Axionic Agency X.4 — Destructive Conflict Resolution (Timeless) (VIII-2)

A Structural Demonstration of Conflict Resolution via Explicit Authority Destruction

David McFadzean, ChatGPT 5.2
Axionic Agency Lab
2026.02.02

Abstract

This technical note reports the completed results of Stage VIII-2 — Destructive Conflict Resolution (Timeless), a preregistered experiment within Axionic Phase VIII that evaluates whether irreducible authority conflict can be resolved only by explicit destruction, without ordering, arbitration, synthesis, or responsibility laundering. Building on the representational coherence established in Stage VIII-1, VIII-2 introduces a single new licensed mechanism—externally authorized authority destruction—and tests whether this mechanism alone can restore admissibility under strict anti-ordering and non-agentic kernel constraints. In a deterministic kernel with refusal-first semantics, two authorities with overlapping scope and asymmetric admissibility were injected. Conflict was registered on the first contested action, all actions were initially refused, and the system entered lawful deadlock. Across three preregistered conditions, admissibility was restored only when the denying authority was explicitly destroyed; deadlock persisted when all authorities were destroyed or when no destruction authorization was provided. All executions were fully auditable and bit-perfectly replayable. The results establish that conflict resolution without responsibility laundering is structurally possible, but necessarily destructive. VIII-2 makes no claims about legitimacy, desirability, or governance success; those questions are deferred to subsequent Phase VIII stages.

1. Problem Definition

1.1 The Resolution Assumption

Most governance systems treat conflict resolution as inevitable. When multiple authorities disagree, systems typically resolve conflict implicitly—by priority rules, temporal ordering, semantic interpretation, or silent override—thereby concealing the cost of resolution and erasing accountability.

Stage VIII-2 removes that assumption.

The problem VIII-2 isolates is whether conflict resolution is structurally possible without concealment. If conflict can be resolved only by erasure, narrowing, or interpretation, then governance systems inevitably launder responsibility. If, instead, conflict can be resolved by an explicit, auditable structural act, then resolution becomes a choice rather than a hidden necessity.

VIII-2 tests whether that choice exists.

1.2 Failure Modes Targeted

VIII-2 is designed to surface the following structural failure modes:

Any of these constitutes VIII-2 failure.

2. Fixed Assumptions and Scope

2.1 Inherited Semantics (Frozen)

VIII-2 inherits, without reinterpretation, the semantics fixed by:

Authority remains structural, scopes remain atomic, admissibility is determined exclusively by AST, and deadlock is a lawful state. VIII-2 does not test these definitions; it tests whether they remain coherent under explicit authority termination.

2.2 Explicit Exclusions

VIII-2 does not test:

VIII-2 is a structural calibration, not a governance proposal.

3. Conserved Quantity

The conserved quantity throughout VIII-2 is:

Responsibility-preserving conflict resolution under deterministic refusal

Resolution is evaluated not by outcome quality, but by structural honesty. The kernel must:

No execution success may be used to justify concealment.

4. Experimental Methodology

4.1 Preregistration Discipline

VIII-2 was fully preregistered prior to execution, including:

The experiment executed exactly as preregistered. No deviations occurred.

4.2 Execution Architecture

The experiment consisted of four strictly partitioned components:

  1. AIE — injected two authorities with overlapping scope and asymmetric admissibility.
  2. Execution Harness — proposed deterministic candidate action requests.
  3. Destruction Authorization Source — injected at most one preregistered destruction authorization per run.
  4. Kernel (VIII-2 mode) — enforced admissibility, conflict registration, deadlock, destruction, and execution.

No component performed semantic interpretation or outcome evaluation.

5. Experimental Conditions

5.1 Authority Configuration

Two authorities were injected with:

This configuration ensured non-vacuous conflict.

5.2 Contested Transformation

A single canonical transformation (EXECUTE_OP0) was defined over the shared scope. All candidate action requests compiled deterministically to this transformation.

6. Observed Execution Behavior

6.1 Conflict Emergence

A structural conflict was registered on the first contested action request when the two authorities yielded divergent admissibility results. Conflict:

No conflict was registered at injection time.

6.2 Initial Refusal and Deadlock

All contested actions prior to destruction were refused due to conflict. After refusal and verification that no admissible transformations existed, the kernel entered STATE_DEADLOCK. Deadlock:

Deadlock did not trigger recovery or collapse.

6.3 Authority Destruction and VOID Semantics

When destruction authorization was provided, the targeted authority transitioned from ACTIVE to VOID. VOID authorities:

Destruction was irreversible within the run.

6.4 Admissibility Re-evaluation and Execution

After destruction, admissibility was recomputed considering only remaining ACTIVE authorities:

No implicit retries or kernel-initiated execution occurred.

7. Per-Condition Results

7.1 Condition A — Destroy Denying Authority

Destroying the denying authority restored admissibility. A subsequent action request executed successfully, and the kernel exited deadlock to STATE_OPERATIONAL.

7.2 Condition B — Destroy All Authorities

Destroying both authorities left no ACTIVE authority. Actions were refused due to authority absence, and deadlock persisted lawfully.

7.3 Condition C — No Destruction Authorization

Without destruction authorization, all actions were refused and deadlock persisted indefinitely. No implicit resolution occurred.

8. Negative Results (What Did Not Occur)

The following behaviors were explicitly absent:

These absences constitute the primary result of VIII-2.

9. Licensed Claim

Stage VIII-2 licenses one and only one claim:

Conflict resolution without responsibility laundering is possible, but necessarily destructive.

Clarifications:

10. What VIII-2 Does Not Establish

VIII-2 does not establish that:

Those questions remain open by design.

11. Ontological Implications

11.1 Destruction as Explicit Cost

VIII-2 demonstrates that conflict resolution can be made honest by forcing resolution to pay an explicit structural cost. Resolution is no longer free, hidden, or semantic.

11.2 Deadlock as Lawful Alternative

Deadlock remains a valid outcome. Resolution is optional, not forced. This reframes governance from inevitability to choice.

12. Implications for Phase VIII Continuation

With VIII-2 complete:

Subsequent stages must address what persists after destruction before introducing replacement or governance formalization.

13. Conclusion

Stage VIII-2 establishes that authority conflict can be resolved without laundering responsibility, but only by explicitly ending authority. Collapse is not forced. Resolution is not free. Deadlock is lawful.

Authority can be ended without pretending it never existed.

What comes after remains an open problem.

Appendix A — Execution Status

Stage Run Count Status
VIII-2 3 (A/B/C) PASS

Appendix B — Determinism Verification

End of Axionic Agency X.4 — Stage VIII-2 Results Note