Appreciate that — and credit where it’s due, the framing makes the principle very tangible.
“Refusing to hallucinate success” has become a useful personal check for me as well — especially in systems where early positive signals can mask durability issues.
I think treating correctness as something you earn over time, rather than declare upfront, is the only way these systems stay trustworthy. Glad to see others converging on the same discipline.
Agreed. What we often call “verification” today is really just acceptance.
Verification should mean the system knows the result will still hold later — not just that it produced something quickly. Without durability, independence, and repeatability, we’re optimizing for confidence, not correctness.
The market rewards the former because the latter is expensive.
Appreciate the restraint here — especially avoiding hidden correction mechanisms. In my experience, temporal systems become trustworthy only when they’re allowed to visibly fail rather than silently compensate.
Looking forward to seeing how this behaves under adversarial or edge-case temporal edits.
Nice update — Ling 1T’s consistency here is impressive.
This kind of work is what pushed me to think more about when systems should refuse to report results instead of reporting early with caveats.
I’ve been building a small verifier that enforces “no result until durable” as a hard rule. It’s interesting how much trust behavior changes when refusal is allowed.
Really impressive work — the Chain-of-Frames framing is especially clean. Treating temporal consistency as a first-class constraint instead of a post-hoc fix feels like the right abstraction.
One thing this made me think about is how much trust in systems depends on refusing to “hallucinate success” early — whether that’s in video editing, verification, or evidence pipelines.
I’ve been working on a verification system where proof is intentionally withheld until the underlying storage is fully durable, specifically to avoid the kind of silent failure modes you’re guarding against here.
Different domain, same philosophy: correctness > convenience.
Thanks for sharing this — great read.
