1- = Echo Types — Conservativity Metatheorem
1+ = Echo Types — Conservativity Evidence (Mechanised Properties)
22:toc: macro
33:toclevels: 3
44:sectnums:
55:sectnumlevels: 3
66:icons: font
77
88[.lead]
9- Pillar D, artefact 2 of `establishment-plan.adoc` . A type-theoretic
10- notion earns "established" standing not only by having models, but by
11- being a *conservative, definitionally-grounded* extension of a
12- foundational theory. This document states that metatheorem for the
13- loss-graded echo modality and records its formal anchor in the
14- verified Agda development.
9+ Pillar D, artefact 2 of `establishment-plan.adoc` .
10+
11+ [IMPORTANT]
12+ ====
13+ *Narrowed 2026-05-18.* This document previously asserted a
14+ "conservativity metatheorem … discharged operationally by the build."
15+ That overclaimed: a green `--safe --without-K` build is necessary but
16+ *not sufficient* for proof-theoretic conservativity (a statement
17+ quantifying over all base propositions), and no such meta-argument is
18+ mechanised. The metatheorem framing is retracted; what is mechanised
19+ is stated below as build/identity *properties*, which are *evidence
20+ for* conservativity over MLTT+Σ, not a proof of it. See
21+ `docs/retractions.adoc` and `paper.adoc` §"Reframing note".
22+ ====
1523
1624toc::[]
1725
1826== Statement
1927
2028[#thm-conservativity]
21- .Conservativity (definitional grounding )
29+ .Mechanised properties (evidence for conservativity, not a proof of it )
2230****
2331Let `MLTT+Σ` be Martin-Löf type theory with Σ-types and the identity
2432type, as realised by Agda under `--safe --without-K` (no axiom K, no
2533univalence, no postulates, no funext). Let `Echo` be the loss-graded
2634echo modality: the object `Echo f y := Σ (x : A) , (f x ≡ y)`
2735together with the loss-grade lattice and its reindexing action
28- (`EchoGraded`), and the graded-comonad structure
36+ (`EchoGraded`), and the reindexing-coherence structure
2937(`EchoGradedComonad`, `EchoRelModel`).
3038
31- Then the extension of `MLTT+Σ` by `Echo` and all of its laws is
32- *conservative and definitional*:
33-
34- . *Definitional.* `Echo f y` is not a new type former. It is, by
35- `refl`, the homotopy fibre `fib f y` (`EchoFiberBridge.echo↔fib`,
36- both round-trips `refl`). No new judgement, context structure, or
37- formation rule is introduced — `Echo` is a derived Σ-type.
38- . *Conservative.* Every theorem of the development is a closed term
39- of `MLTT+Σ`: the entire suite typechecks under `--safe --without-K`
40- with *zero postulates and zero escape pragmas*. Hence any
41- proposition over the base vocabulary provable using `Echo` is
42- already provable in `MLTT+Σ` — `Echo` proves no new base facts.
43- . *Modality, not axiom.* The graded-comonad laws
44- (`gcomonad-counit-{l,r}`, `gcomonad-coassoc`) are *derived* — the
45- H2 verdict (see `establishment-plan.adoc`) showed each collapses to
46- `degrade-compose` + order-propositionality, with no path algebra
47- and no transport. The loss modality therefore adds structure
48- (a characterised graded comonad) without adding strength.
39+ The following are *mechanised properties* of the artefact. They are
40+ *evidence* that `Echo` adds no proof-theoretic strength over MLTT+Σ.
41+ They are deliberately *not* packaged as a conservativity metatheorem,
42+ because proof-theoretic conservativity quantifies over all base
43+ propositions and is not discharged by a typechecking run:
44+
45+ . *Definitional identity.* `Echo f y` is not a new type former. In
46+ `EchoFiberBridge`, `fiber f y` is a same-module restatement of the
47+ Σ and `echo↔fib` is the identity with `refl` round-trips. This is
48+ a deflationary triviality (a type is bijective with itself), owned
49+ as such — *not* a grounding theorem about an external fibre notion.
50+ . *Postulate-free build.* The entire suite typechecks under
51+ `--safe --without-K` with *zero postulates and zero escape
52+ pragmas*, CI-grep-enforced. Every theorem of the development is
53+ therefore a closed term of `MLTT+Σ`. This is necessary for
54+ conservativity; it is *not by itself* a proof that every base
55+ proposition provable via `Echo` is provable without it (that is a
56+ meta-argument about the logic, which we do not mechanise).
57+ . *Derived, not postulated.* The reindexing-coherence equations
58+ (`gcomonad-counit-{l,r}`, `gcomonad-coassoc`) are derived: each
59+ collapses to `degrade-compose` + order-propositionality (the H2
60+ verdict). Nothing is added as an axiom. Note this is the *weak*
61+ claim — "derived" — and carries no implication that a graded
62+ *comonad* (in the Petriček/Katsumata sense) has been exhibited; it
63+ has not (see `paper.adoc` §"The loss-graded reindexing modality").
4964****
5065
51- == Why this is the clean result
66+ == What this is, and what it is not
5267
53- The honest deflationary fact — "`Echo` is just `fib`" — is precisely
54- what makes the metatheorem strong. A construction that *required* new
55- axioms (K, univalence, funext, or a postulated modality) would not be
56- conservative and would inherit those axioms' costs. Here the opposite
57- holds: the loss-graded comonad is a *theorem schema of MLTT+Σ
58- itself*, instantiable in multiple models (Pillar D, artefact 1:
59- `set-model` and `rel-model`, agreeing under the graph/fibration
60- bridge). "Conservative, definitionally-grounded extension" is exactly
61- the result that earns trust in the coeffect / quantitative lineage.
68+ The deflationary fact — "`Echo` is just `fib`" — together with the
69+ postulate-free build is good *evidence* that the modality is a
70+ conservative, definitional extension of MLTT+Σ. We claim exactly that
71+ much. We do *not* claim:
6272
63- == Formal anchor
73+ * a proof-theoretic conservativity metatheorem (clause 2 is a build
74+ property, not a meta-proof);
75+ * multiple independent models (`set-model` and `rel-model` fix the
76+ same grade poset and agree by `refl`; see Pillar D artefact 1's
77+ reframing in `paper.adoc`);
78+ * a graded comonad (the structure is a thin-poset reindexing action).
6479
65- The metatheorem is not asserted in prose alone; its three clauses are
66- each pinned to checked Agda artefacts already in `All.agda` /
67- `Smoke.agda`:
80+ This narrower statement is what survives adversarial review. It still
81+ earns trust in the coeffect / quantitative lineage — by being exact
82+ about its bounds rather than by overclaiming.
83+
84+ == Formal anchor (what each property is actually pinned to)
85+
86+ Each mechanised property is pinned to a checked Agda artefact in
87+ `All.agda` / `Smoke.agda`. The table states the *honest* content of
88+ each anchor, not the previous inflated reading:
6889
6990[cols="1,3,2", options="header"]
7091|===
71- | Clause | Witness | Module
92+ | Property | What the witness actually establishes | Module
7293
73- | Definitional
74- | `echo↔fib : Echo f y ↔ fiber f y`, round-trips `refl`
94+ | Definitional identity
95+ | `echo↔fib : Echo f y ↔ fiber f y` is the identity with `refl`
96+ round-trips, where `fiber` is restated in the same module — i.e. a
97+ type is bijective with itself. A triviality, owned as such.
7598| `EchoFiberBridge`
7699
77- | Conservative
78- | Whole suite: `--safe --without-K`, no `postulate` / no escape
79- pragmas; CI greps enforce it
100+ | Postulate-free build
101+ | Whole suite typechecks `--safe --without-K`, no `postulate` / no
102+ escape pragmas; CI greps enforce it. Necessary for, not a proof of,
103+ proof-theoretic conservativity.
80104| `All.agda` + `Smoke.agda`
81105
82- | Modality not axiom
83- | `GradedLossModel` / `GCLaws` derive every comonad law generically;
84- `model-agreement` shows model-independence
106+ | Carrier-parametric, not model-independent
107+ | `GradedLossModel`/`GCLaws` prove the equations once *parametric in
108+ the carrier* over a fixed grade poset; `⊑-prop` is a field (the
109+ load-bearing hypothesis is baked in). `model-agreement` is `refl`
110+ (second model = first `× ⊤`). Not a model-independence result.
85111| `EchoRelModel`
86112
87- | Modality not axiom
113+ | Derived, not postulated (weak claim only)
88114| `gcomonad-coassoc` etc. reduce to `degrade-compose` + `≤g-prop`
89- (H2 verdict); separating model proves the law is genuine
115+ (H2 verdict); the separating model shows the *only* content over
116+ generic Σ is thinness of the order. No graded comonad is exhibited.
90117| `EchoGradedComonad`,
91118 `EchoSeparating`
92119|===
93120
94- The conservativity argument is *operational*: it is discharged by the
95- build itself. Any reintroduction of a postulate, a weakening of
96- `--safe --without-K`, or a funext dependency would break clause 2 and
97- is caught by the repository's standing guardrails
121+ These properties are *operational* (discharged by the build) only in
122+ the weak sense that the build enforces the postulate-free / `--safe`
123+ guardrails. They do not constitute an operational *conservativity
124+ proof*. Any reintroduction of a postulate or weakening of
125+ `--safe --without-K` is still caught by the standing guardrails
98126(`establishment-plan.adoc` §"Sequencing and guardrails").
99127
100128== Scope and non-claims
101129
102- * This is conservativity over `MLTT+Σ` *as realised under
103- `--safe --without-K`*. It is not a claim about extensional type
104- theory, nor about theories with K or univalence.
130+ * This is *evidence for* conservativity over `MLTT+Σ` as realised
131+ under `--safe --without-K`. It is not a mechanised proof-theoretic
132+ conservativity theorem, and not a claim about extensional type
133+ theory or theories with K / univalence.
105134* It is *not* claimed that the loss modality is interderivable with
106135 linear or dependent type strength — that comparison is a category
107- error (`establishment-plan.adoc` §"The honest type-theoretic
108- verdict"). The claim is narrower and exact: the loss-graded comonad
109- is a conservative, definitional *modality* in the coeffect sense.
110- * The funext boundary remains quarantined: `examples/Transport.agda`
111- stalls where `Field = Fin n → ℚ` forces funext. No conservativity
112- claim extends across that boundary; it is isolated by design.
136+ error. The claim is narrower and exact: the loss-graded *reindexing
137+ modality* is a conservative, definitional addition (not a graded
138+ comonad, not model-independent in the semantic sense).
139+ * Funext correction: there is *no* funext anywhere in the
140+ development. `examples/Transport.agda` *avoids* funext by a
141+ first-order carrier (`Vec ℚ n`); it does not "quarantine" a funext
142+ dependency. The real funext-relativity is the *pointwise-only*
143+ mediator property of the pullback presentation (`paper.adoc` §3),
144+ now disclosed as the boundary rather than presented as a feature.
145+ * Earn-back, scoped (follow-up F-2026-05-18a, 2026-05-18): the
146+ pullback's strict terminality is now mechanised *conditional on an
147+ explicit `funext` parameter* (`EchoPullbackUnivF4.agda`; not a
148+ postulate — the trusted base is unchanged), and a genuine second
149+ model of the *bare Echo functor* (not the modality) exists on the
150+ non-graph relation `StepND` (`EchoStepNDModelF2.agda`). These do
151+ *not* widen the conservativity claim above: it remains *evidence
152+ for*, not a proof, and the modality-level retractions stand.
113153
114154== Revision policy
115155
@@ -124,3 +164,25 @@ recorded reason. Append-only revision history.
124164 `--safe --without-K` suite (conservative), and
125165 `EchoRelModel`/`EchoGradedComonad`/`EchoSeparating` (modality not
126166 axiom). Pillar D complete.
167+ * *2026-05-18 — metatheorem framing retracted.* Adversarial
168+ three-reviewer review plus a codebase pressure-test found the
169+ "conservativity metatheorem discharged operationally by the build"
170+ unsupported (a `--safe` build is not a proof-theoretic
171+ conservativity proof), the "two independent models" claim false
172+ (same grade poset, `refl` agreement), and "graded comonad"
173+ unsupported (no nested `D_r D_s`; thin-poset action only). Statement
174+ <<thm-conservativity>> rewritten from a metatheorem to *mechanised
175+ properties that are evidence for, not a proof of, conservativity*.
176+ Recorded reason: see `docs/retractions.adoc` (entry R-2026-05-18)
177+ and `paper.adoc` §"Reframing note". No Agda module changed; the
178+ artefacts are exactly as strong as before — only the prose claims
179+ are corrected downward.
180+ * *2026-05-18 — Gates F4/F2 earned back (scoped).* Added the
181+ scope/non-claims bullet recording that strict terminality is now
182+ mechanised conditional on an explicit `funext` parameter
183+ (`EchoPullbackUnivF4.agda`, no postulate) and that a genuine second
184+ model of the *bare Echo functor* exists on the non-graph relation
185+ `StepND` (`EchoStepNDModelF2.agda`). The conservativity statement
186+ <<thm-conservativity>> is unchanged: still *evidence for*, not a
187+ proof; modality-level retractions stand. Recorded reason:
188+ `docs/retractions.adoc` follow-up F-2026-05-18a.
0 commit comments