The same answer, twice

An answer worth citing has to survive being asked again. The model hands back only the question and the hashes it was given; the server runs the law a second time and compares before it will show anyone a chain of reasoning.

La conversation a été enregistrée en anglais ; les répliques sont reproduites telles quelles.

I want to put the hardship conclusion in a memo. Can you show me the reasoning in a form the other side can check, rather than a screenshot of a chat?

Yes — but not by copying my own output into a document. Let me ask the question once, exactly as before, and keep the provenance that comes back with it.

Four hashes: the version of the law it was computed against, the facts of the case, the result, and the code that produced it. Now I ask for the reasoning — and I do it by handing back the question and two of those hashes, and nothing else. In particular I am not sending the answer. If the server accepted my copy of it, the chain it drew would be worth exactly my word for it.

Second run, same result, and only then the chain: rule, premises, conclusion, down to the facts of the case. The comparison is not a formality — let me break one character of the result hash and ask again.

Refused, with a code and an instruction rather than a best effort. That is the whole point of the pair: a chain of reasoning is only worth citing while it still belongs to the answer it came from. What your memo can carry is the question, the four hashes and the chain — checkable by anyone with the same instrument, including the other side's counsel, and checkable against me as well.