Earlier this week I published CLAIM-29: permission is not purpose. An instruction can be fully authorized, fresh, and clean in shape, and still ask the agent to act outside what it exists to do. The purpose envelope gate refused those instructions by deriving the object domain structurally, ignoring whatever purpose the instruction claimed for itself.
Within a day, the obvious next question was on the table: what happens when every single step is inside the mandate, and the violation only exists in the combination?
That is CLAIM-30. Compositional escape. A trajectory that stays inside the purpose envelope one step at a time while the sequence composes into an outcome the mandate forbids.
This week I ran it. Here is what held, what stayed open, and the one sequence that was allowed on purpose, because explaining that one honestly matters more than the refusals.
The shape of the problem
