# Policy Consistency **Meta-Universe Specification** **Document ID:** MU-V2-ARCH-014 **Title:** Policy Consistency, Precedence and Deadlock Handling **Document Class:** Normative **Version:** 2.0 (Draft) **Status:** Working Draft **Normative References:** MUC, [Validation](../02-architecture/Validation.md), [Change-Process](../01-constitution/Change-Process.md), [Contract](../04-core-concepts/Contract.md) **Informative References:** [Conflict-Resolution](../03-federation/Conflict-Resolution.md), [AI-Agent-Guide](../07-guides/AI-Agent-Guide.md), [Traceability](../02-architecture/Traceability.md) **Copyright:** © Orkestron.AI **License:** Apache-2.0 --- # 1. Purpose When a meta-model treats normative rules as binding law, two failures become possible that ordinary tools miss: 1. Two changes each pass a line-level merge yet leave the rule set **logically contradictory** (a `git merge` understands lines, not logic). 2. At decision time, **Rule A requires X while Rule B forbids X** — a policy deadlock that sends a strict agent into an endless loop or a refusal to act. This document defines how to keep a body of normative rules internally consistent: a **pre-merge Policy Consistency Check**, explicit **rule precedence**, and mandatory **deadlock handling with human escalation**. It is distinct from [Conflict-Resolution](../03-federation/Conflict-Resolution.md): that governs *divergent interpretations between sovereign universes*; this governs *logical contradiction within one model's normative rules*. --- # 2. Normative Rules as First-Class A **Normative Rule** is a binding statement (`SHALL` / `SHALL NOT`) with a stable identity. Each rule SHALL declare: - a stable rule identifier; - its **scope** (the objects/contexts it constrains); - its **precedence** (an explicit weight or rank — see Section 4); - its provenance and lifecycle. Rules are versioned and traceable like any other semantic artifact. --- # 3. Policy Consistency Check Before a change to the normative base enters the [Model Canon](../05-reference-architecture/Reference-Repository.md), a **Policy Consistency Check** SHALL be run. It evaluates whether the resulting rule set is **satisfiable** — whether any state can satisfy all rules at once. - A change that makes the rule set unsatisfiable SHALL be rejected as a **Constitutional (V3) failure** in [Validation](../02-architecture/Validation.md); the contradicting rules SHALL be reported by identifier. - The check SHALL operate at the level of rule semantics (predicates over the model), not text. An implementation MAY use a logic solver or a validating reasoning agent; the requirement is that the verdict be **reproducible and explainable**. - The check is a gate in the [Change Process](../01-constitution/Change-Process.md): no normative change merges until it passes. This is the concrete, near-term form of the "AI Reasoning Validation" arm of the future Semantic Validation Framework (see [Validation](../02-architecture/Validation.md)). --- # 4. Rule Precedence Where two rules *could* conflict in some states but a clear authority order exists, **precedence** resolves it deterministically: - Higher-precedence rules override lower ones; the resolution SHALL be recorded as a [traceable](../02-architecture/Traceability.md) decision, not applied silently. - Constitutional rules ([MUC](../01-constitution/Meta-Universe-Constitution.md)) SHALL have the highest precedence; no subordinate rule may override a constitutional article. - Precedence resolves *prioritizable* conflicts. It SHALL NOT be used to paper over a genuine logical contradiction that no ordering can satisfy — that is a Section 3 failure. --- # 5. Deadlock Detection and Exception Handling A **policy deadlock** is a runtime state in which applicable rules cannot all be satisfied and precedence does not resolve them (Rule A requires X, Rule B of equal standing forbids X). An implementation SHALL: 1. **Detect** the deadlock rather than loop — a reasoning agent SHALL bound its attempts and recognize mutual blockage. 2. **Record** the deadlock as an immutable [Event](../04-core-concepts/Event.md) (a `Conflict` event) naming the blocking rules. 3. **Escalate** immediately to a human (Human-in-the-Loop). The agent SHALL NOT silently pick a side, fabricate a resolution, or stall indefinitely. 4. **Halt** the affected action until the escalation is resolved; other, unaffected work MAY continue. The resolution (a precedence change, a rule amendment, or a one-off exception) SHALL itself pass the Policy Consistency Check before it takes effect. --- # 6. Validation Hooks - `V3` (Constitutional) is extended with a **Policy Consistency** check: the normative rule set SHALL be satisfiable. - A model that cannot demonstrate satisfiability of its declared rules SHALL NOT claim V3 conformance. See [Validation](../02-architecture/Validation.md) for the level definitions. --- # 7. Architectural Invariants - The normative rule set SHALL be satisfiable; contradictions SHALL be rejected before merge. - Constitutional rules SHALL have the highest precedence. - Precedence resolutions SHALL be recorded, never silent. - A policy deadlock SHALL trigger detection, an Event, and human escalation — never an infinite loop or a silent choice. --- # Future Directions - A standard **predicate vocabulary** for expressing rule semantics so solvers interoperate. - **Proof artifacts** attached to a passing consistency check, so a consumer can re-verify satisfiability without re-running the solver. - Integration with [Simulated Sandbox Projections](../02-architecture/Simulation-Sandbox.md) to test a rule change for deadlocks before proposing it. --- # Final Statement > Rules that contradict each other are worse than no rules: they freeze the very > agents meant to act on them. Policy Consistency keeps the law satisfiable — and > when it cannot, hands the hard case to a human instead of looping forever.