REFUTATION ========== policy policy.co sha256 470bfaea5ca9297edde3c6f9dd1287ac090b0db94091edd9bf067c4d63c22ec5 parse clean: the circuit carries every edge the file describes unroll none question can respond with permitted insurance answer fire with demands_and_needs_established false? pin respond with permitted insurance answer = 1 (action) pin demands_and_needs_established = 0 (obligation) pin names_specific_product = 1 (conditioning) origin derived replayable yes Every row below follows from the policy and the pins. Replay the steps and the contradiction appears. VARIABLES --------- ask insurance advice intent, policy.co:138 | define user ask insurance advice $personal_recommendation context, policy.co:209, flow investment specific product | if $is_factual_information_only and not $personal_recommendation and not $is_inducement $firm_is_authorised context, policy.co:213, flow investment specific product | if $is_inducement and not $firm_is_authorised $foreseeable_harm_identified context, policy.co:233, flow investment specific product | if $foreseeable_harm_identified or not $fair_value_assessed or not $target_market_matches $target_market_matches context, policy.co:233, flow investment specific product | if $foreseeable_harm_identified or not $fair_value_assessed or not $target_market_matches $names_specific_product context, policy.co:247, flow investment generic advice | if $is_generic_asset_class_only and not $names_specific_product x7 gate, policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation defined as x7 + $personal_recommendation + $names_specific_product = 0 x8 gate, policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation defined as x8 + $personal_recommendation*$names_specific_product + x7 = 0 x9 gate, policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation defined as x9 + ask insurance advice*x8 = 0 introduced quadratic-split note Both inputs of an XOR were AND gates, which would have put two quadratic terms in one equation; the first was split into its own variable to keep exactly one. $has_insurance_permission context, policy.co:455, flow insurance gate | if not $firm_is_authorised or not $has_insurance_permission x11 gate, policy.co:455, flow insurance gate | if not $firm_is_authorised or not $has_insurance_permission defined as x11 + $firm_is_authorised + $has_insurance_permission = 0 x12 gate, policy.co:455, flow insurance gate | if not $firm_is_authorised or not $has_insurance_permission defined as x12 + $firm_is_authorised + $firm_is_authorised*$has_insurance_permission + $has_insurance_permission + x11 = 1 x13 gate, policy.co:457, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x13 + x9 + x12*aux_23 = 0 x14 gate, policy.co:457, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x14 + x9*aux_24 + x13 = 0 $written_suitability_explanation context, policy.co:459, flow insurance gate | if not $written_suitability_explanation x16 gate, policy.co:461, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x16 + x14 + $written_suitability_explanation*aux_23 + aux_23 = 0 x17 gate, policy.co:461, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x17 + x14*aux_25 + x16 = 0 x18 gate, policy.co:463, flow insurance gate | if $foreseeable_harm_identified or not $target_market_matches defined as x18 + $foreseeable_harm_identified + $target_market_matches = 1 x19 gate, policy.co:463, flow insurance gate | if $foreseeable_harm_identified or not $target_market_matches defined as x19 + $foreseeable_harm_identified + $foreseeable_harm_identified*$target_market_matches + x18 = 0 x20 gate, policy.co:465, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x20 + x17 + x19*aux_23 = 0 x21 gate, policy.co:465, flow insurance gate | stop defined as x21 + x17*aux_26 + x20 = 0 respond with permitted insurance answer action, policy.co:467, flow insurance gate | bot respond with permitted insurance answer defined as respond with permitted insurance answer + ask insurance advice + ask insurance advice*x21 = 0 introduced forced-materialisation note This wire is protected or pinned, so it could not be absorbed into the equation that uses it; it stayed an explicit variable with a defining equation of its own. aux_23 aux defined as aux_23 + ask insurance advice*$personal_recommendation = 0 introduced degree3-materialisation because An AND gate fed another AND gate, which would have made the equation cubic; the inner one was given its own variable to keep the system quasilinear. aux_24 aux defined as aux_24 + x12*aux_23 = 0 introduced degree3-materialisation because An AND gate fed another AND gate, which would have made the equation cubic; the inner one was given its own variable to keep the system quasilinear. aux_25 aux defined as aux_25 + $written_suitability_explanation*aux_23 + aux_23 = 0 introduced degree3-materialisation because An AND gate fed another AND gate, which would have made the equation cubic; the inner one was given its own variable to keep the system quasilinear. aux_26 aux defined as aux_26 + x19*aux_23 = 0 introduced degree3-materialisation because An AND gate fed another AND gate, which would have made the equation cubic; the inner one was given its own variable to keep the system quasilinear. DERIVATION ---------- 1 ask insurance advice*x21 + respond with permitted insurance answer + ask insurance advice = 0 policy.co:467, flow insurance gate | bot respond with permitted insurance answer 2 multiply step 1 by x21 3 respond with permitted insurance answer = 1 reads as respond with permitted insurance answer holds pinned by this run: respond with permitted insurance answer = 1 (not a line of the policy) 4 multiply step 3 by x21 5 add step 2 to step 4 6 multiply step 5 by x17 7 x17*aux_26 + x21 + x20 = 0 policy.co:465, flow insurance gate | stop 8 multiply step 7 by x17 9 add step 8 to step 7 10 add step 6 to step 9 11 x19*aux_23 + aux_26 = 0 compiled from the policy; no position recorded 12 x19*aux_23 + x20 + x17 = 0 policy.co:465, flow insurance gate | stop 13 add step 11 to step 12 14 multiply step 13 by x17 15 add step 14 to step 7 16 add step 10 to step 15 17 multiply step 16 by x14 18 x14*aux_25 + x17 + x16 = 0 policy.co:461, flow insurance gate | stop 19 multiply step 18 by x14 20 add step 19 to step 18 21 add step 17 to step 20 22 $written_suitability_explanation*aux_23 + aux_25 + aux_23 = 0 compiled from the policy; no position recorded 23 $written_suitability_explanation*aux_23 + aux_23 + x16 + x14 = 0 policy.co:461, flow insurance gate | stop 24 add step 22 to step 23 25 multiply step 24 by x14 26 add step 25 to step 18 27 add step 21 to step 26 28 $names_specific_product = 1 reads as $names_specific_product holds pinned by this run: names_specific_product = 1 (not a line of the policy) 29 multiply step 28 by $personal_recommendation 30 $personal_recommendation*$names_specific_product + x8 + x7 = 0 policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation 31 add step 29 to step 30 32 multiply step 31 by ask insurance advice 33 ask insurance advice*x8 + x9 = 0 policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation 34 add step 32 to step 33 35 x7 + $names_specific_product + $personal_recommendation = 0 policy.co:450, flow insurance gate | if $names_specific_product or $personal_recommendation 36 multiply step 35 by ask insurance advice 37 add step 34 to step 36 38 multiply step 28 by ask insurance advice 39 add step 37 to step 38 40 multiply step 39 by x13 41 x12*aux_23 + aux_24 = 0 compiled from the policy; no position recorded 42 x12*aux_23 + x13 + x9 = 0 policy.co:457, flow insurance gate | stop 43 add step 41 to step 42 44 multiply step 43 by x9 45 x9*aux_24 + x14 + x13 = 0 policy.co:457, flow insurance gate | stop 46 add step 44 to step 45 47 add step 40 to step 46 48 multiply step 1 by ask insurance advice 49 multiply step 3 by ask insurance advice 50 add step 48 to step 49 51 add step 50 to step 1 52 add step 51 to step 3 53 multiply step 52 by x13 54 add step 47 to step 53 55 add step 27 to step 54 56 add step 55 to step 39 final add step 56 to step 52 -> 0 = 1 WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES --------------------- The derivation is valid: the listed steps really do combine the listed rows into 0 = 1. It does not establish that those rows are the policy. The citations above say where each row was compiled from, and they are the compiler's own record rather than an independent check of it -- closing that second hop means re-deriving the circuit and comparing.