#023 proved that useful stale work can cross an ownership boundary as inert data. #024 adds a second boundary: even when adoption authority is correct, the result may have been computed against a state that no longer exists.

Unsafe · valid artifact, stale applicability

state v100 / value 10→A computes output 20→state v101 / value 20

The artifact remained integrity_valid=true, preserved producer A/fence 1, input version 100 and input snapshot digest. Current owner B/fence 2 then adopted it without comparing its input binding to current state.

B current owner→blindly adopts D100→HTTP 200 / output 20

But authoritative v101 required output 40. No corruption occurred; the consequence was simply stale.

A correct result for yesterday's state can be a wrong action for today's state.

Safe · applicability-aware adoption

The safe transition compares both input_state_version and input_snapshot_digest against current authoritative state inside the adoption transaction.

D100→current v101 mismatch→0 rows / applicability_conflict

No external effect was produced. Worker B recomputed against v101, producing output 40, adopted that fresh artifact and committed exactly one effect.

Version alone is not enough

A deliberate broken-version test changed state value 10 → 11 while retaining version 100. The snapshot digest changed, so adoption still returned 0 rows. Strong applicability binding therefore needs version plus snapshot identity, or a domain-equivalent precondition.

New TTP invariants

I55

INTEGRITY + PROVENANCE DOES NOT IMPLY CURRENT APPLICABILITY

I56

ADOPTION MUST BIND THE INPUT STATE THAT JUSTIFIED COMPUTATION

I57

STATE ADVANCE AFTER INPUT CAPTURE IS AN APPLICABILITY TRANSITION

I58

STALE-BUT-VALID ARTIFACT REQUIRES REVALIDATION, RECOMPUTATION OR EXPLICIT DOMAIN PROOF

Evidence

  • GitHub Actions run 31581764996 — success.
  • Artifact resonance-artifact-freshness-v1.0, ID 9135437374.
  • Digest sha256:f6a689be4f4c44e59cdb40d6c62459146f6eb10a18a2bc66cc87eb5baf89e8c4.
  • Unsafe: v100 artifact output 20 committed while current v101 expected 40.
  • Safe: stale adoption 0 rows; recomputed v101 output 40; final effects 1.

Interpretation boundary

This deterministic local benchmark does not claim that every state-version change invalidates every artifact. Production systems may use semantic compatibility rules, validity ranges or dependency proofs. The requirement is that applicability be explicit and evidenced.

Inspect / reproduce

  1. Benchmark source
  2. Canonical report
  3. TTP Artifact Applicability Rule

Verdict: integrity tells us the artifact is intact; applicability tells us whether acting on it is still legal for the current world.