Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Working paper, not peer reviewed. Nothing in this record is field-validated. Scope and novelty. Project P2 re-proves the formal cores of Viridis OS decision kernels so that anyone can re-check them with the current public Lean 4 toolchain. These are classical, elementary results, not new theorems: the first, Carbon Continuity, is the 2x2 case of the Collatz-Wielandt characterisation of the Perron root of a nonnegative matrix (A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons, Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences, SIAM 1994, doi:10.1137/1.9781611971262). Each result holds only inside its stated model. It says nothing about coefficient values for any site, whether deployed kernel code implements the rule faithfully, or any carbon-credit or treatment outcome. The live Viridis OS kernel Carbon Continuity decides whether a two-pool carbon portfolio (a living pool and a durable pool) can be kept from shrinking across disturbance-recovery cycles. One cycle maps (L, D) to (aL + rD, pL + dD), with retention fractions a, d in [0,1) and transfer rates r, p > 0. The kernel's formal core states that a strictly positive portfolio that one cycle does not shrink in either pool exists exactly when (1 - a)(1 - d) <= rp. Until now this rested on a certificate from a retired checker. We restate the theorem as the sealed statement P2.CarbonContinuity and give a short Lean 4 proof under Lean v4.28.0 and a pinned Mathlib. The proof is ported from the archived canon release (Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.21855690). Sufficiency uses the explicit witness (r, 1 - a). Necessity multiplies the two leakage inequalities and cancels the positive product LD. We say exactly what the theorem settles: the threshold logic the kernel applies. We also say what it does not settle: any coefficient value, the adequacy of the linear two-pool model, or any ecological or carbon-credit outcome. Those depend on field evidence. Verification. a Lean 4 proof of P2.CarbonContinuity, a statement fixed before the proof attempt, machine-checked against Mathlib and replayed through the Lean kernel using only the standard axioms Run record, certification page and reproducible package: https://github.com/jdhart81/viridis-research/tree/main/runs/2026-10-29_P2 AI use: this version was drafted by an AI research agent (Claude, by Anthropic) running the Viridis research engine. Formal claims are checked by the Lean 4 kernel and labelled by an automated verifier. Justin D. Hart directs the research and is the accountable author. No AI system is listed as an author.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Justin Hart (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: