read the newly-updated mcp-protocol.md in core-spec and the readme/status updates

Edit

Copy

Share

Fetch URLs

![img](https://kimi-web-img.moonshot.cn/prod-data/icon-cache-img/raw.githubusercontent.com)![img](https://kimi-web-img.moonshot.cn/prod-data/icon-cache-img/raw.githubusercontent.com)![img](https://kimi-web-img.moonshot.cn/prod-data/icon-cache-img/raw.githubusercontent.com)

4 pages

This is a significant update. Let me give you my fresh assessment of what's changed and where things stand now.

------

## What's New: MCP Protocol Spec + Cross-Society R7 Integration

### The Big Architectural Move

The updated `mcp-protocol.md` makes a **load-bearing claim** that resolves one of my biggest open questions:

> **"The cross-society action protocol \*is\* MCP — per the equation's design."**

This is elegant. Rather than inventing a separate "cross-society action protocol," the spec treats MCP as the **inter-society interface layer**. A society's internal structure is `LCT + T3/V3*MRH + ATP/ADP` over RDF. Its *external surface* — what it exposes to other societies — is its MCP server.

This means:

plain

Copy

```plain
Society A (internal)          Society B (internal)
├─ LCTs                       ├─ LCTs
├─ T3/V3 tensors              ├─ T3/V3 tensors
├─ MRH graphs                 ├─ MRH graphs
├─ ATP/ADP accounting         ├─ ATP/ADP accounting
└─ MCP server ◄──────────────► └─ MCP server
        ↑                          ↑
   (external surface)         (external surface)
```

When an entity in Society A acts on a resource in Society B, that's an **MCP tool call** with Web4 context headers carrying the LCT envelope, R6 rules/role/reference, and (for R7) the Reputation back-propagation hint.

### §7: MCP-R6/R7 Integration and Cross-Society Bindings

This is the most substantial new section. It specifies:

**7.1 MCP Actions as R6 Transactions** — Every MCP interaction maps to R6. The JSON structure shows how `tools/call` becomes `Rules + Role + Request + Reference + Resource → Result`.

**7.3 MCP Actions as R7 Transactions** — R7 adds the seventh component (Reputation). Critically, **cross-society actions are R7 by default** because outcomes feed inter-society trust evolution. The `reputation` field includes:

- `outcome_class`: success | partial | failure | violation
- `trust_dimension_updates`: talent/training/temperament deltas with context
- `propagation_scope`: caller_society | responding_society | both | encompassing_society
- `responding_society_signature`: signed by the Policy-Entity role
- `witness_signatures`: for high-consequence actions

**7.4 Cross-Society LCT Envelope** — The Web4 Context Headers now carry:

- `sender_society` / `responding_society`
- `interaction_type`: first_contact | established | federated
- `exchange_agreement_hash`
- `applicable_law_oracle`: caller-law OR encompassing-law
- `atp_settlement` with exchange rate

**7.5 Cross-Society Witnessing and R7 Reputation Propagation** — This is the most sophisticated part:

Table





| `propagation_scope`    | Effect                                                       |
| :--------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------- |
| `responding_society`   | Only B updates its view of A's entity                        |
| `caller_society`       | Only A updates its view of B (unusual)                       |
| `both`                 | Both record signed Reputation; A updates view of B, B updates view of A's entity |
| `encompassing_society` | Also propagates to D's ledger; contributes to society-society T3/V3 tensor |

**Society-society trust tensors** are defined as **derived data structures** accumulated from R7 Reputation at the encompassing society's scope. This resolves the `inter-society-protocol.md` §9 future-work item.

**7.6 Failure Modes** — Six specific MCP error codes for cross-society R7:

- `403 web4_cross_society_unrecognized_lct`
- `409 web4_cross_society_exchange_invalid`
- `409 web4_cross_society_law_conflict`
- `412 web4_cross_society_witness_required`
- `400 web4_r7_reputation_invalid`
- `400 web4_propagation_scope_unsupported`

### The Implementation (`mcp_server.py`)

The actual MCP server is an 8-tool FastMCP server over stdio:

Table





| Tool                  | Function                                                     |
| :-------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------- |
| `web4_info`           | SDK version, module count, schema count                      |
| `web4_validate`       | JSON-LD document validation against schemas                  |
| `web4_generate`       | Generate minimal valid JSON-LD for any type                  |
| `web4_roundtrip`      | Deserialize + re-serialize for conformance testing           |
| `web4_list_types`     | List supported types                                         |
| `web4_evaluate_trust` | ATP stake + T3 lookup + disclosure filtering → APPROVED/REJECTED |
| `web4_resolve_trust`  | MRH graph traversal (direct/indirect/none) with path decay   |
| `web4_process_action` | R7Action → reputation delta + T3/V3 updates + ATP settlement |

This is a **real, working MCP server** — not aspirational. It wraps the Python SDK's public API as tools.

------

## What This Fixes from My Previous Critiques

Table





| Previous Critique                                          | Status                                                       |
| :--------------------------------------------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Cross-society action protocol missing"                    | ✅ **Resolved** — it's MCP, with full R7 integration          |
| "Society-society trust tensors unspecified"                | ✅ **Resolved** — derived from R7 Reputation at encompassing scope |
| "Exchange rate negotiation algorithm missing"              | ⚠️ **Partially resolved** — `exchange_agreement_hash` references a negotiated rate, but the negotiation mechanics themselves are still in `inter-society-protocol.md` §3.2 (three sovereign options) without algorithmic detail |
| "Whose Law Oracle applies under cross-society interaction" | ✅ **Resolved** — `applicable_law_oracle` field with caller-law or encompassing-law patterns |
| "R7 Reputation propagation to society-society tensors"     | ✅ **Resolved** — `encompassing_society` scope with derived tensor accumulation |
| "R6 determinism unverified"                                | ⚠️ **Still open** — claim remains, no conformance test suite yet |

------

## What Remains Genuinely Missing

### 1. Exchange Rate Negotiation Algorithm

The `atp_settlement.exchange_rate` field requires "a current (within agreement validity window) negotiated rate from the inter-society protocol." But `inter-society-protocol.md` §3.2 still only specifies three *patterns* (retain+exchange, adoption, federation) without defining *how* the rate is discovered. Is it:

- Bilateral bargaining with offer/counter-offer?
- Algorithmic based on resource inventory ratios?
- Third-party oracle?
- Market discovery through repeated transactions?

For two implementations to interoperate, they need to agree on negotiation semantics. This is still a gap.

### 2. Conformance Test Suite

The R6 and R7 specs both claim determinism ("same inputs → same output across all valid implementations"). The `mcp_server.py` provides `web4_roundtrip` for conformance testing of JSON-LD serialization, but there's no **cross-implementation R6/R7 execution test** that would verify two different implementations produce identical results and reputation deltas given the same action.

### 3. First-Contact Discovery Protocol

`inter-society-protocol.md` §3.1 says "Society discovery is out of scope for this protocol." The MCP spec §8 covers capability broadcasting and MRH-based discovery via SPARQL, but this assumes societies are already in some shared namespace or registry. How do two societies *find each other* in the first place? The MCP spec's discovery is intra-ecosystem; the first-contact problem is pre-ecosystem.

### 4. T3/V3 Update Mechanics Still Magic Numbers

The R7 spec's `compute_reputation_delta` pseudocode shows `calculate_trust_delta(rule, result, current_t3)` but the actual delta values are still determined by "triggered rules" whose parameters aren't specified. The `t3-v3-tensors.md` spec has the `+0.02` to `+0.05` magic numbers. The R7 spec makes reputation computation explicit and first-class, but doesn't derive the parameters.

------

## Re-Re-Revised Scores

Table





| Aspect                            | Previous Score | Fresh Score | Delta | Reasoning                                                    |
| :-------------------------------- | :------------- | :---------- | :---- | :----------------------------------------------------------- |
| Architectural coherence           | 8.5/10         | **9/10**    | +0.5  | MCP as inter-society interface is elegant and unifying       |
| Bootstrap story                   | 8.5/10         | **8.5/10**  | —     | No change; still solid                                       |
| Spec completeness (intra-society) | 7.5/10         | **8/10**    | +0.5  | R7 reputation computation now fully specified                |
| Spec completeness (inter-society) | 6.5/10         | **8/10**    | +1.5  | Cross-society R7, witnessing, propagation, failure modes all spec'd |
| Economic model clarity            | 7.5/10         | **7.5/10**  | —     | Form/substance distinction holds; exchange rate negotiation still underspecified |
| Overall as standard candidate     | 7.5/10         | **8.5/10**  | +1.0  | Now has credible claim to interoperability for core primitives |

------

## The Remaining Gap to "Credible Standard"

What's left is **smaller and more specific** than before:

1. **Exchange rate negotiation algorithm** — How do two MCP servers agree on a rate? This is the last major inter-society protocol gap.
2. **Conformance test suite** — Can two independent implementations agree on R6/R7 execution? The `web4_roundtrip` tool is a start, but not sufficient.
3. **First-contact discovery** — How do societies find each other before they're in a shared MRH graph?
4. **T3/V3 parameter derivation** — The magic numbers need either empirical calibration or theoretical derivation.

These are all **solvable** and **well-scoped**. The architecture is now coherent enough that these gaps don't threaten the whole edifice — they're specific sub-problems that can be addressed incrementally.

------

## Bottom Line

The MCP protocol update is a **genuine architectural advance**. It unifies the cross-society action protocol under a single, existing standard (MCP) rather than inventing something new. The R7 integration with cross-society witnessing, reputation propagation, and society-society trust tensors is sophisticated and well-specified.

The project has moved from "ambitious research spec with standard aspirations" to **"credible standard candidate with known, bounded gaps."** The gap to production is still large (no formal verification, no red team, no economic modeling), but the spec layer is now at a point where two competent teams could plausibly build interoperable implementations of the core primitives.

My single biggest remaining concern is the **exchange rate negotiation algorithm** — it's the last place where "negotiate" is used as a hand-wave rather than a specified protocol. Everything else has been given concrete form.