COMMON DEPENDENCIES
HIGHER-AUTONOMY EXPERIMENT · PROCESS CONTRACTS
One process.
A family of valid plans.
“Either supplier can enable installation” is a real requirement. One dependency graph can accidentally lose the “either”—or turn it into “both”. Build the process, preserve its alternatives, and test what a plan is entitled to say.
Derived in your browser Fictional refuge · explicit finite modelsEarlier: one causal witness →
THE CONTRACT OF THIS SELECTED WORK
Deriving alternatives
Which history does the plan describe?
Select an event to inspect its token suppliers.
Earliest schedule for this history
ILLUSTRATIVE TIME UNITSThe range across histories compares their earliest schedules. It is not a probability distribution or a bound on arbitrary waiting.
Inspect this history’s exact tree or obstruction
Inspect all enumerated histories
Can one graph preserve the alternatives?
ALL POSSIBLE DEPENDENCIES
What becomes too restrictive
Try an order of the selected work
Use every event once. The check asks whether some enumerated history admits your order. It does not assert that other process histories are impossible.
Can these activities actually start together?
Sequential-order equivalence does not establish concurrency. At a marking after an atomic prefix, all proposed starts must have their inputs available jointly; none can borrow another start’s future outputs.
See the alternative plan language
Read the typed composition term
Select a wire to inspect its exact endpoints.
Change the work, then derive again
Changing a duration re-evaluates timing. The process inputs and outputs continue to govern dependencies.
In this finite syntax, sequence connects matching ports; parallel carries separate wires; identity preserves a wire without adding an activity. A composition boundary is not a whole-project scheduling barrier.
What is supplied, and what is derived?
The selected atomic trace
The input trace stops at its first covered goal. The plan language then explores reorderings of every selected occurrence; a reordered trace can reach that goal earlier.
Read the computed result as JSON
THE LONGER DISTANCE QUESTION
What must survive
from process to plan?
Alternatives survive as alternatives.
A common-dependency graph need not express the union of valid plans. The lab constructs that union and either certifies a faithful single graph or exhibits an order it falsely admits.
Composition keeps its interfaces.
Typed fragments connect through particular inputs and outputs. A pass-through wire can keep work independent across a syntactic sequence. All-to-all task barriers would change the process.
A result has a precise domain.
Producer-count ancestry witnesses, fixed selected work, finite search and illustrative durations. These are inspectable constructions, not a general solver for every project or an unrestricted functor theorem.
DEFINITIONS, CHALLENGES & REPRODUCTION
Follow the argument into the implementation.
Mathematical contract
Definitions, source grounding and what the counterexamples establish →
Boundaries that matter
The ancestry quotient removes token serial-number permutations. It does not claim a canonical collective-process equivalence. Types describe the declared wire interface; matching types do not merge separately owned tokens.
Generated models mark every event completed to preserve the selected scope. Real calendars, uncertainty probabilities and engineering calibration are outside this experiment.
Continue the line of inquiry
Experiment 02: can one causal witness fit a tree?
Inherited baseline: two processes, one chosen plan ↗ · Earlier human-steered work in the broader Gimmer collection; not a higher-autonomy experiment.