contradiction-resolution-is-minimal-disruption
IN derived (depth 1)
The nogood resolution system minimizes network disruption through layered heuristics: the primary path traces justification chains back to premises and selects the least-entrenched for retraction, the fallback uses dependent count when no traceable chain exists, and all contradictions are unconditionally recorded regardless of resolution outcome.
Summary
When the system detects a contradiction between beliefs, it resolves it by doing as little damage as possible. It traces back to find the weakest assumption in the chain and removes that one, falling back to removing whichever belief has the fewest things depending on it if no clear chain exists. Either way, the contradiction itself is always recorded for the historical record, even if it turns out not to need resolution right now.
Justifications
SL — Groups the four nogood-resolution base beliefs into a single characterization: layered heuristics that always prefer minimal disruption with complete audit trails
Antecedents (all must be IN):
- add-nogood-retraction-prefers-least-entrenched — The primary retraction path traces back through justification chains to premises and chooses the one with the lowest entrenchment score (speculative assumptions before evidence-backed observations)
- add-nogood-fallback-uses-dependent-count — When `find_culprits` returns no candidates (all nogood nodes are premises with no justification chains), the fallback retracts the nogood member with the fewest direct dependents
- add-nogood-always-records — `add_nogood` appends a `Nogood` record unconditionally before checking whether the contradiction is active, so nogoods are preserved even when not all member nodes are currently IN
- backtracking-retracts-least-entrenched — `add_nogood` resolves contradictions via dependency-directed backtracking: `find_culprits` traces to premises, scores by `_entrenchment`, and retracts the least-entrenched premise to minimize disruption.
Dependents
These beliefs depend on this one:
- belief-revision-is-comprehensive-and-minimal — The system handles all forms of belief revision through two complementary minimal mechanisms: the outlist primitive provides a single reversible defeat mechanism for challenges, kill-switches, and supersession, while dependency-directed backtracking resolves detected contradictions by retracting the least-entrenched premise with minimal disruption.
- belief-revision-is-fully-reliable — The complete belief revision pipeline — outlist-based defeat for proactive retraction plus dependency-directed backtracking for reactive contradiction resolution — produces correct, consistent, auditable results with deterministic propagation settling all consequences.
- contradiction-resolution-minimizes-disruption-and-guides-recovery — Contradiction resolution achieves both minimal impact and guided recovery: dependency-directed backtracking selects the least-entrenched culprit premise to minimize the retraction cascade, while restoration hints identify specific cascade victims that have surviving alternative premises — providing a complete resolve-and-recover pipeline
- contradiction-triggers-deterministic-resolution — When contradictions are detected, resolution and propagation form a deterministic pipeline: backtracking identifies the least-entrenched culprit premise, retraction triggers BFS propagation that terminates via stop-on-unchanged, producing a new consistent state with minimal network disruption and guaranteed convergence.