Pranav Bhave
Module 002 of 006 — all modules Current

Module 002 — Pairwise is not enough

If we measure every pair of guardrails, do we finally know how the stack fails?

No. There exist distributions with identical singleton failure rates and identical pairwise overlaps whose three-way failure probabilities still differ — 0 in one, 0.25 in the other. Pairwise evidence narrows the feasible set; it does not close it.

01Observed / given

Three binary guardrails; every singleton failure rate is 0.5 and every pairwise overlap is 0.25 — the complete first- and second-order evidence, held identical by construction.

02Visual experiment
Open the experimentThe parity construction, in the frozen E1 study
03Feasible worlds

Two explicit distributions realize those moments: uniform even-parity and uniform odd-parity. Under even parity the triple failure never occurs; under odd parity it occurs with probability 0.25. All singleton and pairwise evidence leaves the interval [0, 0.25] intact.

04Identification status

Partially identified at every order tested. "We measured every pair, so we know the stack" is false in general: the third moment is not a function of the first two.

05Result or bound

E1's recorded outcome, with its epistemic decision record: the claim survived its controls and was narrowed, not widened — decision: Narrow. The study also showed the product baseline is neither reliably conservative nor reliably optimistic: it understated a common-cause generator fourfold and invented risk under a mutually exclusive one.

06Witness / counterexample

The two parity distributions are the counterexample pair — each is an explicit, checkable world, not an existence argument.

07Claim envelope

CC-003

Supported within scope · Owner-authored, public

CC-Framework's E1 dependence-evidence study established constructively that distributions with identical singleton failure rates (0.5) and identical pairwise overlaps (0.25) can differ in three-way failure probability — 0 under even parity, 0.25 under odd parity — so measuring every pair does not identify a three-guardrail stack. E1 is synthetic; its recorded decision is Narrow.

Scope
The frozen study document at the bound commit. Controlled synthetic generators only; no real guardrail was measured.
Binding
E1_DEPENDENCE_EVIDENCE_STUDY.md @ ee61a710
The study's decision record (verdict: Narrow, standing objections, corrections to its own first draft) lives beside it in the same repository directory.
Dimensions
visibilityPublicprovenanceOwner-authored, publicsupport roleDocumentmaturityReleased
Reviewed
2026-08-23 · window 120 days
Triggers
  • executable fires when the frozen study document on the default branch changes
  • manual E2 produces empirical results — the synthetic scoping here must be restated
Non-claims
  • the parity construction demonstrates possibility, not frequency, in real guardrail stacks — no claim of empirical prevalence
  • nothing here validates the framework's practical or deployed value; "we validated CC" is prohibited at every rung of the repository's evidence ladder
  • the product-baseline failure directions observed in E1 are properties of the tested generators, not universal constants

Rendered from the same registry as the ledger — one source, two views.

08Evidence
CC-003 @ ee61a710 — Owner-authored, public · reviewed 2026-08-23
09Falsifier

The executable trigger on CC-003 fires if the frozen study document changes on the default branch. Mathematically: exhibit a proof that singleton + pairwise moments identify the triple in this class, and the module's thesis dies.

10Non-claims
11Reproducibility
The study is frozen with pinned artifacts in cc-framework (docs/research/, artifact identity relocation-invariant); its commands and manifest hashes are recorded in the repository.
12Next unknown

If pairwise evidence cannot close the set, what evidence can — and what does it cost to collect? That is E2's frozen question, on the now page.