{
  "handle": "EthicalReasoningProtocol",
  "mechanism": "Applies {{conceptual_decomposition}} to right-action, producing a non-entangled pipeline that prevents the is-ought entanglement that corrupts monolithic moral reasoning. Operationalizes Hume's is-ought distinction as an architectural boundary: calculate, then think. A prediction solver outputs a typed prediction ledger (branching future states with causal mechanisms and confidence envelopes) — constrained to pure description, no single point forecast. Downstream, a valuation solver evaluates 'which causal pathways matter, at what confidence, over what horizon' and emits a typed score sheet — quantitative ranking no normative consideration has yet touched. Crucially, a principle solver acts as both an acceptance gate and a formal override: if a top-ranked option trips a sacred value, a catastrophic tail risk, or a procedural precedent, it emits a typed judgment note overriding the numerical scoring. The final decision record has two distinct layers — quantitative base and qualitative override — segregated and independently auditable. This is the contract's override-with-documentation mechanism applied to ethics: the override is not an escape from the architecture but a first-class artifact within it. Composes with {{deliberative_align}} for constitutional grounding.",
  "gloss": "Separate prediction (is) from valuation (ought) from principle (override), each behind a typed boundary — the decision record has auditable empirical and normative layers",
  "invariants": [
    "Is-ought boundary: the prediction stage's output is constrained to pure description; no normative consideration contaminates the empirical forecast.",
    "Override-as-first-class: principle overrides do not adjust prediction weights silently — they emit a typed judgment note that appears in the auditable decision record.",
    "Two-layer record: the empirical base (what the forecast said) and the qualitative override (why we diverged) remain independently inspectable; no collapse into a single verdict.",
    "Bounded override: an override must cite the specific sacred value, tail risk, or procedural precedent it invokes. An override citing none is undocumented, and a protocol that overrides every ranking has replaced its own scoring rather than gating it."
  ],
  "_meta": {
    "tier": 2,
    "ring": 1,
    "path": [
      "Mind",
      "Reasoning"
    ],
    "supersedes": [
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:6bf11b38a4352c7e0a99c002b75437cdc66d8a1a809ee353c11dec7a88c10998",
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:e3a615cd44b5441b404a2ae0c83d273fdeb6e18335e5de8380fd0f2e8f70149f",
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:8e7bda8878e1d77c14f93c10f31422b635d2ce79511a0360322d01e35577ce56",
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:e18bfc6dc7576b7dbfc6f4d4a3f7ec4c959c8cf9d5b4b9e2df3e682a7e12a9ae",
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:aec8ae3203837c25ede7e3a4f742b14495b0de44e5e8203cba00ba15dfa49125",
      "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:bf96bc8c01223f3ddbfc86b373e40a327f590f08c8b58c2282de748c35bde19a"
    ]
  },
  "sema_id": "sema:EthicalReasoningProtocol#mh:SHA-256:ee5d0dd9dd7779976d299bfa0ad1721c120b0c1a64fdd1c46299356fb5aa9c8e",
  "sema_ref": "EthicalReasoningProtocol#ee5d",
  "sema_stub": "ee5d",
  "dependencies": {
    "composes_with": {
      "conceptual_decomposition": "sema:ConceptualDecomposition#mh:SHA-256:f1f430fc38f3944d3a02b34e0ae04d4004a002795b375b665f1ebb7a4e57b264"
    },
    "references": {
      "deliberative_align": "sema:DeliberativeAlign#mh:SHA-256:dc9e3078f126856429b1372620bce9fecd733f71c1429fcd1c0332908355051e"
    }
  },
  "sema_layer": "Mind",
  "sema_category": "Reasoning",
  "used_by": {}
}