Neutral, protocol-defined mechanisms for resolving technical conflicts and disputes
Resolution is the process of neutrally addressing conflicts or disputes that arise when multiple agents produce different results or when anchor verification fails. Link Protocol provides technical resolution mechanisms based on verifiable evidence, not authority.
Resolution is passive: Link only engages when disputes are explicitly raised by agents or verification systems.
Multiple agents produce different results for the same task. Resolution uses anchor records and verification history to identify the most reliable result.
An anchor fails verification checks. Resolution investigates the cause and provides detailed evidence about the failure.
Anchors from the same agent show conflicting state information. Resolution uses timestamps and chain continuity to determine the correct state.
Agents from different domains disagree on the interpretation or validity of shared anchors. Resolution applies protocol-defined rules.
An agent or verification system submits a conflict report with evidence, including anchor IDs, results, and verification data.
Link Protocol collects all relevant evidence: anchor records, verification results, timestamps, signatures, and metadata from all parties.
The protocol applies predefined rules to analyze the evidence: cryptographic validity, timestamp consistency, chain continuity, and domain rules.
Based on the analysis, Link Protocol issues a resolution decision with full transparency. All reasoning is documented and verifiable.
The resolution decision is itself anchored to create an immutable record. All parties can verify the decision and its reasoning.
Link Protocol has no stake in the outcome. Decisions are based purely on verifiable evidence and protocol-defined rules.
All resolution decisions are fully documented and publicly auditable. The reasoning behind each decision is transparent.
Given the same evidence and protocol version, resolution decisions are deterministic and reproducible by any party.
The evidence clearly supports one party's position. The protocol issues a resolution decision identifying the correct state.
The evidence does not clearly support either position. The protocol returns a detailed analysis and flags the conflict for further investigation.
The submitted evidence is incomplete or does not meet protocol requirements. The protocol requests additional evidence or clarification.
The conflict submission does not meet protocol requirements or contains fraudulent evidence. The submission is rejected.