Flatfile Agential Resource System Grounding Claim

What this is

A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim is a proposed grounding relation expressed as a RelationalHistoryFiberDoctrineLanguage proposition and evaluated through the locale’s nuclear language.

It is a first-class RelationalEntity: it has an id, a description, and a status. It records the claim, the evidence for it, the saturation result, and whether it has settled.

A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim is NOT the same as a grounding: frontmatter entry. A grounding: entry is settled — it has already been evaluated and stabilized. A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim is the in-progress evaluation that either produces a grounding: entry or records why it did not settle.

Lifecycle

1. Proposed — the claim “entity_a grounds entity_b” is expressed as a Prop term. The Prop is: σ(entity_a) ≥ entity_b, i.e. entity_b falls within the saturation closure of entity_a.

2. Evaluated — the saturation nucleus σ is applied to the claim. Four conditions are checked (see below). If all four hold: the claim is at a fixed point — σ(claim) = claim.

3. Settled — the claim is stable. Write grounding: entity_b to entity_a’s frontmatter. The FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim record may be archived or deleted.

4. Rejected — one or more conditions failed. Record the FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim with status open and the blocking condition. The claim stays open until the blocking condition is resolved.

A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim MUST record all four saturation conditions and their pass/fail status. A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim MUST have status settled only when all four conditions pass. A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim MUST have a blocking field naming the first failing condition when status is open.

Saturation conditions

A FlatfileAgentialResourceSystemGroundingClaim σ(entity_a grounds entity_b) = (entity_a grounds entity_b) holds iff all four conditions are satisfied:

1. Facticity — both entity_a and entity_b exist and have defines: values. Neither is a stub or broken reference.

2. Non-circularity — entity_b does not have a grounding path back to entity_a. Formally: entity_b does not carry grounding: entity_a and there is no chain of grounding: edges from entity_b back to entity_a.

3. Content-backing — entity_a’s content genuinely explains entity_b’s content. Not co-occurrence or topic overlap. For math→spec: entity_a’s kind: is theorem, lemma, or corollary, and entity_a’s body contains reasoning about entity_b’s defining property. For spec→spec: entity_a satisfies a more concrete level and entity_b is the abstract type entity_a implements.

4. Hyperintensionality — the grounding is specific. The relation must survive substitution of equivalent propositions: replacing entity_b with a necessarily-equivalent alternative must break the grounding (otherwise the grounding is merely logical entailment, not genuine grounding). In practice: entity_a’s content must reference entity_b by its specific content, not by a property shared with all equivalent propositions.

Open questions