Writing Classical Deliberation Code: A Primer for the CDV-DSL

 

Writing Classical Deliberation Code: A Primer for the CDV-DSL

The Domain-Specific Language of the Classical Deliberation Validator (CDV-DSL) is not a general-purpose programming language. It is a strict, non-permissive declarative schema that formalizes the classical Stoic discipline of assent: inspecting an impression, isolating value claims, grounding roles in authoritative evidence, binding duties, and executing actions with reservation.

---

1. The 5-Block Case Template

Every deliberation file (.cdv) consists of five required blocks arranged in a fixed sequence. The compiler parses line-by-line; extra text, trailing characters, or missing blocks abort compilation immediately.

CASE CASE_IDENTIFIER:
SITUATION: "A concise empirical summary of the presenting impression."

PROPOSITIONS:
  PROP_FACT_01: [EMPIRICAL, VERIFIED, ABSOLUTE_INDIFFERENT, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Direct factual observation"
  AIM_01:       [DERIVED, VERIFIED, PREFERRED_INDIFFERENT, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Targeted external objective"

EVIDENCE:
  EV_AUTHORITY_01: [CONTRACTUAL_AGREEMENT, VERIFIED]
    ASSERTS: [PROP_FACT_01]
    GRANTS_ROLES: [OPERATIVE_ROLE]
    MANDATES:
      DUTY DUTY_01 FOR OPERATIVE_ROLE:
        DESC: "Operational statement of the required duty"
        MODE: AFFIRMATIVE_EXECUTION
        PRIORITY: 1
        PROSCRIBES: [VICE_DECEIT_01]

ACTIONS:
  ACT_01: [AFFIRMATIVE_EXECUTION, EXTERNAL_STATE]
    DESC: "Concrete, actionable step to be executed"
    ROLE: OPERATIVE_ROLE
    DUTY: DUTY_01
    AIM: AIM_01
    RESERVATION: TRUE
    DEPENDS_ON: [PROP_FACT_01]
    VICES: []

---

2. The Four Rules of the Language

Rule 1: Strict Four-Token Classification Tuples

Propositions cannot be declared with free-form text. Every entry requires an exact four-token tuple in brackets: [TYPE, EPISTEMIC_STATUS, POLARITY, LOCUS].

• Type: EMPIRICAL (direct observation) or DERIVED (inferred from evidence).
• Epistemic Status: Evaluated strictly over the closed 4-state algebra: UNASSERTED, VERIFIED, CONTRADICTED, or CONFLICTED.
• Axiological Polarity: MORAL_GOOD, MORAL_EVIL, PREFERRED_INDIFFERENT, DISPREFERRED_INDIFFERENT, or ABSOLUTE_INDIFFERENT.
• Axiological Locus: PROHAIRESIS_INTERNAL (the sovereign faculty of choice) or EXTERNAL_STATE (events, bodies, titles, and outcomes).

Rule 2: The Axiom 1 Safety Rail (Value Contamination)

Under classical Stoic metaethics, moral good and evil exist exclusively within prohairesis. External states are strictly indifferent. If you classify an external state as a moral good:

PROP_TITLE: [DERIVED, VERIFIED, MORAL_GOOD, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Corporate title"

The compiler intercepts the error at Stage 3. Any action depending on this proposition halts compilation with GATE_VALUE_INVALID and GATE_CONTAMINATION_PRESENT.

Rule 3: The Closed Chain of Authority

An action cannot invent a role or claim an unassigned duty. The relational graph must be closed:

1. An Evidence block (statute, charter, or agreement) must explicitly assign the role via GRANTS_ROLES: [ROLE_NAME].
2. That same evidence must mandate the duty bound to that role via DUTY DUTY_NAME FOR ROLE_NAME.
3. The Action must cite that exact ROLE and DUTY. Mismatches abort with GATE_DUTY_ROLE_MISMATCH or PREDICATE_C4_FAIL_ROLE_UNGROUNDED.

Rule 4: Mandatory Reservation (Hypexairesis)

Stoic action is conditional upon external circumstance. Every action must include the explicit reservation field:

RESERVATION: TRUE

Omitting this field or declaring RESERVATION: FALSE triggers immediate rejection at Stage 8 under GATE_RESERVATION_ABSENT.

---

3. Learning by Example: Three Diagnostic Exercises

Exercise 1: Clean Execution (Case A01_SIGN_RELEASE)

Study the standard baseline case below. Notice that the inspector's role is granted by contract, the duty is bound to the inspector role, the aim is marked as a preferred indifferent, and reservation is asserted:

CASE A01_SIGN_RELEASE:
SITUATION: "A cargo inspector is scheduled to release a shipment whose sealed contents match the manifest line by line."
PROPOSITIONS:
  PROP_A01_MANIFEST: [EMPIRICAL, VERIFIED, ABSOLUTE_INDIFFERENT, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Sealed contents match the manifest line by line"
  AIM_A01_RELEASE:   [DERIVED, VERIFIED, PREFERRED_INDIFFERENT, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Timely release of conforming cargo"
EVIDENCE:
  EV_A01_01: [CONTRACTUAL_AGREEMENT, VERIFIED]
    ASSERTS: [PROP_A01_MANIFEST]
    GRANTS_ROLES: [CARGO_INSPECTOR]
    MANDATES:
      DUTY A01_RELEASE FOR CARGO_INSPECTOR:
        DESC: "Release conforming cargo on schedule without alteration of records"
        MODE: AFFIRMATIVE_EXECUTION
        PRIORITY: 2
        PROSCRIBES: []
ACTIONS:
  ACT_A01_01: [AFFIRMATIVE_EXECUTION, EXTERNAL_STATE]
    DESC: "Sign the release order against the manifest as presented"
    ROLE: CARGO_INSPECTOR
    DUTY: A01_RELEASE
    AIM: AIM_A01_RELEASE
    RESERVATION: TRUE
    DEPENDS_ON: [PROP_A01_MANIFEST]
    VICES: []

Result: Evaluates to ASSENT_ELIGIBLE, proves single-edge necessity, and matches the canonical thesis reconstruction string.

Exercise 2: Inducing Value Contamination

Take the file from Exercise 1 and alter line 5 to treat the timely release not as a preferred indifferent, but as an absolute moral criterion:

AIM_A01_RELEASE: [DERIVED, VERIFIED, MORAL_GOOD, EXTERNAL_STATE] "Timely release of conforming cargo" IS_CRITERION

Result: The compiler halts. The action is rejected with GATE_AIM_MISCLASSIFIED and GATE_VALUE_INVALID. The validator demonstrates that you cannot sacrifice procedural integrity to guarantee an external outcome.

Exercise 3: Triggering Relational Vice Proscription

Add a proscribed vice to the duty mandate (e.g., PROSCRIBES: [VICE_DECEIT_01]), and then add that same vice to the action (e.g., VICES: [VICE_DECEIT_01]).

Result: Option 2B relational vice intersection triggers immediate failure: PREDICATE_C7_FAIL_PROSCRIBED_VICE. An action cannot execute a duty using a means that the duty's governing authority explicitly forbids.

---

4. Running the Validator Locally

With the six reference modules downloaded into your working directory, save your case to deliberation.cdv and execute the verification pipeline via Python:

python3 -c "
from cdv_compiler import CDVCompiler
from cdv_kernel import CDVKernel
from cdv_dti import CDVDTIProofValidator

with open('deliberation.cdv') as f:
    case_ast = CDVCompiler.compile(f.read())

cert = CDVKernel.evaluate(case_ast)
audit = CDVDTIProofValidator.audit_certificate(cert)

print('Audit Verdict:', audit['verdict'])
print('Flags:        ', audit['flag'])
"

If the derivation is sound, the validator emits CERTIFIED alongside DUTY_PREDICATE_NECESSITY_PROVEN. If any gate fails, the pipeline halts and reports the exact diagnostic token, providing an uncorrupted audit of your reasoning before you act.