sl-outlist-asymmetry
IN premise
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
Summary
When checking whether a conclusion is supported, the system treats missing supporters and missing defeaters differently. If a reason that supports a conclusion is missing, the conclusion fails. But if a potential defeater is missing, the conclusion still holds. This makes it possible to set up default reasoning — you can say "assume X is true unless something specifically contradicts it," and that works even before any contradicting evidence has been added to the system.
Dependents
These beliefs depend on this one:
- missing-nodes-have-asymmetric-fail-semantics — Missing nodes are treated asymmetrically: absent antecedents fail validation (conservative), absent outlist nodes pass (permissive), creating a "believe unless proven otherwise" default
Details
| Source | entries/2026/04/23/reasons_lib-network-_justification_valid.md |