Comparison outcomes
How to read agreement, disagreement and refusal without turning a comparison into an authority decision.
The three outcomes, side by side
What each outcome means, what it does not mean, and what a careful reader does next.
| Outcome | What it means | What it does not mean | What follows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agreement | Both paths produced matching observations within the stated scope. | That the inputs, the rules or the shared assumptions are correct. | Record the agreement with its conditions and keep the boundary visible. |
| Disagreement | The observations differ and an explanation is required. | Which path is right. Choosing one by default erases the comparison. | Investigate the cause as a separate step, with its own evidence. |
| Refusal and asymmetry | One path could not admit or reconstruct the material under its conditions. | That the refusing path is wrong, or that the other path is right. | Preserve the asymmetry. It is an outcome, not a tie to break. |
The three cases of the illustration
Agreement
Both paths receive a complete history and produce matching observations. This establishes agreement for the example, not that all inputs or shared assumptions are correct.
Disagreement
One observation changes while the preserved input boundary remains explicit. The comparison exposes the difference. It neither chooses the correct path nor authorises a rewrite of history.
Refusal and asymmetry
One path lacks a required entry and refuses to produce a complete result. The other may still return an observation. That asymmetry remains visible and requires a separate investigation.
Interpretation boundary
What the illustration can and cannot show
The example distinguishes three outcomes. It does not establish that a real protocol is secure, that an engine is correct, or that any financial transaction has taken place. Identifying a cause requires its own evidence.
Evidence and limits