> Blake, > > You're right about the axis. My tiers grade how hard the challenge is > before signing. You're asking what can come back after it. Those are > different questions and mine doesn't touch yours - CONFIRM and STEP_UP > both still end in accept or refuse, so I made the question harder > without making the answer wider. > > The amend case is the one with nowhere to land, and I agree it's the > one worth keeping. "Right question, wrong amount" is the human telling > you the agent got something wrong. Collapsing that into a refusal > keeps the outcome and throws away the reason, and the reason is the > more useful half. > > Before I write it into -01 I want to get the requirement right rather > than the mechanism, and three things are unclear to me. This is a > problem statement, so anything I put in Section 6 has to say what must > be true without saying how to build it. > > First, "wider than two" counts options, and counting is already a > design choice. What I think you're actually pointing at is a property: > the return must be able to carry a response that is neither acceptance > nor refusal. That states the failure without prescribing a shape. Is > that the requirement you mean, or do you mean something stronger that > a count captures and a property doesn't? > > Second, and this is the one I keep going back and forth on - who > declares the response space? > > If the escalating side declares it, the space is closed and the agent > still controls it. An agent that never offers amend leaves the human > exactly where they were, and the requirement is satisfied on paper > while the gap survives. > > If the human can return an amendment whether or not it was offered, > the space is open, but then the requirement lands on the party that > has to accept an unanticipated response, which is a much larger claim > for a problem statement to make. > > I don't think Section 6 can be written without choosing, and I don't > want to choose by accident. > > Third, an amendment carries a value the original didn't. Something has > to decide whether that value is within what was originally authorized > - 500 instead of 5000 is fine, 50000 instead of 5000 is not. Is that > inside the escalation requirement, or a separate one about the > constraint set the amendment is checked against? My instinct is > separate, because otherwise Section 6 quietly becomes a negotiation > protocol. > > Where I've landed provisionally, and tell me if it's wrong: the > requirement is that the escalation return be able to carry a response > that is neither acceptance nor refusal, and that whatever the response > space is, it be declared rather than implied. What that space contains, > and who is bound by it, sits outside a problem statement. > > Mohamad
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
