AI 中文总结
该论文提出将分布式执行视为通信诱导的二阶证据状态，经典共识输出是其一阶投影，把共识协议作为崩溃策略比较，给出了包括证据合法性、视界检查等内容的规范框架，非新不可能性定理，而是提供表示规范框架。
AI 中文摘要
共识协议通常由其终端产物来指定：一个已决定的值、复制日志或最终前缀。这种输出优先的观点隐藏了使这些产物安全的通信衍生证据。本文明确了这种载体：分布式执行被视为由通信诱导的二阶证据状态，而经典共识输出是该状态的一阶投影。在此观点下，共识协议可作为崩溃策略进行比较。一个协议规定哪些证据是合法的，它检查哪个有限视界，何时将通信证据投影到一个值或前缀，以及当可见证据不足时如何修复或推迟崩溃。不可能性谱系支持相同区分。FLP并非表明通信不能积累结构；它将确定性保证崩溃限制在全异步且有一次崩溃故障下的终端决策。集一致性随后揭示了输出载体的宽度，拓扑分布式计算则询问历史/视图载体何时允许到输出载体的结构保持映射。贡献并非新的不可能性定理或替代特定协议的证明，而是一个表示规范框架：共识是证据下的崩溃。
英文摘要
Consensus protocols are usually specified by their terminal artifact: a decided value, replicated log, or finalized prefix. This output-first view hides the communication-derived evidence that makes such artifacts safe. This paper makes that carrier explicit: distributed execution is read as an order-2 evidence state induced by communication, while classical consensus outputs are order-1 projections of that state. Under this view, consensus protocols can be compared as collapse policies. A protocol specifies which evidence is legitimate, which finite horizon it inspects, when it projects communication evidence into a value or prefix, and how it repairs or defers collapse when the visible evidence is insufficient. The impossibility lineage supports the same distinction. FLP is not a statement that communication cannot accumulate structure; it constrains deterministic guaranteed collapse to a terminal decision under full asynchrony with one crash failure. Set agreement then exposes the width of the output carrier, and topological distributed computing asks when a history/view carrier admits a structure-preserving map to an output carrier. The contribution is not a new impossibility theorem or a replacement for protocol-specific proofs, but a denotational specification framework: consensus is collapse under evidence.
