Neutral Substrates: A Design Constraint for Shared Records Under Persistent Interpretive Disagreement
Authors: Denise M. Case
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, USA
Abstract
Shared accountability records are often used by parties who may never agree about causation, responsibility, or normative interpretation. For such records, neutrality cannot be achieved by omitting contested information, because accountability requires preserving the claims parties made, with their sources and provenance. Nor can neutrality be achieved by asserting one contested interpretation as the shared base. This paper defines a neutral substrate as a shared representational layer that provides stable reference while making no object-level substrate-layer commitments to causal or normative propositions. The central design constraint is that, when causal and normative propositions are contestable across admissible frameworks and the substrate's referential commitments are common ground, the substrate's neutrality is guaranteed at design time if and only if its foundational layer is restricted to those referential commitments and attribution propositions whose attributional basis is fixed by them. Causal and normative content may still be represented, but not as object-level foundational-layer commitments: it may appear there only as the content of attributed assertions with provenance, made by some identified framework, source, agent, institution, record, or document. The representational machinery used here is standard: reification, attribution, and provenance. The contribution is the constraint: a checkable condition on the foundational layer of a shared record, stated together with the assumptions it depends on and the boundary condition under which the constraint does not apply. A neutral substrate says enough to preserve accountability, but it does not turn one party's interpretation into an object-level substrate-layer commitment. The constraint does not apply at that layer when the referential regime or attributional basis is contested among the frameworks in play.
We study event-graph substrates: a class of world models that represent agent state as an append-only log of typed RDF triples and answer counterfactual queries by forking the log under a structured intervention vocabulary. Substrates are inspectable at the triple level, support exact counterfactuals, and transfer across domains without learned components. We formalize the class, prove a duality between explanatory and counterfactual queries that reduces both to the same causal-ancestor traversal, and evaluate a 1,400-line CLEVRER-DSL interpreter atop a domain-agnostic substrate runtime at full CLEVRER validation scale (n=75,618). The substrate exceeds the NS-DR symbolic oracle on all four per-question categories (by 9.89, 20.26, 17.65, and 0.80 percentage points), and exceeds the parametric ALOE baseline on descriptive and explanatory while lagging on predictive and counterfactual. We also introduce twin-EventLog, a 500-specification Park-canonical Smallville counterfactual benchmark on which the substrate exceeds Llama-3.1-8B with full context by 18.80 points joint accuracy.
A record system declares when two records refer to the same entity, occurrence, scope, or rule. Its disclosed implementation mechanisms induce a corresponding operational identity relation. The declared and implemented relations may diverge systematically without producing a provenance gap or detectable contradiction. A system can apply, consistently and with every record individually correct, a rule of sameness that no artifact declares. This paper formalizes that implemented relation. A declared identity regime partitions a finite record domain into co-reference classes; a disclosed mechanism, through its typed identity-relevant outcomes, induces an operational identity partition of the same domain. The audit compares these partitions in the refinement lattice. A mechanism is faithful when the declared partition refines the operational partition, so no declared class is split. A divergence witness is a pair the declaration merges and the mechanism separates; such witnesses are decidable by pair enumeration. When an imported sibling basis also splits a declared class, local comparison with its partition yields sibling-aligned, sub-sibling, super-sibling, or sibling-incomparable divergence. This result reports only the relationship; it does not identify the basis carried by the mechanism. Global equality of the operational and sibling partitions is defined separately as regime substitution and does not follow from sibling alignment. A version field incremented on every textual edit inhabits the sub-sibling case by splitting declared classes more finely than either imported basis. The audit is three-valued and relative to the disclosed artifacts, evaluated surfaces, and identified uses; each boundary has a finite refuting witness. A passing verdict is non-monotone because extending the transformation history can merge declared classes and create a witness among records already examined.
The Relativity of Causal Knowledge (RCK) explains how a network of agents with different structural causal models can exchange causal knowledge through a shared interventionally consistent abstraction, or backbone. We ask the prior identification question that this transport mechanism presupposes: when is that backbone determined by the agents' private causal knowledge? In the basic two-agent common-effect case, two private causes influence one shared outcome and each agent identifies only the single-cause causal marginal relevant to its own perspective. We show that, under standard compatibility, non-degeneracy, and local overlap assumptions, those local causal marginals do not identify a unique backbone. Infinitely many joint intervention kernels can induce exactly the same private reports while disagreeing on joint interventions. We then give a conditional recovery result. Additive separability removes the hidden interaction degree of freedom, but observational residual summaries remain insufficient. Identification becomes possible when agents communicate causally identified response functions. An education value-added example illustrates why this is first a communication problem, and only then a policy-composition problem.