Continuity Handoff Formalism
Status
Canonical source repository: pending abbreviation-safe source confirmation
Wiki state: watching
Detail status: corrected public-safe detail page with abbreviation collision noted
Definition
Continuity Handoff Formalism is a formalism for evaluating whether context, authority, evidence, decision standing, data standing, and receipts survive transfer between sessions, systems, actors, repositories, or governance layers.
It supports inspection of whether a handoff preserves enough state for the next actor or process to continue without silently losing standing.
Source Boundary
Admissible-Existence defines the formalism family. Publisher publishes papers and public exposition. The Admissibility Wiki mirrors, relates, crosswalks, and discovers relationships.
The wiki is not the source authority for this formalism.
Correction Note
The abbreviation CHF is reserved for Coherency Horizon.
Prior use of CHF for Continuity Handoff Formalism is treated as an abbreviation collision. The handoff concept remains valid as a related continuity formalism, but it should not be referenced as CHF when Coherency Horizon is being formalized.
Scope
Continuity Handoff Formalism applies where a task, transition, review, publication, evidence packet, or decision context moves from one responsible context to another.
Purpose
The purpose of Continuity Handoff Formalism is to prevent handoffs from appearing complete when required context, receipts, authority, evidence, boundary conditions, horizon posture, or next-action state have been lost.
Core Constructs
| Construct | Role |
|---|---|
| Handoff | Transfer of context or responsibility between actors, systems, sessions, or repositories. |
| Handoff packet | Public-safe or internal record of the context being transferred. |
| Continuity state | Whether the next context can reconstruct and continue the transition. |
| Horizon posture | Whether the handoff occurred before required information crossed the Coherency Horizon. |
| Missing context | Required context absent from the handoff. |
| Task standing | Whether the task can proceed after transfer. |
| Receipt | Record supporting reconstruction of the handoff path. |
Related Canonical Formalisms
| Related Formalism | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Coherency Horizon | Determines whether the handoff preserved information before knowability was lost. |
| State Transition Continuity Model | Evaluates state continuity across the handoff. |
| Decision Continuity | Preserves decision standing through transfer. |
| Data Continuity | Preserves evidence and data context through transfer. |
| Relational Transition Geometry | Describes the transition relationship being handed off. |
| Transition Table | Classifies handoff-bearing transition posture. |
| Boundary Conditions | Determines whether transferred context remains within required boundary. |
Mathematical Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Proof Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Validation Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Validation candidates should include incomplete handoff, missing receipt, stale task state, broken evidence chain, lost authority, and handoff-after-horizon-loss cases when public-safe source artifacts are available.
Publication Artifacts
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction.
Reference Implementations
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction.
External Crosswalk Targets
| External Framework | Relationship |
|---|---|
| GLM | May help declare the handoff frame, claims, and non-claims before transfer. |
| EVIDE | May help preserve post-event evidence needed to reconstruct handoff standing. |
These are crosswalk targets only. They do not replace canonical formalism definition.
Open Questions
Which exact Admissible-Existence source file defines Continuity Handoff Formalism after reserving CHF for Coherency Horizon?
Which handoff states are canonical versus explanatory?
Which tests validate incomplete handoff, stale task state, lost authority, and horizon loss?
Which receipt fields are required for reconstructing handoff standing?
Non-Claims
This wiki page does not define, prove, or validate the formalism. External framework mappings are crosswalk candidates, not equivalence decisions. A listed relationship does not imply accepted formal equivalence. The abbreviation CHF is not claimed for this page.