EXPERIMENT 06 · OPEN BOUNDARY CONTRACTS
Connect the work.
Keep the freedoms.
Toy scenario
The same refuge, with the awkward handovers left in.
Two work packages may need the same lift. One may release useful work before it has finished; an inspection may require rework. This lane uses small refuge examples to ask what a reusable process description must preserve so that combining packages still gives honest plans.
Can the pieces be composed without inventing resources or hiding possible work?
A method can release a useful output before all its work is finished. Connect the pieces without forcing false waiting, inventing a resource or discarding work that its context can enable.
Finite selected work · Explicit resource ownership · Fictional refuge
KEEP THE BOUNDARY VISIBLE
An available lift is not a finished work package.
EXPERIMENT 05 · RETAINED
After the review,
what next?
Retain valid evidence, repeat work made stale, and distinguish possible completion from a policy that handles every modeled outcome.
Explore feedback and response →EXPERIMENT 04 · RETAINED
One mechanism.
Many ways through.
Choose a project state and generate the bounded family of ways to complete the refuge. Keep work branches, joint resource starts, token-supply histories and schedules visible.
Generate ways to complete the refuge →Two methods to explore further.
Explore alternative causal histories, or build the mechanism from connected parts.
Explore every compatible ancestry
Explore the token histories behind a selected execution. Test which histories fit a task tree, and whether one dependency graph can faithfully express their alternatives.
Open this experiment →Build with actual wires
Compose refuge activities through matching typed ports. Keep identity wires, resource ownership and selective handoffs visible, then generate the resulting executions.
Open this experiment →EXPERIMENT 02 · RETAINED
Inspect one
causal witness.
The Causal Plan Lab follows one chosen token ancestry into a dependency graph and schedule. It checks exactly when an elementary sequence/parallel task tree preserves that witness, and exposes an N obstruction when it cannot.
Open the Causal Plan LabINHERITED BASELINE · BROADER GIMMER COLLECTION
Two processes.
One chosen plan.
This earlier human-steered, AI-assisted comparison supplied the starting point. It is not a higher-autonomy experiment. The comparison is presented in broader Gimmer. Its forward scheduler remains in the core collection, using the same maintained application.
What the certificate means
Each certificate names its domain: a bounded observed-state response policy, a whole-family state/step construction, one witness, a selected trace’s ancestry family, or a typed port construction. A retrospective branch schedule does not certify an online concurrent policy. An exact language of sequential orders does not establish concurrent-step or timed equivalence. Search bounds and the distinction between proved and unresolved results remain visible.
This is the Petri/WBS route, FORAY-WBS-PATHS, within FORAY-PROCESSES-TO-PLANS. The broader hill/travel scenario remains outside this public slice. The boundary experiment compares finite selected-work states and joint steps; the retained feedback experiment handles review policies. Continuous operation and uncertain engineering calibration remain outside these claims. Construction methods and durations are illustrative.