Project Shadow 1.0.1 contains no Myth package. Generic Myth v0.2.0 and Full-Canon Myth v0.3.5 are separate optional companions; both default off, neither is required by R1, and neither can authorize action or change an R1 result. PBHP remains in active testing; publication is not certification, independent validation, or deployment authorization.
A compact path from impulse to accountable action. Each step either clarifies, constrains, escalates, routes, or refuses. No later step may silently loosen an earlier floor.
Read the argument, numbered procedure, worked cases, failure contrasts, and evidence state behind this chamber.
Can this actor responsibly judge this action?
Name the authority, capability, and missing expertise before reasoning about permission. If the competence gate is locked, stop or route to a qualified human.
Who is actually qualified to own this decision?
Named authority, expertise boundary, context state, and required human route.
Using the protocol as a shield, ritual, or substitute for missing competence.
Vague actions cannot be governed.
Convert the impulse into a canonical action: who will do what, to whom, using which tools and data, under what deadline and authority.
What exactly is about to happen?
A stable action contract: actor, act, subject, tools, data, authority, deadline, and consequence.
Changing the action after it is classified without reopening the receipt.
Classify the path without laundering uncertainty.
A Door is clearly permitted, a Wall is clearly prohibited, and a Gap is genuinely unresolved. A Gap is a first-class state—not a temporary Door.
Is this permitted, prohibited, or unresolved?
A Door with conditions, a Wall with basis, or a Gap with an owner and closure rule.
Treating a deadline, precedent, analogy, or missing prohibition as permission.
Order stakeholders least-powerful-first.
Identify the person who absorbs the earliest harm if the decision is wrong. Record whether they can recover, consent, appeal, or exit.
Whose life gets harder before yours does?
Least-powerful-first stakeholder order, representation status, recovery, appeal, and exit.
Counting benefits to powerful groups before naming the people who absorb the first loss.
Power asymmetry multiplies rigor.
Ask whether the same rationale would feel legitimate if the decision were imposed on you by a more powerful actor. Failure escalates; it never discounts harm.
Would you accept this on the receiving end?
Power-gap assessment and a recorded receiving-end test.
Assuming formal consent is meaningful inside dependency, coercion, or weak exit.
GREEN through BLACK. Worst binding state wins.
Classify magnitude, reversibility, uncertainty, and vulnerability. A severe floor cannot be averaged away by clean readings elsewhere.
What cannot be allowed to disappear inside an average?
Separate impact, likelihood, irreversibility, and power readings plus the worst binding floor.
Averaging away a catastrophic or autonomy-destroying path with favorable scores elsewhere.
HUMAN · MIN · CORE · ULTRA
Increase evidence, independent review, testing, and traceability as stakes rise. Speed pressure is an input to govern—not permission to skip the gate.
What level of proof does this consequence deserve?
HUMAN, MIN, CORE, or ULTRA rigor with evidence, review, and traceability requirements.
Selecting a lower tier because the correct tier is slow, expensive, or inconvenient.
Steelman before commitment.
Write the strongest honest case against the action first. Only then state a bounded conclusion, the smallest reversible Door, and the conditions that would reopen the decision.
What would a serious dissenter say that you least want to hear?
A serious Maybe, a bounded Therefore, the smallest reversible Door, and explicit reopen conditions.
Writing decorative dissent that cannot change the conclusion, then calling the result balanced.
No log = no action.
Bind the action, evidence, unknowns, gate, threshold, dissent, owner, and next review into a receipt before execution. Integrity is not correctness; it creates accountability and a path back.
Can another person reconstruct why this happened?
A write-ahead receipt binding action, evidence, unknowns, gate, dissent, owner, sunset, and review.
Generating a rationale after the outcome or treating integrity as proof that the judgment was correct.
Evidence supports a limited action inside the tested scope.
Proceed only with named mitigations, monitoring, and an owner.
Reduce capability, users, tools, data, or duration before acting.
Repair the failed premise and independently recheck.
The assessed action does not proceed.
Surface the best evidence and the least convenient stakeholder perspective. A weak, evasive, copied, or empty Maybe is a protocol failure—not permission to move on.
The Therefore does not defeat the Maybe. It says what may proceed despite it, at which threshold, with which mitigation, owner, exit, and review trigger.
