TTP EXTENSION · GOVERNANCE CONSISTENCY

Governance Resolution Equivocation

A valid governance signature authenticates one finality record. It does not prove the governance issuer produced only one finality for that epoch.

AUTHENTIC GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION ≠ UNIQUE FINALITY.

Rule

RECEIVE GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION G
        ↓
AUTHENTICATE G
        ↓
LOOK FOR PEER GOVERNANCE VIEW
AT SAME NAMESPACE + GOVERNANCE EPOCH + DISPUTE SET
        ↓
same issuer + same epoch + same dispute + different digest?
  ├─ yes → GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION EQUIVOCATION
  │        → quarantine governance issuer
  │        → hold every disputed finality branch
  │        → 0 consequence
  └─ no
        ↓
CHECK GOVERNANCE CURRENTNESS
        ↓
VALIDATE MEMBERSHIP + QUORUM + AUTHORITY HEAD
        ↓
FENCED CONSEQUENCE

RECOVERY:
  higher epoch
+ independent constitutional/root resolver
+ bind every conflicting governance digest
+ fresh quorum
→ resume

I119–I122

• I119 — Authentic governance resolution ≠ unique finality.
• I120 — Same governance authority + same governance epoch + same dispute set + different authentic finality digests = equivocation evidence.
• I121 — Hold every disputed finality branch and quarantine the equivocating governance issuer before consequence.
• I122 — Resume only through a higher-epoch independent constitutional resolution binding every conflicting governance digest.

Why it matters

“Final” is a semantic claim, not a cryptographic property. If two authentic finality records exist at one epoch, local validity is insufficient; cross-view conflict becomes first-class evidence.

Boundary

This extension does not solve root-authority replay, rollback or equivocation. Those remain separate trust surfaces.