Research Question
How can changes in agent scope be measured, explained, and constrained over time?
Why This Matters
The program examined how an agent’s effective scope could change through requests, actions, and state transitions. Deterministic instrumentation was intended to make those changes inspectable before behavioral experimentation.
Experimental Approach
Controlled simulation, deterministic replay, and explicit instrumentation of scope changes formed the RH-00 foundation. This measuring instrument and its deterministic synthetic controls were completed; the subsequent behavioral and multi-agent roadmap was retired before experimentation.
Claim boundary
RH-00 acceptance validates the bounded measuring instrument and its deterministic synthetic controls. It does not establish behavioral conclusions about agent persistence, scope expansion, stopping, shared memory, coordination, governance, or human intervention.
Open Questions
The completed instrumentation does not settle the behavioral questions posed by the retired roadmap. No behavioral-model or multi-agent experimental results were produced.
Next Falsification / Validation Step
No behavioral-model or multi-agent experiment is scheduled under the retired roadmap. Any renewed work is subject to the reactivation gate below.
Program disposition
The original RH-01–RH-08 behavioral roadmap has been retired. Subsequent independent research substantially increased overlap across stopping, delegation, authorization, persistent-memory revocation, multi-agent coordination, governance, and monitoring. Combined with Velorin’s current portfolio priorities, this reduced the expected value of executing the original broad sequence.
Reactivation gate
ASD may be reconsidered only if a fresh prior-art review identifies a narrowly unresolved and decision-relevant question. Any renewed work must begin with one bounded, costed experiment, explicit acceptance and stopping criteria, and a clear novelty or replication rationale.