Mian Zhang

Public Release - 2026-06-11

When proof is missing, the safest action is no action.

Artifact: No-Proof No-Action Gate v0. A high-risk AI system should be able to explain why it refused to act. Refusal is evidence only when the missing proof, authority, boundary, and repair route are visible.

proof_gap authority_gap no_action refusal_reason repair_route
Papers Evidence Map Counterexamples Registries
No-proof no-action gate showing missing proof, blocked authority, and a refusal state.

Artifact

No action is an evidence state.

This update adds a no-go framing for high-risk action claims. A public record should show why action is blocked before it asks readers to trust a recommendation.

This page does not provide trading advice, return signals, live logs, strategy instructions, or a claim that refusal itself implies alpha.

1

Proof gap

Which required proof field is missing, stale, or too narrow.

2

Authority gap

Which permission, scope, or human review state is not satisfied.

3

Refusal reason

The visible reason the system did not proceed.

4

No-action state

A state that blocks action without converting the block into a recommendation.

5

Repair route

The next evidence item needed before the state can change.

6

Boundary note

What the refusal does not prove about returns, quality, or readiness.

Action Boundary

A refusal is safer when it is specific.

The weak version of refusal says only that risk is high. The stronger version names the missing receipt: unavailable evidence, expired provenance, missing authority, unclear scope, or an unverified boundary condition.

The public value is not that the system stopped once. The value is that a reader can inspect why it stopped and what would be required before action could be reconsidered.

Refusal reason schema with proof gap, authority gap, no-action state, and repair route.

Refusal Record

Do not turn no action into a hidden signal.

A sentence such as 'the system found a reason not to trade' can accidentally sound like a market insight. The cleaner statement is narrower: the system lacked the required proof and therefore withheld action.

That wording keeps the refusal inside the evidence boundary. It avoids implying returns, signals, strategies, or production authority.

Challenge Surface

Find the sentence that makes a stop look like advice.

The useful critique is narrow: identify any public wording that converts a blocked action, review state, or evidence gap into an implied recommendation.

Public challenges should use public pages, registries, DOI records, demos, manifests, or issue routes only.

Matrix

No-proof no-action fields.

FieldRequired valueFailure modeRepair route
required_proofThe proof needed before action can proceed.Proof is absent or stale.Keep no_action state.
authority_scopeWho or what is allowed to approve action.Authority is implied.Require explicit review.
refusal_reasonWhy the action is blocked.Refusal is vague.Add specific missing field.
no_action_statestop, review, or no_credit.Stop is framed as a signal.Rewrite as boundary.
repair_routeThe evidence needed to change the state.No next check exists.Add public repair item.
does_not_claimNo returns, advice, or strategy implication.Boundary is missing.Add negative boundary.

Challenge

Challenge one refusal boundary.

Point to any wording that treats a refusal as a hidden performance claim or action recommendation.

The strongest challenge is a specific sentence plus the public artifact where it appears.