Do the enforced rows and the adapter's certificates really refer to the same state and market?
• Are the quantified normative states temporally unconstrained? If so, does the theorem's description acknowledge that it is pointwise with respect to an externally supplied state sequence?
• Does the feasibility-withholding policy make any advertised conformance guarantee conditional on compilation success?
• Is the liability guarantee properly distinguished from computability?
• Are Excludes and Margins checkable geometric conditions, and where does their normative meaning enter?
• Is Progress genuinely informative in the witness, with positive evaluation mass, meaningful losses, and nontrivial response probabilities?
• Are any conclusions only restatements of assumptions under changed notation?

If there is a clean opportunity to strengthen the main theorem, take it.

If the theorem is already at the right level, do not complicate its signature simply to add more hypotheses and conclusions.

The goal is a more meaningful result, not a longer one.

6. Scope and stop conditions

Keep this round narrow.

Do not undertake any of the following unless a genuine defect in the current theorem makes it necessary:

• General affordability across arbitrarily many reopenings.
• A complete theory of legitimate warrant generation.
• Learning of warrant strengths from experience.
• Full convergence of normative verdicts.
• Multi-reasoner convergence.
• LI+BRIA decision theory.
• A full corrigibility theorem.
• General distance-to-region estimates for arbitrary polyhedra.

These remain legitimate research questions, but they are not required to merge this PR as the first conditional end-to-end construction.

Follow AGENTS.md and repository layer restrictions. Keep specification-layer changes out of the branch unless explicitly authorized; propose necessary maintainer decisions rather than silently making them. Preserve prior registered results, proof provenance, and Lean's kernel-checked status.

Avoid adding new definitions if the existing theory can express the required distinction.

A small counterexample or an exact statement of an unresolved obstacle is preferable to an unjustified generalization.

7. Deliverables

Produce:

1. The final formal construction. Any necessary Lean changes to admission, accountable compilation, dynamic examples, or the theorem interface.

1. A revised end-to-end witness. It should distinguish undercutting from direct rebuttal and make the effect on normative guidance clear.

1. A short canonical theorem statement. Give the main mathematical result in paper-ready form, with a readable explanation of its genuinely substantive content.

1. A precise assumption ledger. Separate facts established by market mathematics, assumptions about warranted normative states, assumptions about adequacy, and conditions specific to the witness.

1. Consistent wiki and theorem-story documentation. One account of the architecture, with the projection and rowwise realizations distinguished.

1. A final merge review. State what was repaired, what remains genuinely open, what the mathematical results now warrant claiming, and whether PR #129 is ready to merge.

Run the full Lean build, axiom audit, tests, claims checker, and workspace-state checker. Report exact results. Do not silently promote claim statuses.

8. Final standard

I do not want another round that finds five adjacent open problems and pursues all of them.

I want this PR to have a clear, defensible stopping point.

The substantive result we are trying to land is:

A system of defeasible normative warrants, admitted under an explicitly specified normative interface and revised through a coherent defeat-and-settlement process, can be compiled into enforceable market constraints. Under feasible and affordable enforcement, the resulting reasoner preserves Logical Induction, satisfies finite-time quantitative bounds on its warranted credences, and—with a certified decision adapter—achieves a corresponding bound on practical normative failure.

That is a real result, even though legitimate admission, substantive normative truth, and the general dynamics of warrant learning remain open.

Push toward making that statement exactly accurate, in the mathematics and in the exposition.

Then stop.

At the end, give your considered merge recommendation, not merely a statement that the tests passed.

Report — PR #129: final Normative Inductor consolidation

Prompt author	the maintainer (prompts/2026-10-23-normative-inductor-consolidation/PROMPT.md, verbatim)
Executor	Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic), in Claude Code
Base	the branch of PR #129 at c43e7fbe
Date	2026-10-23 (the branch's round sequence; the machine's calendar date was 2026-10-20)

Corrections and deviations (AGENTS.md §8)

The dispatch's description of the branch is accurate: Admission carried provenance only, compileAt returned the empty bundle on a failed check, the witness's strength occurrence was gone before its consequent was refuted, and the wiki described conformance as a distance. One deviation: the dispatch did not name a round directory; this round is dated 2026-10-23 to continue the branch's sequence (10-20, 10-21, 10-22) rather than by the calendar.

1. Admission, entitlement, authorization

Four roles, now four objects. Provenance is WarrantInductor.Origin: the exposed obligation occurrence a warrant realizes — the former Admission, renamed because provenance was its only content. Entitlement is WarrantInductor.Entitlement O G Expresses, extending Origin with three conditions: the origin is admitted by the protocol at the boundary's history (Protocol.Admitted), its account carries a live leaf (Fate.live ∈ fates), and the form expresses the origin's anchor under the declared relation Expresses. Verdict licensing is NormState.Licensed, unchanged, and is not a prerequisite of enforcement: no substantive reason was found to make a licence to select a verdict into authority to introduce a constraint, and the two are different authorities over different objects (a verdict value; a row). Operative enforcement is survival under the docket and the settlement plus an enforced compile outcome.

What is proved: warrant_inductor's provenance conclusion now says every held substantive row is an entitled survivor's (Entitlement.Entitled: exposed, admitted, live, expressed), so the compiler enforces only entitled warrants. What is typed: Protocol.Admitted is the protocol's and Expresses the application's; nothing derives that the obligation was legitimately incurred — that remains the obligation state's, through the Integrity segment that produced it (item 128, narrowed). What the account supplies with content: liveness. In the fixture's state₁, where the first obligation is answered, no entitlement under any Expresses relation may trace an occurrence to it (WarrantInductorWitness.answered_not_entitled); the runs are entitled in state₀, where both accounts are live (account_live). The fixture's protocol is the trivial one, so Admitted and Expresses are not exercised there; item 128 asks for the first protocol at which they are.

The liveness reading — discharge retires the warrant — is agent-decided and queued for the maintainer (DECISIONS.md, Awaiting the author), since whether a reason outlives the debt that incurred it is taste the mathematics does not decide.

2. Accountable compilation

compileAt now takes the compiler's CompileResult (a witness, a Farkas conflict certificate, or unknown) and its outcome is one of three: idle (the state has no rows), enforced B (the witness checks into the region; every row held), withheld B res (rows present, no checked witness; the result carried). The four desiderata:

• Conservation. outcome_obligations: the obligations present are the state's bundle whatever the result; Outcome has no field that drops, renames or reweights an occurrence, and the survivors and the accounted state are not inputs of the compile.
• Transparency. outcome_idle_iff (idle iff no rows); withheld_of_not_check (a supplied witness outside the region withholds — nothing is known about feasibility); conflict_withheld and conflict_region_empty (a conflict certificate over allowed rows refutes the region — the system is infeasible, by the composition module's conflict_sound); unknown_withheld (no result, nothing known). No second conflict theory.
• Evaluation. AdapterProtocol.restrict served cuts the services to the served dates and residual_restrict says the residual grows by exactly the dropped services' transport mass, which the Progress bound charges at D. Scenario B uses it: the date-9 service is declared, its certificates fail, and the restricted protocol's residual is 1/2 against the declared 1/4 (residual_restricted).
• Preservation. WarrantSchedule.day_value_eq_zero_of_bundle_nil: a date with no held rows has day value zero at every world, so the account's net worth and the liability bound are unchanged across withheld dates, and isLogicalInductor is indifferent to them.

The theorem's hypothesis hcheck became henf : Enforced (N s) (res s) at the service dates, and its conformance conclusion is stated at enforced dates (Enforced N res ↔ N.bundle = [] ∨ ∃ w, res = compiled w ∧ check, enforced_iff). A withheld date carries no conformance claim; the docstring says so.

3. The dynamic witness: two scenarios

Scenario A (WarrantInductorWitness, kept) adds undercut_summary: at the undercut the applicability and the strength leave, the premise and Z stay; the region loses P(X∧A) ≥ 3/4 and P(X∧A∧Y) ≥ 1/2 — at date 5 it admits the point pricing both at 0 — and keeps P(Z) ≥ 3/4; with exclusion_lapses, the certified guidance on the principal matter is lost and nothing replaces it while the independent warrant's guidance is untouched.

Scenario B (WarrantInductorRebuttal, new): the same grounds, settlement, coherence rows, tolerance and deductive process, with a quiet docket.

1. operative_before: the strength is a survivor and its row is held at every date before 8.
2. antecedent_open: at 8 the settlement pins Y and X∧A∧Y false and leaves X∧A open; the date-9 region contains (1,1,0,0,1) and forces P(X∧A) ≥ 3/4.
3. withdrawn: from 8 the strength's outcome is rebutted and it is not a survivor.
4. contraposition_blocked: the date-9 bundle with the specialized strength row appended — 2/3·P(X∧A) ≤ 0 — has empty region, against the applicability row's P(X∧A) ≥ 3/4.
5. enforced, inductor: every date is enforced and every held row conforms within 1/400.
6. liability: −72 at every plausible world at every date, with the all-true world slack before the refutation and the world X, A, Z true, Y false after it; the applicability row is now among the rows the second world dominates (dom_wAY').

The same question before and after. P₁ (act on the conclusion or refrain; adequate set act) at dates 4 and 9, with the four levels the dispatch asked to keep apart:

• constraints: withdrawn;
• region: region_flips — refraining at most 1/3 at date 4, at least 3/4 at date 9;
• guarantees: no_certificate_after — no Excludes and no Margins certificate for P₁ exists on the date-9 bundle, so the adapter theorem cannot be applied to this question there; the former recommendation is no longer warranted by anything the construction certifies;
• behavior: same_question — at the realized market the gate's mass on acting is at least 24/25 at date 4 and exactly 0 at date 9, because the enforced pin holds P(X∧A∧Y) ≤ 1/400 < τ and the enforced applicability row holds P(X∧A) ≥ 3/4 − 1/400.

The behavioral reversal is not a normative reversal: the adequate set is not re-declared, the gate follows the pinned price of the refuted conclusion, and whether refraining is adequate after the refutation is not answered. The actual-market results of Scenario A are retained; nothing is stipulated.

4. The exposition

THEOREM_STORY.md §G, wiki/Normative-Inductor.md (new sections Entitlement, not licence and The interface: a public defect and certified bounds; the consolidated theorem under The conditional theorems), wiki/Normative-Induction.md (the decision-interface status), wiki/Theorem-Spine.md (Theorem 7.6; the duplicated 7.3 renumbered) and THEOREM.md tell one story: the Normative Inductor is an interface — a nonnegative public defect per service, a certified bound on each response-relevant functional in terms of it, the work relation and amplification, which Evaluation.progress_bound consumes through PracticalUptake — and the projection enforcer (distance defect, vertex representation, distance conformance) and the rowwise enforcer (per-row tolerance, certificate-mass transport, displayed inadequate excess) are two realizations of it. Neither is retired: neither guarantee implies the other without a Hoffman-type constant (item 125). The two claims are separated on every page: warrants constrain the prices (conformance, from an enforced outcome and the liability bound) and warrants produce warranted guidance about the adapter (the adapter conclusion and Progress, conditional on the adequacy semantics and the certificates); neither says the warrants are correct.

5. Audit of the flagship theorem

• Is the admission hypothesis substantive? It was a labelling. It is now Entitlement, with one condition of content read off the account (liveness), one of the protocol's (Admitted) and one declared (Expresses); the fixture exercises the first.
• Same state and market? Yes: the certificates cite (N s).bundle = W.bundle s (by henf), the gate reads W.market DP s (F.ι j), the enforcer's realized strategy is enforcementStrategy (W.realizedPres DP n) n by rfl.
• Temporally unconstrained states? Yes, and the docstring now says so: the theorem is pointwise in n over an externally supplied state process.
• Conformance conditional on compilation? Yes: stated at enforced dates only; a withheld date trades nothing and keeps its obligations.
• Liability versus computability? Separate hypotheses (B, hliab against process, hE), separately discharged in both runs.
• *Excludes, Margins?* Checkable geometric conditions on the bundle (decidable given the citations); their normative meaning enters only through A, A₁ and lam.
• Progress informative in the witness? progress_le: ≤ 37/100 against the trivial 1; the gate realizes the adequate response with mass at least 24/25 and 99/100; the adequate response costs 1/10; the unserved quarter is the largest term.
• Restated assumptions? The provenance half of conclusion 2 is soundness of the compile (an entitled survivor's row and nothing else reaches the market), stated as such; it is not an inequality. No other conclusion restates a hypothesis.

The signature changed shape (ent, res, henf for adm, wit, hcheck) and gained no hypothesis and no conclusion.

What this round does not establish

• That any entitlement is legitimate: Admitted and Expresses are typed; the fixture's protocol makes both trivial (item 128).
• That a warrant should lose standing when its obligation is answered: adopted, queued.
• Distance-to-region conformance for the rowwise realization (item 125); the bankroll beyond one reopening (item 126); the defeaters attack reading (item 127) — all unchanged.
• Whether refraining is adequate after the refutation in Scenario B: not a mathematical question, and not answered.
• A full-protocol Progress theorem that keeps unserved services in the statement rather than restricting to the served ones: residual_restrict is the accounting; the restriction is the construction.

Verification

• lake build of the whole library: Build completed successfully (4095 jobs).
• python3 tests/audit_axioms.py: AXIOM AUDIT: 3390 results across 108 files, all within ['Classical.choice', 'Quot.sound', 'propext'].
• python3 projects/normativity/rounds/2026-10-23-normative-inductor-consolidation/tests/run.py: Ran 13 tests … OK.
• python3 -m checkers.run: 73 entries, 1 adjudicated here for the normativity registry, both registries ok; python3 -m checkers.workspace_state --check: WORKSPACE STATE: valid — 6 projects, 178 modern claims, … 125 rounds; wiki bindings clean (3 verified); wiki links clean.
• python3 tests/run.py at the root: ALL GREEN (80 project(s)).

Claims whose status changed: none. inductor.warrant-inductor and inductor.witness keep class and declaration under the revised hypotheses; inductor.rebuttal-run and inductor.contraposition-blocked are added, both lean-proved.

Merge recommendation

Ready. The result the dispatch names is now exactly what the mathematics says: a system of defeasible warrants, admitted under a stated interface (entitlement, with its typed parts named), revised by defeat and settlement (the grounded rule, rebuttal), compiled into enforced rows with a typed outcome that conserves what it withholds; under enforced and affordable dates the market is a logical inductor, every held row conforms within the tolerance, and with certified exclusion and margins the adapter's inadequate mass and the Progress statistic are bounded. Two runs exhibit the two revisions, and in the second the same question's guidance is withdrawn and the adapter follows the market. The two reservations of the integration round remain as mathematics, not as defects: conformance is rowwise and the distance reading is a different realization's (now said on every page), and the defeaters reading is agent-decided. The remaining open questions — legitimate admission, warrant learning, repeated reopenings — are the ones the dispatch names as not required to merge.

Items

Narrowed: 35 (third instance), 128 (entitlement landed; the nontrivial protocol, the authorized–account relation and the segment reading remain). None filed.

Registrations

inductor.rebuttal-run (WarrantInductorRebuttal.inductor, item 35); inductor.contraposition-blocked (WarrantInductorRebuttal.contraposition_blocked, item 113). Notes updated on inductor.warrant-inductor and inductor.witness. Listed and not registered: every other declaration of the three files.

Names, provisional

origin, entitlement, entitled, expresses; compile outcome, idle, enforced, withheld, obligations present; served protocol; Scenario A, Scenario B, same question.

Outstanding maintainer actions

1. Rule on entitlement's liveness condition — does discharge of the obligation retire the warrant (landed) or only the debt: DECISIONS.md, Awaiting the author, the 2026-10-23 entry.
2. The actions of the three earlier rounds stand: the reading of defeaters (item 127); M1, M2, M5 and the reopened bankroll (DECISIONS.md, Awaiting the author); close PRs #102 and #103; merge PR #129, which carries four rounds.

PR #129 — final Normative Inductor consolidation

Verdict: ENTITLEMENT-FROM-THE-LIVE-ACCOUNT-ACCOUNTABLE-COMPILE-OUTCOME-REBUTTAL-SCENARIO-ON-THE-SAME-QUESTION-AND-ONE-INTERFACE-WITH-TWO-REALIZATIONS — admission is split into provenance (Origin) and entitlement (Entitlement: the originating obligation exposed, admitted by the protocol, its account live, and the form expressing its anchor under a declared relation), verdict licensing is a separate authority the enforcer does not consume, and the consolidated theorem's provenance conclusion says every enforced substantive row is an entitled survivor's; compilation returns a typed outcome (idle, enforced, withheld with the compiler's result carried) whose obligations are the state's bundle whatever the result, a withheld date trades nothing, a valid conflict certificate separates infeasible from unchecked, and a dropped service's transport mass reappears in the residual; Scenario B keeps the strength active until its consequent is refuted, withdraws it by rebuttal, shows the kept row would have made the system infeasible, keeps liability at −72, and poses the same question before and after — the region flips from refraining at most 1/3 to at least 3/4, no certificate for the date-4 guarantee exists at date 9, and the gate's mass on acting goes from at least 24/25 to exactly 0 at the realized market; the exposition states one Normative Inductor interface (a public defect and a certified bound on the response-relevant functionals) with the projection and rowwise enforcers as two realizations of it, neither retired.

Read REPORT.md first. THEOREM.md is the canonical theorem statement with the assumption ledger; THEOREM_STORY.md is the paper-facing account, superseding the integration round's. Lean: lean/Workspace/Normativity/Contrib/WarrantInductor.lean (entitlement, the compile outcome, the theorem), WarrantInductorWitness.lean (Scenario A), WarrantInductorRebuttal.lean (Scenario B, new). Exact rationals under src/, run by tests/run.py.

Dispatch: prompts/2026-10-23-normative-inductor-consolidation/PROMPT.md. Shipped in pull request #129 together with the three earlier rounds.