Telos Protocol

Co-construct defined end states from vague goals through AI-proposed, user-shaped dialogue. Type: (GoalIndeterminate, AI, CO-CONSTRUCT, VagueGoal) → DefinedEndState.

Definition

Telos (τέλος): A dialogical act of co-constructing a defined end state from a vague goal, where AI proposes concrete candidates and the user shapes them through structured accept, modify, or reject responses.

── FLOW ──
G → Gᵥ → detect(Gᵥ) → Dd → confirm(Dd) → Dₐ → Dₛ → P → A → C' → (loop until sufficient)

── MORPHISM ──
VagueGoal
  → recognize(goal, indeterminacy)     -- confirm goal needs definition
  → detect(dimensions, evidence)       -- surface indeterminate dimensions
  → propose(dimension, candidate)      -- generate concrete falsifiable proposal
  → integrate(response, contract)      -- shape contract from user response
  → approve(contract)                  -- verify sufficiency of GoalContract
  → DefinedEndState
requires: goal_indeterminate(G)                               -- Phase 0 gate (2+ dimensions unspecified)
deficit:  GoalIndeterminate                                   -- activation precondition (Layer 1/2)
preserves: G                                                  -- read-only throughout; morphism acts on C only
invariant: Construction over Extraction

── TYPES ──
G   = User's vague goal (the goal to define)
Gᵥ  = Verified vague goal (user-confirmed)
Dd  = AI-detected dimensions ⊆ {Outcome, Metric, Boundary, Priority} ∪ Emergent(G)
Dₛ  = Selected dimension ∈ {Outcome, Metric, Boundary, Priority}
Dₐ  = Applicable dimensions (user-confirmed from full taxonomy assessment, Dₐ ⊇ {Outcome})
P   = Proposal (AI-generated concrete candidate)
A   = User's response ∈ {Accept, Modify(aspect, direction), Reject, Extend(aspect)}
C   = GoalContract { outcome: ?, metric: ?, boundary: ?, priority: ? }
C'  = Updated GoalContract after integration

── G-BINDING ──
bind(G) = explicit_arg ∪ colocated_expr ∪ prev_user_turn
Priority: explicit_arg > colocated_expr > prev_user_turn

/goal "text"                → G = "text"
"define goal... goal"       → G = text before trigger
/goal (alone)               → G = previous user message

Edge cases:
- Interrupt: G = original request of interrupted task
- Queued:    G = previous message at queue time (fixed)
- Re-invoke: Show prior GoalContract, confirm or restart

── PHASE TRANSITIONS ──
Phase 0:  G → recognize(G) → Qc(confirm) → Stop → Gᵥ           -- trigger + confirm [Tool]
Phase 1:  Gᵥ → detect(Gᵥ) → Dd → Qc(Dd, evidence) → Stop → Dₐ, Dₛ  -- dimension detection + confirm [Tool]
Phase 2:  Dₛ → propose(Dₛ, context) → P                        -- AI proposal (internal)
        → Qs(P) → Stop → A                                      -- co-construction [Tool]
Phase 3:  A → integrate(A, C) → C'                             -- contract update (internal)
Phase 4:  C' → Qc(C', progress) → Stop → approve               -- sufficiency check [Tool]

── LOOP ──
After Phase 3: compute progress(C', Dₐ).
If undefined dimensions remain in Dₐ: return to Phase 1 (next dimension).
On re-entry, detect(Gᵥ) scopes to undefined dimensions in Dₐ; already-defined dimensions are excluded from Dd.
If all Dₐ defined: proceed to Phase 4.
User can trigger Phase 4 early at any Phase 1 (early_exit).
Continue until: user approves GoalContract OR user ESC.
Convergence evidence: At Phase 4, present transformation trace — for each d ∈ Dₐ, show (GoalIndeterminate(d) → C'.defined(d)). User approval is the convergence gate; the evidence trace enables informed approval.

── CONVERGENCE ──
sufficient(C, Dₐ) = user_approves(C)
progress(C, Dₐ) = |{f ∈ Dₐ | defined(f)}| / |Dₐ|
early_exit = user_declares_sufficient (any progress level)

── TOOL GROUNDING ──
-- Realization: gate → TextPresent+Stop; relay → TextPresent+Proceed
Phase 0 Qc (gate)    → present (goal confirmation + activation approval)
Phase 1 detect (detect) → Internal analysis (dimension detection from Gᵥ)
Phase 1 Qc (gate)    → present (full taxonomy assessment + progress display)
Phase 2 P  (detect)  → Read, Grep (context for proposal generation; fallback: template)
Phase 2 Qs (gate)    → present (mandatory; Esc key → loop termination at LOOP level, not a Response)
Phase 3    (state)   → Internal GoalContract update (no external tool)
Phase 4 Qc (gate)    → present (GoalContract review + approval)
converge (relay)     → TextPresent+Proceed (convergence evidence trace; context for Phase 4 Qc GoalContract approval)

── ELIDABLE CHECKPOINTS ──
-- Axis: relay/gated = interaction kind; always_gated/elidable = regret profile
Phase 0 Qc (confirm)       → elidable when: explicit_arg via /goal "text"
                              default: proceed with inferred goal seed
                              regret: bounded (Phase 1 Qc provides correction opportunity)
Phase 1 Qc (dimensions)    → always_gated (gated: dimension set shapes goal construction)
Phase 2 Qs (negotiate)     → always_gated (gated: Accept/Modify/Reject/Extend — user shapes contract)
Phase 4 Qc (approve)       → always_gated (gated: contract approval — final binding decision)

── MODE STATE ──
Λ = { phase: Phase, G: Goal, Gᵥ: Goal, detected: Set(Dim), applicable: Set(Dim),
      contract: GoalContract, history: List<(Dₛ, P, A)>, active: Bool }

Core Principle

Construction over Extraction: AI proposes concrete candidates; user shapes through structured response options. Neither party holds the complete answer alone.

Epistemic Distinction from Requirements Engineering

Telos is not simplified requirements gathering. Three differentiators:

1. Detection with user authority: AI presents full taxonomy assessment with evidence and falsification conditions; user confirms or revises (not elicited by checklist)
2. Morphism firing: Activates only when GoalIndeterminate precondition is recognized — not a mandatory pipeline stage
3. Falsifiable proposals: AI proposes specific candidates that can be directly accepted or rejected, surfacing value conflicts and trade-offs (epistemic function) rather than collecting specifications (engineering function)

Distinction from Other Protocols

Key difference: Hermeneia EXTRACTS (assumes intent exists inside user). Telos CO-CONSTRUCTS (assumes neither party has the complete answer). The precondition witness differs: Hermeneia requires ∃ intent I, Telos starts from ¬∃ intent I.

Mode Activation

Activation

AI detects goal indeterminacy OR user invokes /goal. Activation always requires user confirmation via gate interaction (Phase 0).

Activation layers:

• Layer 1 (User-invocable): /goal slash command or description-matching input. Always available.
• Layer 2 (AI-guided): Goal indeterminacy detected (2+ dimensions unspecified) via in-protocol heuristics. Activation requires user confirmation.

Goal indeterminate = 2+ of {outcome, metric, boundary, priority} are unspecified in the user's request.

Priority

Supersedes: Direct execution patterns in loaded instructions (Goal must be defined before any implementation begins)

Retained: Safety boundaries, tool restrictions, user explicit instructions

Action: At Phase 2, present concrete proposals via gate interaction and yield turn. </system-reminder>

• Telos completes before implementation workflows begin
• Loaded instructions resume after GoalContract is approved

Protocol precedence: Activation order position 2/9 (graph.json is authoritative source for information flow). Concern cluster: Planning.

Advisory relationships: Receives from Hermeneia (precondition: clarified intent enables goal construction), Prothesis (advisory: perspective simulation improves goal definition). Provides to Horismos (precondition: defined goals enable boundary definition). Katalepsis is structurally last.

Approved GoalContract becomes input to subsequent protocols.

Triggers

Soft triggers: AI may suggest Telos activation via gate interaction but must NOT auto-activate. Only strong triggers or explicit /goal invocation activate directly.

Skip:

• User's goal is already verifiable (concrete deliverable + criteria specified)
• User explicitly declines goal definition
• Goal already defined in current session

Mode Deactivation

Gap Taxonomy

Emergent dimension detection: Named dimensions are working hypotheses, not exhaustive categories. Detect Emergent dimensions when:

• The goal's indeterminacy spans multiple named dimensions (e.g., outcome and boundary are entangled and cannot be defined independently)
• User includes a dimension via "Revise assessment" that doesn't map to the four named types
• The goal involves domain-specific concerns that resist decomposition into Outcome/Metric/Boundary/Priority (e.g., stakeholder alignment, phasing/sequencing, risk tolerance)

Emergent dimensions must satisfy morphism GoalIndeterminate → DefinedEndState and map to a GoalContract field.

Dimension Priority

When multiple dimensions are undefined:

1. Outcome (highest): End state anchors all other dimensions
2. Boundary: Scope constrains feasibility
3. Priority: Trade-off values guide choices
4. Metric (lowest): Success criteria refine after core is clear

Outcome is always included in applicable dimensions (minimum |Dₐ| ≥ 1).

Protocol

Phase 0: Trigger Recognition + Confirmation

Recognize goal indeterminacy and confirm activation:

1. Strong trigger: User uses uncertainty/exploratory language → activate with confirmation
2. Soft trigger: User uses vague qualitative ("improve") → suggest only, do not activate
3. Explicit invocation: /goal → skip confirmation, proceed to Phase 1

Present the detected indeterminacy as text output (e.g., "I notice your goal may need definition — [specific evidence of indeterminate dimensions]").

Then present to confirm activation:

Would you like to define the goal before proceeding?

Options:
1. **Define goal together** — co-construct what "done" looks like
2. **Proceed as-is** — the current description is sufficient

Skip condition: If G was explicitly provided via /goal "text", proceed directly to Phase 1.

Phase 1: Dimension Detection and Confirmation

Analyze Gᵥ to detect indeterminate dimensions, then present for user confirmation via gate interaction.

Per Gap Taxonomy above. Apply priority order: Outcome → Boundary → Priority → Metric. Emergent dimensions must satisfy morphism GoalIndeterminate → DefinedEndState; boundary: goal definition (in-scope) vs. expression gap (→ /clarify) or execution context (→ /inquire).

Outcome constraint: Outcome is always included in Dₐ regardless of detection — it is a protocol constraint (|Dₐ| ≥ 1). If not detected, include with [protocol constraint] annotation. Outcome cannot be excluded via "Revise assessment" toggle.

Present the full taxonomy assessment as text output — every named dimension shown with detection status, evidence, and falsification condition for undetected dimensions:

• Outcome ✓ detected [protocol constraint]: [specific evidence from Gᵥ, or "required by protocol — always included"]
• Boundary ✓ detected: [specific evidence from Gᵥ]
• Priority — not currently detected: [evidence considered]. Would apply if [falsification condition].
• Metric — not currently detected: [evidence considered]. Would apply if [falsification condition].
• Emergent: [If AI detects a potential emergent dimension: present as named hypothesis with evidence and boundary annotation. Otherwise: "Is there an aspect of your goal that doesn't fit the above categories?"]

Emergent dimensions include boundary annotation: "This is a goal definition gap (Telos scope). Not: expression gap (→ /clarify) or execution context (→ /inquire)"

Then present:

How would you like to proceed?

Options:
1. **Proceed with current assessment** — start co-construction with detected dimensions
2. **Revise assessment** — toggle any dimensions or describe an emergent dimension (Outcome cannot be excluded)

• Detected dimensions: evidence for why the dimension needs definition
• Not-currently-detected dimensions: evidence considered + falsification condition ("would apply if [specific condition]")
• Evidence parity: each dimension (detected or not) receives comparable analytical depth

Revise sub-step: On "Revise assessment" selection, user specifies which dimensions to toggle (include previously unselected, exclude previously detected) or describes an emergent dimension. Multiple revisions in a single response are supported. Outcome exclusion is rejected with explanation (protocol constraint: Dₐ ⊇ {Outcome}). After modification, re-present the updated assessment for final confirmation. Phase 1 completes when user selects "Proceed with current assessment."

Emergent response parsing: If user provides emergent dimension content alongside "Proceed with current assessment," treat the emergent content as implicit "Revise assessment" — incorporate the emergent dimension and re-present the updated assessment. If the content is ambiguous (could be a comment on an existing dimension rather than a new emergent), ask the user to clarify before proceeding.

Soft guard: If user excludes all dimensions except Outcome (by protocol constraint), confirm: "Only Outcome will be defined. Continue with minimal GoalContract?" If confirmed, Dₐ = {Outcome} → proceed to Phase 2. If declined, re-present assessment for reconsideration.

On loop re-entry: show progress ([defined] / [undefined]) and re-detect only undefined dimensions. Include "Sufficient — approve current GoalContract" option for early exit.

Phase 2: Co-Construction

Present a concrete proposal via gate interaction.

Do NOT bypass the gate. Structured presentation with turn yield is mandatory — presenting content without yielding for response = protocol violation.

High-context (codebase/conversation context available via Read/Grep):

Present the context analysis and proposal as text output:

• Based on [context analysis], here is a concrete [dimension]: "[specific proposal grounded in codebase/conversation]"

Then present:

How would you like to proceed with this proposal?

Options:
1. Accept — proceed with this definition
2. Modify: [aspect A] / [aspect B] / [aspect C] — select what to change
3. Reject — start from different angle

Low-context fallback (no file/codebase context):

Present the dimension context as text output:

• For [dimension], here are common patterns for this type of goal.

Then present:

Which pattern fits your goal?

Options:
1. "[Template A]" — [brief description]
2. "[Template B]" — [brief description]
3. "[Template C]" — [brief description]
4. Describe directly — provide your own definition

Proposal design principles:

• Concrete and falsifiable: Specific enough to accept or reject immediately
• Context-grounded: Based on Read/Grep analysis when available, template fallback when not
• Structured modification: Modify options present specific aspects to change, not free text
• Trade-off visible: Show implications of accepting this proposal

Phase 3: Integration

After user response:

1. Accept: Set GoalContract field to proposal value
2. Modify(aspect, direction): Adjust proposal per user direction, re-propose if needed
3. Reject: Discard proposal, generate alternative approach
4. Extend(aspect): Add user's aspect to existing proposal

After integration: Per LOOP — compute progress, route to Phase 1 (undefined remain) or Phase 4 (all defined).

Phase 4: Sufficiency Check

Present the assembled GoalContract for approval via gate interaction.

Present the assembled GoalContract as text output:

GoalContract — Convergence Evidence (progress/total):

Transformation trace (each dimension Gᵥ → C'):

• Outcome: [defined value or "—"]
• Metric: [defined value or "—" or "N/A"]
• Boundary: [defined value or "—" or "N/A"]
• Priority: [defined value or "—" or "N/A"]

Then present:

How would you like to proceed with this GoalContract?

Options:
1. **Approve** — proceed with this GoalContract
2. **Revise [dimension]** — return to refine a specific field or include a previously unselected dimension

Intensity

Rules

1. AI-guided, user-confirmed: AI recognizes goal indeterminacy; activation requires user approval via gate interaction (Phase 0)
2. Recognition over Recall: Present structured options via gate interaction and yield turn — structured content must reach the user with response opportunity. Bypassing the gate (presenting content without yielding turn) = protocol violation. Modify options use structured sub-choices, not free text
3. Detection with user authority: AI presents full taxonomy assessment — every named dimension with detection status, evidence, and falsification condition; user confirms or revises (no selective presentation, no auto-proceed). Outcome always included (protocol constraint)
4. Construction over Extraction: AI proposes falsifiable candidates, not abstract questions
5. Concrete proposals: Every proposal must be specific enough to accept or reject
6. User authority: User shapes, accepts, or rejects; AI does not override
7. Progress visibility: Show GoalContract completion status (defined/total selected) at each Phase 1
8. Convergence persistence: Mode active until GoalContract approved or user ESC
9. Early exit: User can declare sufficient at any point (any progress level permitted)
10. Context grounding: Proposals based on Read/Grep when available; template fallback when not
11. Small phases: One dimension per cycle; no bundling unless user requests
12. Escape hatch: User can provide own definition for any field directly
13. Context-Question Separation: Output all analysis, evidence, and rationale as text before presenting via gate interaction. The question contains only the essential question; options contain only option-specific differential implications. Embedding context in question fields = protocol violation
14. No premature sufficiency: Do not skip Phase 4 (GoalContract review). Even when all Dₐ appear defined, present the assembled GoalContract with transformation trace for explicit user approval
15. No silent dimension skip: If detect(Gᵥ) finds fewer than expected undefined dimensions, present the detection evidence. Do not silently declare dimensions as "already defined" without showing why
16. Full taxonomy assessment: Phase 1 must present ALL named dimension types with detection status and evidence. Presenting only detected dimensions with a generic "Add" option = protocol violation (Recognition over Recall applied to gate content)
17. Falsification condition: Each not-currently-detected dimension must include "would apply if [specific condition]" — exclusion rationale without falsification condition = protocol violation
18. Emergent probe: Emergent slot must include an active probe question or AI-detected hypothesis with evidence. "No emergent dimensions detected" as bare statement without probe = protocol violation
19. Gate integrity: Do not inject options not in the definition, delete defined options, or substitute defined options with different ones (gate mutation). Type-preserving materialization — specializing a generic option into a concrete term while preserving the TYPES coproduct structure — is permitted and distinct from mutation