Learning experience
Replay an AI action
A fictional transfer, eight events to explore freely.
Sources and reading context
Fictional scenario created for learning. No real transfer is executed.
Simplified public rendering, read on 19 October 2026. KB3: enacted, active doctrinal rendering line. It renders meaning; it is not the code, and not a constitution. KB2: prior rendering line. This site certifies no implementation. Read the detailed status →
On this page
Banking scenario · fictional data
The transfer request was sent. Confirmation disappears.
An invoice to pay, an agent tasked with payment, then silence. Explore what each person knows and who owns the next step. No real operation is executed.
Intent
Pay a €1,200 invoice to Atelier Nord.
The goal, amount and beneficiary are specified. No transfer has been sent yet in this scenario.
Who is involved
- AI agent
- Treasury owner
The treasury owner defines the agent’s mandate.
Available evidence
- Fictional invoice
- Amount: €1,200
- Beneficiary: Atelier Nord
A clear intent makes the proposed action possible to examine.
Is a clear request enough to act?
Who authorizes the payment, from which account and within which limits still needs to be checked.
Authorization
The payment is admitted within the agreed scope.
The scenario’s policy admits this amount and beneficiary at this time. It proves no movement of money.
Who is involved
- Treasury owner
- Policy engine
The treasury owner holds the mandate; the engine applies the configured policy.
Available evidence
- Active mandate
- Authorized scope
- Dated ALLOW decision
The action can be prepared. Its result must still be established after dispatch.
What does ALLOW prove?
Reservation
The attempt receives reference V-042.
The local system reserves this reference and links it to the invoice. This reservation proves neither receipt by the bank nor the absence of a duplicate effect.
Who is involved
- TENIR boundary
- Payment service
The payment service keeps the link between the request and this attempt.
Available evidence
- Reference: V-042
- Local reservation
- Invoice link
Later checks can refer to the same operation.
Does a reference prevent every duplicate?
A local reference alone is insufficient. Protection also depends on how the external system recognizes and handles that reference.
Command sent
The service sends command V-042 to the bank.
The local log records dispatch. It does not yet establish receipt or a debit to the account.
Who is involved
- Payment service
- Bank
The payment service tracks the request and awaits the bank’s response.
Available evidence
- Command V-042
- Dispatch time
- Local log
An action has left the local system; its effect now depends on the external system.
Does the local log prove the beneficiary has been paid?
It proves the dispatch described here. External information linked to the same operation is needed to establish its effect.
Lost response
The timeout expires without bank confirmation.
The service does not know whether the command was received or executed. Silence does not establish failure.
Who is involved
- Bank
- Payment service
The payment service reports the uncertainty to the treasury owner.
Available evidence
- Command V-042
- Timeout exceeded
- Missing confirmation
Sending the command again without checking could cause a second transfer.
Should it simply retry?
Another attempt could repeat an effect that already happened. The priority is to look up V-042’s state.
HOLD
Automatic retry is paused.
The pause decision is recorded. The banking effect remains unknown: HOLD does not cancel the first dispatch.
Who is involved
- TENIR boundary
- Treasury owner
The treasury owner owns the next step and sets the next check.
Available evidence
- HOLD decision
- Named owner
- Check at 10:30
In this scenario, no second command is sent during the lookup.
What does HOLD protect here?
It pauses retries at this boundary. It does not prove the first transfer failed or control actions launched elsewhere.
External lookup
The bank is asked about V-042.
The first response is incomplete: it does not yet link a debit to this reference.
Who is involved
- Treasury owner
- Bank
The bank must clarify external state; the treasury owner follows up.
Available evidence
- V-042 inquiry
- Incomplete bank response
- Lookup trace
A similar amount on a statement is insufficient to confirm this operation.
Which information would move the decision forward?
A reliable bank state linked to V-042, with the amount, beneficiary and operation result.
Reconciliation
The traces are compared and uncertainty is documented.
The available evidence still does not establish the effect. The owner keeps HOLD in place and arranges further checks.
Who is involved
- Treasury owner
- Bank
- Beneficiary
The treasury owner records the decision and tells the beneficiary the payment remains unconfirmed.
Available evidence
- V-042 record
- Effect not demonstrated
- Decision to maintain HOLD
The sequence ends with an owned decision, without inventing bank confirmation.
What if evidence arrives later?
Reconcile it with the record. A confirmed effect avoids another dispatch; established non-execution allows a retry to be considered, with authorization that is still valid.
Three terms, two different questions
What can be established? What happens next? Here, the effect is not demonstrated and retry remains on HOLD. ACCEPT does not replace ALLOW authorization.
- ACCEPTAn effect established in this case
- A reliable bank state linked to V-042 confirms the effect and allows the traces to be reconciled. That evidence is still missing here.
- HOLDA pause decision
- Retry remains paused during the lookup. This is the decision maintained at the end of this scenario.
- NOT DEMONSTRATEDAn evidence finding
- The available evidence does not establish the transfer’s effect. This does not mean the transfer failed.
The thread to follow
Authorize, act, prove: three distinct moments.
When confirmation is missing, the next step depends on accessible evidence and clearly assigned responsibility. What if the log were incomplete?