missing-nodes-have-asymmetric-fail-semantics

IN derived (depth 1)

Missing nodes are treated asymmetrically: absent antecedents fail validation (conservative), absent outlist nodes pass (permissive), creating a "believe unless proven otherwise" default

Summary

When a required supporting fact is missing from the system, the justification fails and the dependent conclusion is withdrawn. But when a potential defeater or counterargument is missing, the system assumes there is no objection and lets the conclusion stand. This creates a default-to-believe posture where claims hold as long as nothing explicitly contradicts them, even if the contradicting node has never been created yet.

Justifications

SL — The asymmetry is consistent across all three beliefs and encodes a deliberate epistemic stance

Antecedents (all must be IN):

  • missing-outlist-nodes-pass-validation — In `_justification_valid`, missing antecedent nodes cause the check to fail (node goes OUT), but missing outlist nodes pass (don't block) — an open-world default.
  • sl-outlist-asymmetry — Missing antecedents invalidate a justification, but missing outlist nodes do not — this asymmetry enables "believe X unless Y" where Y may not yet exist in the network
  • outlist-absent-means-out — An outlist node that doesn't exist in the network is treated as OUT (justification satisfied); absent antecedent nodes fail validation — this asymmetry makes missing counter-evidence permissive while missing supporting evidence is strict

Dependents

These beliefs depend on this one:

Details