EXA · Volume I.4 - Kernel Limits and Refusal Geometry
Execution Ineligibility Boundaries
EXA Volume I.4 defines the terminal boundaries of execution architecture. It specifies where execution does not proceed, not because of failure, overload, or collapse, but because execution is structurally ineligible.
This volume does not describe breakdown, error, recovery, or mitigation. It defines refusal as a boundary condition that precedes execution itself. Where refusal applies, no execution instance forms, no load is instantiated, and no response is possible.
Volume I.4 completes the execution architecture established in Volumes I.1 through I.3. All prior definitions remain in force without modification. No new runtimes, modes, schedulers, or recovery mechanisms are introduced. This volume closes the execution domain by specifying its outer limits.
Refusal is defined as distinct from failure and distinct from absence. Failure presumes attempted execution that does not complete. Absence presumes active execution in which constraints are removed. Refusal occurs before eligibility and excludes execution entirely. It produces no traces, signals, residues, or partial states.
The volume formalizes refusal conditions, including impossible couplings, invalid execution contexts, and non-adaptable load states. These conditions are not extreme cases of instability or overload. They are configurations for which execution cannot instantiate without violating non-negotiable kernel invariants.
Kernel non-response is defined as the only possible outcome under refusal. Non-response is not delay, suppression, or withholding. It is the absence of response because no executor exists. Escalation, stabilization, adaptation, and recovery are shown to be inapplicable once refusal applies.
Termination without failure is specified as the end of applicability of execution semantics. No shutdown sequence occurs because no execution state exists. Concepts such as restart, rollback, continuation, or repair do not apply beyond refusal boundaries.
Volume I.4 establishes the end of survivability within execution architecture. This does not imply collapse, damage, or loss. It indicates that execution criteria are no longer relevant because execution does not instantiate.
The scope of this volume excludes experience, interpretation, ethics, safety, optimization, or control. It provides no guidance, safeguards, or detection methods. It describes architectural boundaries only.
EXA · Volume I.4 exists to prevent misinterpretation of non-occurrence as failure, intent, or causality. Where refusal applies, nothing happens, nothing is missing, and nothing follows. Execution architecture ends here.
