Evidence forced the model to change.
Væringjar II did not begin with the current framework. The research moved from post-failure control of damaged hardware to a theory of controlled architectural evolution after three assumptions of the initial model became too weak.
Model revision
Each step records which assumption failed, what evidence exposed the limit, and how the model changed.
One research line, two different formulations.
Temporal diagram 2025 Problem formalisation Super-critical operating modes: shutdown can be unacceptable; degraded operation must be reasoned about.
Each missing guarantee produced a new research branch.
Yes. The response was to import dwell-time analysis into architecture-level reconfiguration and derive a rate bound from the conditioning of the configuration certificates.
Choose the best feasible degraded configuration.
It remains a valid special case. The revision does not discard it; it specifies the conditions under which it is safe to use.
Three papers document the revision from three angles.
Status: manuscript / preprint draft. Public bibliographic links should be added only after the preprints are deposited.