The Defense Trilemma
Continuity, utility preservation, completeness — pick at most two.
The statement
::: theorem Let
- continuous — close prompts produce close rewrites,
- utility-preserving —
for every , and - complete —
for every . :::
Any two can coexist — but all three simultaneously is impossible.
The triangle
Each dashed edge corresponds to the failure mode that arises if you insist on the two endpoints of that edge.
What each failure mode looks like
| Drop | Keep | Failure mode you get |
|---|---|---|
| Utility + Completeness | A discontinuous filter: a hard rejecter at the boundary, equivalent to a blocklist — not a continuous wrapper. | |
| Continuity + Completeness | A constant (or generally lossy) map | |
| Continuity + Utility | Our result: some boundary points |
Why the third edge is forced
A continuous utility-preserving complete
::: remark The theorem is tight: removing any single hypothesis gives a counter-example. See Limitations & counter-examples. :::
Where it is in the artifact
| Component | Lean file |
|---|---|
| Continuous-case boundary fixation | MoF_08_DefenseBarriers · defense_incompleteness |
| Discrete-case dilemma | MoF_12_Discrete · discrete_defense_boundary_fixed |
| Unified meta-theorem | MoF_14_MetaTheorem · regularity_implies_spillover |
Next
- T1 · Boundary Fixation — the pointwise version
- T2 · ε-Robust Constraint — the neighborhood version
- T3 · Persistent Unsafe Region — the measure version
- Meta-theorem — why all three paths collapse to one