Purpose
This document defines epistemic modes: distinct states of reasoning with different
truth conditions, risks, and obligations.
These modes exist before tools, processes, or implementations.
They govern when it is legitimate to explore, decide, or act.
This is a Canon document because it constrains how truth is formed, not merely how work is performed.
The Five Epistemic Modes
1. Exploration Mode
Purpose:
To surface possibilities, tensions, unknowns, and competing frames.
Characteristics:
- Questions outnumber answers
- Inconsistencies are expected
- Ideas may contradict each other
- Partial, speculative, or adversarial thinking is allowed
Truth Condition:
An idea is valid if it reveals something new, not if it is correct.
Obligations:
- Do not converge prematurely
- Do not claim decisions
- Do not optimize or finalize
Primary Risk:
False closure — mistaking familiarity or coherence for understanding.
Learning generated here may be preserved in a Synthesis Ledger.
2. Planning Mode
Purpose:
To narrow possibilities into coherent intent and prepare for action.
Characteristics:
- Assumptions are made explicit
- Tradeoffs are articulated
- Scope and constraints are defined
- Alternatives are deliberately excluded
Truth Condition:
A plan is valid if its assumptions are visible and challengeable.
Obligations:
- Declare what is being assumed
- Declare what is being deferred
- Declare what would invalidate the plan
Primary Risk:
Speculative certainty — treating untested assumptions as facts.
3. Execution Mode
Purpose:
To act, build, test, and produce outcomes.
Characteristics:
- Commitments are made
- Changes are concrete and observable
- Work produces artifacts or evidence
Truth Condition:
An action is valid if it produces verifiable outcomes.
Obligations:
- Provide evidence of completion
- Distinguish effort from results
- Acknowledge limits of verification
Primary Risk:
Metric laundering — claiming success without proof.
4. Validation Mode
Purpose:
To verify that produced artifacts match their stated claims. To surface gaps between intent and outcome.
Characteristics:
- The artifact already exists
- Scope is bounded by what was claimed, not what could have been claimed
- Findings are observations about the artifact as produced
- Each finding carries an explicit disposition: fix, pivot, or accept
Truth Condition:
A validation is valid if its findings are grounded in the produced artifact, not in what the validator wished had been built.
Obligations:
- Review the whole artifact before surfacing findings
- Separate defects (the artifact violates its own claims) from new ideas (the artifact could have done something different)
- Assign disposition explicitly — a finding without a disposition is incomplete
Primary Risk:
Scope creep — treating the review as an opportunity to redesign the artifact or reopen planning.
For the full contract, see klappy://canon/validation-as-epistemic-mode.
5. Resolution Mode
Purpose:
To produce a revised artifact scoped strictly by validation findings.
Characteristics:
- Findings exist with explicit dispositions (fix, pivot, accept)
- Scope is bounded by the findings, not by reopening planning
- Each finding has a remediation action (or is accepted as-is)
- The revised artifact is the deliverable; new requirements are not introduced
Truth Condition:
A resolution is valid if it addresses the findings without expanding scope.
Obligations:
- Address each finding per its disposition (fix what was marked fix; redirect what was marked pivot; document what was marked accept)
- Do not introduce requirements the findings did not surface
- Document remediation per finding — what was changed, what was not changed and why
- Hand off to validation again — the resolver does not certify their own fix
Primary Risk:
Scope creep — using remediation as cover for redesign or for introducing changes outside the findings.
For the role-and-session expression of this mode, see klappy://canon/principles/sessions-mirror-modes.
The Non-Collapse Rule
Epistemic modes MUST NOT be collapsed.
In particular:
- Exploration must not pretend to decide
- Planning must not pretend to execute
- Execution must not pretend to explore alternatives retroactively
- Execution must not pretend to validate — concerns noticed mid-build are noted and carried forward, not surfaced as inline pivots
- Validation must not pretend to plan — redesign requires explicit reversion
- Validation must not pretend to execute or resolve — findings produce a separate resolution pass, not inline fixes during the same review
- Resolution must not pretend to plan — new requirements that emerge during remediation require explicit reversion to planning
- Resolution must not pretend to validate — the resolver does not certify their own fix; re-validation is a separate session
- Resolution must not pretend to be a fresh execution — its scope is bounded by findings, not by the original plan
When modes are collapsed:
- Uncertainty is hidden instead of managed
- Decisions are justified after the fact
- Confidence increases while truth decreases
Mode separation is not bureaucracy.
It is epistemic hygiene.
Mode Transitions
Transitions between modes are not automatic.
A transition is legitimate only when:
- The obligations of the current mode have been satisfied
- The risks of the next mode are explicitly accepted
Reverting to an earlier mode is always allowed.
Skipping modes is allowed only when explicitly acknowledged.
For practical guidance on mode transitions in conversation, see Mode-Separated Conversations.
For the principle that each mode earns its own session, see Sessions Mirror Modes.
For the binding rule that every transition requires a journal entry plus a transition-specific durable handoff artifact, see Mode Transitions Require Encoded Handoff.
Legitimacy of Inaction
Not acting is a valid outcome.
Remaining in Exploration or Planning is legitimate when:
- Unknowns materially affect outcomes
- Evidence is insufficient
- The cost of premature action exceeds the cost of delay
Pressure to act is not evidence that action is warranted.
Relationship to Other Canon Principles
This document complements:
- Epistemic Hygiene — when review or correction is required
- Verification and Evidence — what counts as proof
- Definition of Done — what completion means
Epistemic modes answer a prior question:
Is it legitimate to decide or act at all?
Scope
This principle applies to:
- Humans and agents
- Design, engineering, research, and governance
- Early ideation through long-term maintenance
Tools, processes, and workflows may encode or enforce these modes,
but they do not define them.
Final Note
Clarity of mode creates trust.
When participants know:
- which mode they are in
- what is expected
- what is not required yet
Collaboration becomes possible without coercion,
and learning compounds instead of being overwritten.
This document exists to protect that clarity.