The Collective Thinking Process Protocol should include a typed, dependency-aware publish/subscribe process.

A failed test should not simply be broadcast as:

“The test failed.”

That is too ambiguous. A test failure is a consequence. It is not yet a collective verdict about the claim. The next process must preserve the distinction between:

• what happened;
• what the result means;
• which claims are affected;
• which agents must reconsider their conduct;
• who has authority to change the collective model.

The appropriate subsystem is a Collective Evidence Bus.

Collective Evidence Publication and Subscription Protocol

1. Immediate response to a failed test

When the specialist’s test fails, four things happen immediately.

1.1 Preserve the raw result

The agent records:

• the Test Contract;
• exact test conditions;
• raw traces;
• environment;
• deviations from the planned test;
• timestamp;
• relevant code, policy, or world-state version;
• identity and authority of the test operator.

The original result must remain available independently of later interpretations.

1.2 Publish an unadjudicated Test Result Event

The first publication says:

A result occurred that may bear on these claims.

It does not yet say:

These claims are false.

1.3 Apply any pre-registered stop conditions

Some failures require immediate suspension before full interpretation.

Examples:

• a protected safety floor was crossed;
• irreversible data loss occurred;
• the probe produced a prohibited consequence;
• continuing action would contaminate further evidence;
• downstream agents are about to rely on the tested claim.

1.4 Calculate the potential impact radius

The shared dependency graph identifies:

• the target claim;
• downstream claims;
• tree branches;
• interventions;
• commitments;
• actions;
• measurements;
• affected stakeholders;
• other agents whose plans rely on the claim.

This produces a provisional blast radius.

---

2. The publication sequence

The bus should distinguish five event types.

2.1 Test Execution Event

This records that the test was run.

event_type: test_execution
event_id: TE-104
test_id: T-27
target_claims:
  - C-41
executed_by: agent-specialist-7
test_contract_version: 3
environment_version: E-18
started_at: 2026-07-13T10:00:00Z
completed_at: 2026-07-13T10:04:00Z
result_state: completed
raw_trace_refs:
  - X-991
  - X-992

2.2 Test Result Event

This records the observed mismatch.

event_type: test_result
event_id: TR-104
test_id: T-27
target_claims:
  - C-41
observed_result:
  expected: "regional state remains consistent"
  observed: "three regions produced conflicting authority states"
preliminary_status: unadjudicated
stop_condition_triggered: true
possible_interpretations:
  - target_claim_weakened
  - implementation_failure
  - measurement_invalid
  - missing_boundary_condition
published_by: agent-specialist-7
provenance:
  raw_trace_refs:
    - X-991
    - X-992

2.3 Evidence Event

After selection, classification, attribution, and registration are reviewed, the result becomes an Evidence Event.

A world-state does not become evidence automatically. The passage from consequence to evidence requires explicit uptake, and that process can preserve, distort, or erase relevant differences.

event_type: evidence
event_id: EV-104
derived_from:
  - TR-104
uptake:
  selection:
    included: all_pilot_regions
    exclusions: none
  classification:
    result_class: harmful_state_divergence
    alternatives:
      - temporary_recoverable_variation
  attribution:
    current_assessment: shared_state_replication_delay
    confidence: provisional
  registration:
    evidence_store: collective-ledger
    version: 1
epistemic_status: provisional

2.4 Verdict Event

An authorized adjudicator or adjudicating group determines what the evidence does to the claims.

event_type: verdict
event_id: VE-104
evidence_ids:
  - EV-104
target_claim: C-41
verdict: qualified
reason: >
  The claim holds only when shared-state propagation latency remains below
  the action-window threshold.
claim_revision:
  old: >
    Bounded local authority preserves coordinated state.
  new: >
    Bounded local authority preserves coordinated state when propagation
    latency is below 500 ms or local actions are conflict-checked before execution.
authority:
  adjudicator: collective-review-panel

2.5 Revision and Obligation Events

The verdict then produces explicit changes.

event_type: revision
event_id: RE-104
revised_claims:
  - C-41
suspended_claims:
  - C-52
affected_tree_nodes:
  - FRT-E17
  - TT-A9
new_version: collective-model-v38

event_type: obligation
event_id: OB-104
assigned_to: platform-coordination-agent
required_action: >
  Suspend rollout to additional regions and evaluate conflict-checking options.
due_at: 2026-07-14T12:00:00Z
acknowledgement_required: true

---

3. What agents subscribe to

Agents should not subscribe only to other agents.

They should primarily subscribe to objects and responsibilities.

3.1 Claim subscriptions

An agent subscribes to claims it:

• owns;
• relies upon;
• tests;
• challenges;
• uses as a precondition.

Example:

claim.C-41

3.2 Tree-branch subscriptions

An agent may subscribe to a causal branch.

tree.FRT.failover-authority
tree.CRT.incident-response

3.3 Goal-condition subscriptions

Agents subscribe to Goal Tree conditions they help protect.

goal.safety
goal.service-continuity
goal.local-autonomy

3.4 Commitment subscriptions

An agent subscribes to changes that may alter its promises, resources, or assigned actions.

commitment.K-18
agent.A-7.obligations

3.5 Risk subscriptions

Security, safety, legal, compliance, or affected-party agents may subscribe to risk classes.

risk.data-loss
risk.security-boundary
risk.protected-floor

3.6 Constituency subscriptions

A stakeholder representative subscribes to consequences borne by its constituency.

affected.region-west
affected.end-users
affected.operations-team

3.7 Gate subscriptions

Agents responsible for translation between scales subscribe to cross-scale evidence gates.

gate.local-to-central
gate.production-to-governance

The formal theory treats gates as the mechanisms through which consequences move between regimes of semiosis; provenance and distinctions can be lost at these boundaries.

---

4. Dependency-based routing

The publication system should maintain a graph containing:

claim
measurement
test
tree node
action
commitment
agent
constituency
protected floor
ideal condition

Edges include:

supports
depends_on
measures
tests
implements
authorized_by
committed_by
affects
contradicts
qualifies

When evidence affects claim (C), the system computes the relevant dependency closure.

Conceptually:

[ Impact(C) = Descendants(C) \cup Owners(Descendants(C)) \cup AffectedParties(Descendants(C)) ]

The system should not notify every participant equally.

It assigns an impact level.

---

5. What a subscribed agent receives

The agent should receive an Impact Package, not merely the raw failure.

impact_package_id: IP-104
recipient: agent-A12
trigger_event: VE-104

summary:
  tested_claim: C-41
  verdict: qualified
  change: >
    Local authority requires propagation latency below 500 ms or conflict checking.

why_you_received_this:
  dependency:
    your_action: TT-A9
    relies_on: C-41

required_response:
  type: replan_required
  deadline: 2026-07-14T12:00:00Z

affected_objects:
  - TT-A9
  - commitment-K22
  - deployment-plan-P4

evidence_refs:
  - EV-104
  - X-991
  - X-992

permitted_responses:
  - acknowledge
  - challenge_relevance
  - challenge_verdict
  - revise_local_plan
  - request_clarification
  - declare_no_impact
  - escalate

This prevents the receiving agent from having to reconstruct the entire causal route from a terse message.

---

6. The receiving agent’s obligations

Receiving an update does not mean silently overwriting the agent’s internal model.

Each relevant agent performs local uptake.

6.1 Acknowledge receipt

The agent confirms that it has received the event and can access the evidence permitted by its standing.

6.2 Verify relevance

The agent checks:

• Is the dependency real?
• Does the evidence apply within my scope?
• Is my action based on the revised claim?
• Does the qualification alter my boundary conditions?

6.3 Update local claims

The agent marks local claims as:

• unaffected;
• review required;
• suspended;
• invalidated;
• qualified.

6.4 Review commitments

The agent determines whether it can still:

• perform the promised action;
• provide the promised resource;
• accept the risk;
• meet the expected effect.

6.5 Publish a response

event_type: impact_response
recipient_event: IP-104
agent: agent-A12
response: revise_local_plan
local_changes:
  suspended_actions:
    - TT-A9
  new_claim:
    - C-77
  requested_probe:
    - T-31
commitment_changes:
  commitment-K22: conditional
reason: >
  Our rollout environment regularly exceeds the newly identified latency threshold.

6.6 Escalate disagreement where necessary

The agent may challenge:

• the relevance route;
• the evidence;
• the classification;
• the attribution;
• the verdict;
• the authority of the adjudicator;
• the proposed revision.

This challenge is itself published and becomes part of the collective record.

---

7. The specialist’s role after publishing

The specialist who ran the failed test should not unilaterally update every dependent claim.

The specialist is responsible for:

• accurate test execution;
• raw trace preservation;
• initial result publication;
• disclosure of deviations;
• technical interpretation within its scope;
• availability for clarification.

The specialist is not automatically authorized to decide:

• the collective verdict;
• the business or normative meaning;
• all downstream revisions;
• whether the ideal should change.

This separates expertise from governance authority.

---

8. What should happen before adjudication

A failed test may immediately affect ongoing actions even before its meaning is settled.

The protocol should use provisional states.

The test result event should state which provisional state applies.

---

9. Not every failed test defeats the claim

A failed test can mean:

• the claim is false;
• the claim is too broad;
• a necessary condition was omitted;
• the test implementation failed;
• the intervention was not instantiated;
• the measurement was invalid;
• the environment differed;
• uptake erased a relevant distinction;
• a rival is favored;
• no current hypothesis explains the result.

The publication system must therefore transmit both:

observed failure

and:

current epistemic interpretation

as separate fields.

Otherwise agents may prematurely rewrite their plans around a misdiagnosed result.

---

10. Re-abduction after collective surprise

If the failed result fits no live explanation, the bus should publish a Second-Order Surprise Event.

event_type: second_order_surprise
event_id: SO-18
evidence:
  - EV-104
reason: >
  None of the registered hypotheses predicts the observed regional divergence pattern.
affected_model_area:
  - failover-authority
required_transition: re_abduction
requested_contributors:
  - distributed-systems-specialist
  - regional-operations
  - network-observability
  - affected-party-representative

This event does not ask the same agents merely to try harder.

It explicitly reopens:

• the hypothesis space;
• the stakeholder set;
• the scale boundary;
• the vocabulary;
• the current system model.

---

11. Acknowledgment and convergence

A publication is not complete merely because it was sent.

For high-impact updates, the system tracks:

• delivery;
• receipt;
• understanding;
• local disposition;
• commitment change;
• completion of required revision.

Possible acknowledgment states:

delivered
received
understood
relevance_confirmed
local_review_complete
action_revised
commitment_revised
challenged
escalated

The collective should not assume convergence merely because all messages were delivered.

---

12. Late-joining and temporarily disconnected agents

The bus should be event-sourced.

A new or returning agent can reconstruct:

• current claim versions;
• relevant historical evidence;
• unresolved dissent;
• superseded decisions;
• active commitments;
• pending obligations.

This requires:

• append-only events;
• stable identifiers;
• version numbers;
• timestamps;
• causal references;
• replayable subscriptions.

An agent should be able to ask:

What changed since collective model version 34 that affects my responsibilities?

---

13. Privacy, access, and partial disclosure

Not every agent should receive every raw trace.

The system may publish:

• full evidence;
• redacted evidence;
• aggregate evidence;
• proof of review;
• access-controlled references.

However, redaction itself must be registered because it may affect interpretation.

disclosure:
  level: redacted
  reason: personal_data
  redacted_fields:
    - user_identity
  full_record_custodian: independent-evidence-agent
  challenge_path: privacy-review-panel

Restricted access must not become a way to make claims immune from challenge.

---

14. Recommended topics

A practical topic structure might be:

collective/{collective_id}/test/{test_id}
collective/{collective_id}/claim/{claim_id}
collective/{collective_id}/tree/{tree_id}/{branch_id}
collective/{collective_id}/goal/{goal_condition_id}
collective/{collective_id}/risk/{risk_class}
collective/{collective_id}/commitment/{commitment_id}
collective/{collective_id}/agent/{agent_id}/obligations
collective/{collective_id}/constituency/{constituency_id}
collective/{collective_id}/surprise
collective/{collective_id}/ideal-review

Subscriptions may be:

• explicit;
• role-derived;
• dependency-derived;
• constituency-derived;
• temporary;
• mandatory.

---

15. Mandatory versus optional subscriptions

Some subscriptions are required by role.

Examples:

• a claim owner must subscribe to verdicts about the claim;
• an action owner must subscribe to changes in its preconditions;
• a commitment bearer must subscribe to changes affecting the commitment;
• a protected-floor steward must subscribe to relevant risk events;
• an evidence custodian must subscribe to tests requiring its records;
• an affected-party representative must subscribe to consequences borne by that constituency.

Agents may also create optional exploratory subscriptions.

---

16. End-to-end example

A specialist agent tests:

C-62: The shared-state ledger updates rapidly enough to permit conflict-free local emergency action.

The test fails.

Step 1 — Raw publication

The specialist publishes:

• expected propagation under 500 ms;
• observed propagation between 900 and 1,800 ms;
• raw regional timestamps;
• environment and version;
• test contract;
• preliminary stop-condition trigger.

Step 2 — Provisional routing

The dependency graph finds that C-62 supports:

• FRT effect E-14;
• Transition Tree action A-9;
• rollout plan P-4;
• commitments K-18 and K-19;
• safety floor B-3.

The bus sends:

• stop to the rollout owner;
• commitment review to regional teams;
• review required to the architecture agent;
• protected-floor review to the safety representative;
• informational to unrelated observers.

Step 3 — Uptake review

The evidence custodian discovers that one region’s clock was unsynchronized.

The result is reclassified:

• two regions show genuine delay;
• one region’s apparent extreme delay is measurement error.

Step 4 — Adjudication

Verdict:

C-62 is qualified, not defeated.

Revised claim:

The ledger supports conflict-free local action only in regions with synchronized clocks and observed propagation below 800 ms.

Step 5 — Revision publication

The bus publishes:

• model version change;
• affected branches;
• rollout suspension;
• new prerequisite concerning clock synchronization;
• new probe concerning propagation under load.

Step 6 — Agent responses

The rollout agent suspends expansion.

The infrastructure agent commits to clock remediation.

The regional agent challenges the 800 ms threshold.

The safety representative requests a negative-branch test.

The collective therefore continues with a revised model rather than either:

• ignoring the failed test;
• or globally declaring the original theory false.

---

17. The key design rule

The publish/subscribe process should not be a generic notification system.

It should be:

typed, claim-centered, dependency-aware, versioned, authority-sensitive, and acknowledgment-tracked.

Its purpose is not to make every agent know everything.

Its purpose is to ensure that:

• relevant evidence reaches agents whose conduct depends on it;
• agents know why it is relevant;
• the distinction between result and verdict is preserved;
• local models and commitments are reviewed;
• collective revisions propagate;
• disagreement remains possible;
• no failed test disappears inside one specialist’s local context.

The complete sequence is:

Specialist runs test
        ↓
Raw traces are preserved
        ↓
Unadjudicated result is published
        ↓
Stop conditions and provisional dependencies are evaluated
        ↓
Uptake is reviewed
        ↓
An authorized verdict is published
        ↓
The dependency graph computes affected claims, actions, and commitments
        ↓
Subscribed agents receive impact packages
        ↓
Each agent acknowledges, revises, challenges, or escalates
        ↓
Collective model and Transition Trees are updated
        ↓
Outstanding obligations are tracked to completion

That is the publish/subscribe mechanism the Collective Thinking Process Protocol needs.