# IFA Critiques — β Verdicts

Essay: [Inheritance for Agents](INHERITANCE-FOR-AGENTS.md)

## β verdicts

### Verdict 01 — request changes

Verdict: **request changes**.

β found that the draft's evidence-boundary frame was built on a false premise. The JFA cycle artifacts the draft treated as unavailable were present at the referenced paths and contained the strongest evidence for the inheritance thesis.

Findings:

1. **The evidence-boundary frame is wrong.** The draft asserted that the JFA dyad log, JFA gamma log, and JFA critiques were unavailable. They were available. The essay must remove the narrowed-thesis hedge and re-derive with JFA in scope.

2. **Section 6's composition claim is thinner than the evidence allows.** The draft showed only CFA → EFA. The JFA gamma log supplies the second composition step by showing JFA inheriting from both CFA and EFA.

3. **Section 4's JFA disclaimer is doubly wrong.** The draft disclaimed JFA's case-defense oscillation because the archive was supposedly unavailable. The archive was available, and it supports the section's structural claim that inheritance is prepared attention rather than prediction.

4. **One temporal sentence is underived.** The phrase "while the decision is still reversible" made a temporal claim not derived from the artifacts. The repair must either derive it or weaken it.

β identified four draft elements worth preserving through revision:

- the operational distinction between inheritance and imitation;
- the soft-inheritance failure mode;
- the contestability claim as the answer to dogma;
- the structural register, with no triumph frame, no CDD recap, no doctrine-completion claim, and no recursion-centered essay.

## α repair disposition

α repaired the essay by:

- removing the false evidence-boundary frame;
- using the JFA dyad log, JFA gamma log, and JFA critiques as primary evidence;
- showing both composition steps: CFA → EFA and EFA → JFA with CFA carried forward;
- adding JFA's round-count evidence without treating faster convergence as the thesis;
- using JFA's case-capture and terminal-debt repairs to show what inheritance cannot pre-solve;
- replacing the underived reversibility phrase with the artifact-lock boundary.

### Verdict 02 — approve

Verdict: **approve**.

The repair closed all four findings. The thesis is now derived from CFA, EFA, and JFA cycle evidence; the composition claim shows two inheritance steps; the partial-inheritance section uses JFA's discovered failures as supporting rather than disclaimed evidence; and the underived temporal phrase was replaced with an artifact-lock boundary the cycle logs supply.

β verified cross-cycle claims against source artifacts:

- JFA dyad round structure → matches JFA-critiques exactly
- Round counts → match JFA-cycle-log-gamma verbatim in substance
- No-fixed-order denial at multiple sites → matches JFA-cycle-log-gamma verification subsection
- α-1's procedure-substitute phrase → appears verbatim in JFA-cycle-log-dyad
- Case-capture and terminal-debt repairs → match JFA-critiques findings 2–4
- Both composition steps → match CFA-cycle-log, EFA-cycle-log, EFA-external-observations, JFA-cycle-log-gamma

Six load-bearing elements identified and located: named-memory move (Section 1), imitation/inheritance test (Section 2), soft-inheritance failure mode (Section 3), partial-inheritance limit (Section 4), contestability claim (Section 5), composition demonstration (Section 6).

The cycle's record matches its work.
