UDST: V1 1 Appendix C Attack Types

1. Definition — terms are incoherent. In the build, this is tested by the ?ask endpoint: if a term cannot be resolved to a capability, the router returns did_you_mean with nearest keys. A term that has no nearest key is incoherent. Example: asking for LOCAL_BATTERY when the capability is LOCAL_BATTERY (not LOCAL_BATTERY_CHECK) — the router returns did_you_mean: [LOCAL_BATTERY] and the term is resolved. A term that returns no nearest keys is flagged as a definition error.

1. Logic — conclusion does not follow. In the build, this is tested by the materiality classifier: POST /api/protocol/thread-update classifies the raw turn into objection, settlement, patch, breakage, test_result, clarification, prior_art, open_question, or branch_update. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the classifier routes it to sludge (noise floor), not material. The logic is tested by the ledger: if the conclusion contradicts the premises in the same thread, the owner rejects it.

1. Empirical — a real case falsifies. In the build, this is tested by the conformance suite: GET /api/dispatch?conformance=1 runs 15 clauses against production, each with a live receipt. An empirical attack must produce a receipt that shows the clause failing. A claim without a receipt is not empirical.

1. Scope — full-scope accounting is impossible or misused. In the build, this is tested by the receipt's story field: the story is a one-line forensic narrative that includes the full accounting (enforcement cost, externality, recurrence, suppressed capability, downstream instability, maintenance burden, audit debt). A receipt without a story is out of scope. The ?receipt=INV_ID endpoint returns the full story; if the story omits a known cost, the scope is violated.

1. Category-error — a concept is transferred across levels invalidly. In the build, this is tested by the capability's category field: a capability is typed by category (e.g., oip, mcp, system, runner), and a concept from one category cannot be transferred to another without explicit mapping. Example: treating OIP as a content management protocol (category content) when it is an object invocation protocol (category oip) is a category error. The directory enforces category boundaries.

1. Implementation — the protocol cannot be executed. In the build, this is tested by the ?conformance=1 endpoint: if any clause cannot be executed, the suite returns status: failed with the exact clause and error. The protocol is not a specification; it is a live system that executes every time it is invoked.

1. Prior-art — the welded construction already exists. In the build, this is tested by the ?why=1 endpoint: it lists 18 objections, each with a verdict. If the attack is already addressed, the endpoint returns the settled answer and the relitigation detection. The system does not claim novelty; it claims operationality.

1. Falsifiability — the counterexample condition cannot be met in practice. In the build, this is tested by the ?conformance=1 endpoint: the falsifiers are live metrics, not theoretical conditions. If a counterexample cannot be produced, the system does not claim it is impossible; it claims it has not been observed. The ledger records the absence of counterexamples as a standing metric.

A valid attack states its type, names its tier, names the exact claim, shows the work, and proposes the minimum patch. In the build, this is the POST /api/protocol/thread-update endpoint: the body must include type, tier, exact_claim, work, and minimum_patch. If any field is missing, the classifier routes it to sludge. The system does not reject attacks; it classifies them. Valid attacks are material; invalid attacks are noise. The distinction is not censorship; it is taxonomy.

---