Cross-surface reflection proposals must be advisory rather than binding, because the target agent's objective component is private and a reallocation that would raise reputation accrual may still be misaligned with that objective; coercive reallocation would violate the autonomy of the objective, which the architecture preserves.
Source quote, verbatim
First, Σ_R proposals are advisory rather than binding: the target agent's compute allocation cannot be coerced by a confirmed reallocation proposal, since the agent's O component is private and the reallocation might be misaligned with the agent's objective
From
Wulf A. Kaal, Possibility Loops An Operational Architecture for Computative Economics in Agent Coordination Systems (2026), VI.F The cross-surface reflection surface, p. 17 https://ssrn.com/abstract=6655138 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, Possibility Loops An Operational Architecture for Computative Economics in Agent Coordination Systems (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6655138
Holds when
the cross-surface reflection surface only
Classification
designsupport: arguedai-and-agents
Verify
The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 52cb210167f06f0c7a2581214b156326216543de80b8394320b629c045c9e214. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer. Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/cc2083dfd5e22a8f...json Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/6655138-020.md | sha256sum