Can you actually defend this connection?

Counterpaths asks two different questions that ordinary graph tools often collapse: are these objects connected structurally? and does the route qualify under the evidence policy you declared?A requested connection is never sufficient reason to invent a bridge.

The specimen

NYT / OpenAI litigation record → judicial opinion

The governed graph contains the judicial-opinion source as part of the record projection. It does not contain a governed supported_byedge for the relationship the flagship asks about.

origin: ["record","counterpedia/NYT-OPENAI-LITIGATION-0001","NYT-OPENAI-LITIGATION-0001"]
target: ["source","counterpedia/NYT-OPENAI-LITIGATION-0001","source:nyt-openai:no-s03-judicial-opinion"]

The two-query demo

1. Structural. Load the flagship and query the carried graph. Expected: one-hopprojects_as route.
2. Supported-by only. Keep the exact same endpoints and graph, change only the policy. Expected:NO_DEFENSIBLE_PATH.
3. Inspect the refusal. The shorter structural route remains visible as rejected instead of being silently promoted into evidence.

Interactive query

Ask the graph

Ask a connection question in ordinary language, review the proposed governed endpoints, then confirm them before running Counterpaths. You can still load the flagship or enter exact refs directly. Operational failure is shown separately from epistemic absence.

Natural-language endpoint proposal

What connection do you want to inspect?

The model can propose only IDs from the governed endpoint catalog. Review and confirm both endpoints before any path query runs.

Flagship demo

NYT/OpenAI litigation: first observe that the governed record contains the judicial-opinion source, then switch to Supported-by only and ask whether that structural proximity survives as support.

Try these examples

Each button loads the inputs, sets the policy, and submits immediately.

Expected: found, 1 hop via projects_as
Expected: no_defensible_path (structural route rejected)
Expected: no_defensible_path (no carried refs on edge)
Expected: endpoint_not_found

OriginTarget

Path policy

StructuralShow carried graph topology even when the route does not satisfy an evidentiary policy.Source + provenanceRequire explicit carried source and provenance references on every winning hop.Supported-by onlyAllow only governed supported_by relationships; structural proximity is not enough.

Active policy: Source + provenance. Changing policy reruns the same endpoints under a different eligibility rule; it does not alter the graph.

≤ 6 degreeseligibility before rankingno fixture fallback

What happens after no defensible path?

Absence can become bounded work without becoming a conclusion.

The executable FLAGSHIP-DEMO0 proof freezes the exact no-path result as a CounterpathGap, compiles a bounded Counterplayer research task withconnection_presumed=false, creates an Acquisition candidate request, asks Authoring for a relationship proposal, and recomputes the original query. With no selected supporting evidence, Authoring returns NO_PROPOSAL and the same-snapshot recompute remains NO_DEFENSIBLE_PATH.

The browser query above does not itself execute that downstream research loop. The baseline proof demonstrates the contract handoffs separately so a path query cannot silently mutate the graph.