Wait, am I dumb, or did the authors hallucinate? @INVENTORY says that 42 are in stock, but the text says "Only 3 left". Am I misunderstanding this or does stock mean something else?

▲

tsazan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Good eye. This demonstrates the protocol’s core feature.

The raw data shows 42. We used @SEMANTIC_LOGIC to force a limit of 3. The AI obeys the developer's rules, not just the CSV.

We failed to mention this context. It causes confusion. We are changing it to 42.

▲

nebezb 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, so dark patterns then. Baked right into your standard.

▲

tsazan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not dark patterns. Operational logic.

Physical stock rarely equals sellable stock. Items sit in abandoned carts. Or are held as safety buffers. If you have 42 items and 39 are reserved, telling the user "42 available" is the lie. It causes overselling.

The protocol allows the developer to define the sellable reality.

Crucially, we anticipated abuse. See Section 9: Cross-Verification.

If an agent detects systematic manipulation (fake urgency that contradicts checkout data), the merchant suffers a Trust Score penalty. The protocol is designed to penalize dark patterns, not enable them.

▲

hrimfaxi 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Who maintains this trust score? How is it communicated to other agents?

	▲	tsazan a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		There is no central authority. The Trust Score is a conceptual framework, not a shared database. Each AI platform (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) builds its own model. They retain full discretion. Agents do not talk to each other. They talk to users. If a score is low, the agent warns the user. It adds caveats or drops the recommendation. It does not broadcast to other bots.