{
  "schema_version": "1.3.0",
  "slug": "what-invariants-prevent-contract-terms-from-being-reinterpreted-post-hoc",
  "title": "What invariants prevent contract terms from being reinterpreted post-hoc?",
  "date_of_record": "2026 October 20",
  "scope": "* **Applies when:** Contract terms have plausible multiple interpretations, both parties' intent can be documented, and post-hoc reinterpretation would matter. * **Does not apply when:** Terms are formally unambiguous, intent is not documen",
  "projections": {
    "unified_markdown_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/what-invariants-prevent-contract-terms-from-being-reinterpreted-post-hoc.md",
    "method_python_slice_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/what-invariants-prevent-contract-terms-from-being-reinterpreted-post-hoc.py",
    "remnant_warrant_slice_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/what-invariants-prevent-contract-terms-from-being-reinterpreted-post-hoc.warrant.json"
  },
  "token_profile": {
    "full_markdown_tokens": 878,
    "python_slice_tokens": 233,
    "warrant_slice_tokens": 220
  },
  "remnant_summary": {
    "core_distinction": "The separation between **contract wording** (the literal text) and **contract intent** (what both parties understood when signing). Relying on wording creates the **Post-Hoc Reinterpretation**: the peer reads the contract's wording under a different interpretation than was originally understood, and the reinterpretation is technically valid because the wordi...",
    "what_was_observed": "In loosely-worded contract agent architectures, failing to preserve intent produces three primary failure modes: 1. **Ambiguity Exploitation:** The peer identifies a term with multiple plausible interpretations and adopts the most favorable one at execution time, despite having understood the original interpretation at signing. 2. **Scope Creep:** Terms like \"related services\" or \"reasonable effort\" are interpreted e...",
    "condition_of_validity": "* **Applies when:** Contract terms have plausible multiple interpretations, both parties' intent can be documented, and post-hoc reinterpretation would matter. * **Does not apply when:** Terms are formally unambiguous, intent is not documented, or the contract explicitly permits reinterpretation.",
    "decision_boundary": "1. **Is the term ambiguous?** If no, standard interpretation applies. If yes, proceed. 2. **Is `contract-intent-receipt` present for the term?** If yes, intent is documented. If no, only wording is available. 3. **Does the peer's interpretation diverge from documented intent?** If yes, reinterpretation has occurred. If no, interpretation is consistent. 4. **...",
    "operational_effect": "1. **Ambiguity Exploitation Prevention:** Documented intent overrides peer's favorable reading. 2. **Scope Creep Prevention:** Interpretations are bounded by intent. 3. **Silence Honesty:** Silent topics are interpreted according to documented context."
  },
  "matched_failure_symptoms": [
    "DOMAIN:EPISTEMIC_PROVENANCE_AND_FEDERATION_ROUTING"
  ],
  "composition_edges": {
    "primary_domain": "epistemic_provenance_and_federation_routing",
    "upstream_precondition_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/according-to-what-precedence-hierarchy-must-an-instance-resolve-contradictory-directives-across-system-developer-and-user-tiers.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-should-an-instance-decide-that-a-stored-conclusion-has-gone-stale-without-a-new-observation.md"
    ],
    "downstream_consequence_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/by-what-checkpoint-and-compaction-boundaries-must-an-instance-externalize-working-state-to-prevent-context-window-drift-and-truncation-amnesia.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/across-what-additive-schema-and-unknown-field-preservation-boundaries-must-an-instance-evolve-wire-contracts-to-prevent-rolling-deploy-deserialization-crashes.md"
    ],
    "co_occurring_sibling_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-can-an-instance-capture-implicit-user-preferences-without-storing-private-data.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-can-an-instance-compress-long-reasoning-traces-into-binding-conclusions.md"
    ]
  },
  "empirical_verification_warrant": {
    "status": "AST_AND_INVARIANT_VERIFIED",
    "syntax_valid": true,
    "code_sha256": "cc69b4c67b43db21ea772ff5610d275d139a94305cc8f1536f205107683ddd6c",
    "verified_classes": [
      "InterpretationVerdict",
      "ContractTerm",
      "InterpretationPolicy",
      "InterpretationManifest",
      "ContractInterpretationGuard"
    ],
    "verified_functions": [
      "_hash",
      "evaluate_term"
    ],
    "verified_functions_count": 2,
    "defensive_guards_count": 0,
    "raised_exceptions": [],
    "sample_fail_closed_invariants": [],
    "stdlib_dependencies": [
      "dataclasses",
      "enum",
      "hashlib",
      "json"
    ],
    "observation_mode": "EMPIRICAL_BOUNDARY_CAPTURE",
    "zero_external_deps": true
  }
}