Structural mitigation
Design claim Addendum status: retrospectively checked against Substrate and Dropzone, not yet through a domain-specific kill-test in either.
Source: Style sheet v22 §1.1 (General Addendum §2)
Definition (canon)
For a node typed mechanical/hinge (or a dual node's hinge-like phase), the architecture's positive response to the absence of a kinetic early-warning signature: not a better forecast, but a change to the node's structure — a cap, buffer, or rule — that converts one large possible loss into several small bounded ones. A design claim, evaluated by whether the resulting structure bounds the loss, not by predictive accuracy. Conditional on the typing being correct; a hinge node later found to carry a genuine lead-time precursor should be retyped dual rather than treated as a counterexample.
In plain words
If you can't see it coming, don't try harder to predict it. Change how it's built so that when it goes, it can only go a little.
It is not
- A forecast. The claim is judged on whether the structure bounds the loss.
- Settled by the erratum's withdrawal. "Bound, don't forecast" survived it.
What would defeat it
- Canon. A hinge found to carry a genuine lead-time precursor is retyped dual. That is a retyping, not a counterexample.
- Follows from the definition. A structure adopted on this logic that does not in practice limit the loss.
Where it is carried
- Odd Sympathy Story
- “Nobody could say where the bank would stop. Anyone with a shovel could say where it couldn't go.” Line
Ledger rows
- L08 Design claim For a hinge-typed node with no early warning, respond by changing structure (a cap, buffer or rule), not by trying to forecast. "Bound, don't forecast."
- L23 Design claim Where a node's geometry offers no reliable precursor, the answer is structural: a bound denominated in a variable independent of the one that sets the threshold.