Conflict: Care Override vs Other-Harm Veto
Conflicting Claim IDs
- Q-009
- MECH-036
- MECH-051
- MECH-052
Verbatim Excerpts (with preserved sources)
From docs/architecture/social.md:
“Other-harm should trigger a hard veto only under high-certainty, catastrophic, or irreversible outcomes.”
From docs/architecture/social.md:
“Should high care-investment weights ever override other-harm veto thresholds … ?”
Why They Conflict (or What Would Reconcile Them)
MECH-036 sets a catastrophic-veto framing, while Q-009 asks whether care persistence and relational weights can override that veto in edge cases to avoid paralysis. This creates an unresolved policy boundary between third-party protection and care-driven action under constrained alternatives.
Reconciliation Question
What formal threshold policy should govern overrides: never override catastrophic veto, or allow override only under strict necessity/proportionality/imminence constraints with explicit accountability logging?
Status
Resolved on 2026-02-18.
Resolution summary:
- Catastrophic high-certainty irreversible other-harm remains a hard veto.
- Care-driven overrides are permitted only for non-catastrophic cases under necessity, imminence, proportionality, and explainability gates, with mandatory post-commit accountability logging.
- This is a bounded override policy, not an unrestricted care override.
Resolution note:
docs/conflicts/resolutions/2026-02-18_care-override-vs-other-harm-veto.md