Founder & Chief Architect PRO

Appreciate that — and credit where it’s due, the framing makes the principle very tangible.

“Refusing to hallucinate success” has become a useful personal check for me as well — especially in systems where early positive signals can mask durability issues.

I think treating correctness as something you earn over time, rather than declare upfront, is the only way these systems stay trustworthy. Glad to see others converging on the same discipline.

Agreed. What we often call “verification” today is really just acceptance.

Verification should mean the system knows the result will still hold later — not just that it produced something quickly. Without durability, independence, and repeatability, we’re optimizing for confidence, not correctness.

The market rewards the former because the latter is expensive.

Appreciate the restraint here — especially avoiding hidden correction mechanisms. In my experience, temporal systems become trustworthy only when they’re allowed to visibly fail rather than silently compensate.

Looking forward to seeing how this behaves under adversarial or edge-case temporal edits.