Computational specification analysis reveals severe failure modes in conflict-intervention exit criteria, highlighting the risk of flawed operational rules in institutional design.
Institutional design criteria can sound precise while leaving their operative failure path untouched. This paper converts four proposed conflict-intervention exit-mechanism criteria into executable rules and asks whether they behave coherently inside their own stipulated logic. The exercise is a falsification and specification test, not an empirical validation study. Execution exposed three design failures and one specification error: signal-conditioned sunset produced repeated exit and re-entry while the entanglement measure saturated; the duty-to-decide clock rarely fired; pre-resourcing behaved as a binary feasibility gate; and the original common-mode parameter combined contemporaneous cross-node dependence with temporal persistence. A targeted redesign found a localized contemporaneous interaction, left the persistence interaction unresolved, and supported a bounded same-period fast-path account while a frozen continuation-ratio extension was not supported. The deposit includes the paper PDF and a supplementary archive containing the Markdown manuscript, frozen analysis materials, source code and tests, cell-level summaries, compact execution receipts, and a numeric-source ledger. Every parameter is stipulated, escalation does not alter modeled hazard or harm, and the historical cases are structural motivations rather than calibration or validation targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
QianJun Yu (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: