Physical need, agency and economic duty
A meal left unused can leave someone hungry. A useful repair can exhaust the worker. Recognition Science places these actions and their moral consequences within one physical reality governed by fixed laws. An economic account must retain each person, their consciousness and agency, their actual relations, and the history of what they have agreed and done.
These cases follow the physical alternatives and the people who can act. They show why a need can exist before a promise, why waiting has consequences, and why benefiting someone does not authorize their labor.
Need precedes a promise
Ben starts with one unit of reserve. Each interval uses two units; a meal restores two. After consuming n whole meals, his reserve is 1 + 2n − 2. He therefore needs at least one meal to finish above zero. There is no promise in this equation.
Alice controls one meal. This example supplies her permission and Ben’s permission for his intake. Alice retains reserve one, with no maintenance or work cost in this constructed interval.
| Action over the interval | Time | Meals left | Alice | Ben |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meal stays unused | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| Ben consumes the meal | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Waiting also changes the state
Both rows cover the same elapsed interval. In the first, the meal remains in stock while Ben’s reserve falls to −1. The negative number records a shortfall. Material is conserved in both branches.
This comparison establishes a preventable physical shortfall under the supplied permissions. Responsibility for an omission also requires the actor’s actual capacity, knowledge and relations. An empty transfer record cannot establish that nothing happened to anyone.
Repair can be selected without a service promise
In a separate two-person example, a worker can repair their shared entrance or leave it broken. There is no delivery or service promise. The worker has authorized the work, and both people have access. Starting with reserve four each, repair followed by one interval of use leaves reserves (1, 2); waiting through both intervals leaves (2, 2). Every intermediate reserve remains positive.
The stated service interpretation assigns each person incident recognition cost ¼ while the entrance is broken and zero when restored. The comparison strictly selects repair among these two eligible plans. If the worker starts at three, repair instead exhausts their reserve and waiting is selected.
The result retains the physical cost to the worker. It depends on the actual work grant, available means, the stated service interpretation and the existing selection rule. The companion note gives the arithmetic.
Benefit does not supply the worker’s authorization
A technician can repair an entrance used by Bea and Cai. In one history, the technician authors the work proposal. In the other, Bea authors that proposal on the technician’s behalf. The tools, initial physical state and first repair operation are identical.
| Actual recorded proposal | Service plan | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Technician authors the work proposal | feasible | The authorized repair completes |
| Counterparty authors the technician’s proposal | infeasible | The work grant is absent |
The second history fails because the technician did not authorize the work. An optimizer must establish eligibility from the actual history before comparing effects. It cannot substitute a more convenient history or borrow permission from a different plan with the same result.
Scarcity leaves every person visible
Now Ben and Cai each start at reserve one and each need a whole meal. Only one exists. Alice retains reserve one in every enabled branch.
| Consumption | Meals left | Ben | Cai |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither eats | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| Ben eats | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| Cai eats | 0 | -1 | 1 |
| Both eat | Needs 2 meals | n/a | n/a |
No operation respecting this material balance can keep both recipients above zero: they need at least two meals between them, and at most one can be consumed. With two meals, all three people finish at reserve one.
Releasing an accepted delivery claim changes what that claim requires. It creates no food and removes no person from the physical account. The release-and-delivery study shows timely fulfillment of every remaining claim alongside a continuing physical shortfall.
Why changing a score cannot resolve this case
A selector that requires every person to remain viable has no eligible plan here. A different cost readout cannot make that set nonempty. A separate obstruction occurs when the ethical rule requires non-worsening for each person: raising a numerical harm cap leaves that requirement intact.
These are exact limits of the current decision rules. Deriving the governing procedure for unavoidable loss requires the physical moral law, the actual causal history and every affected person. A numerical tie-breaker would supply a choice without establishing its justification.
What the cost engine reports
A calculated charge, a full incident cost change and an authored action answer different questions. The certificate keeps the first two separate and reports authorization as unrecorded when the input contains no authored action. Unequal allocation shares change the charge without changing the full incident quantity. A selected quadratic or kinked objective also needs its own physical interpretation.
Certificate fields and compatibility · Physical Cost, Allocation, and Authored Consent