Viridis Ecological OS
Ecological decision workspace
Define a question, check the evidence and compare your options. This workspace compares habitat protection, corridor restoration and mixed management under a shared budget.
Use public or non-sensitive information. Evaluation does not save inputs to your account or the server. Save on this device or export when you want to keep a record.
03 · Compare pathways
What can this information support?
Select a branch to inspect its inputs, research and unresolved questions. A conditional model result still needs evidence and human review before action.
Inspect a node
Intelligence Bound
No justified mapping from this conservation question to the theorem's random processes, information rates and maintenance or erasure work has been supplied.
Decision role: Foundational constraint framework. Applicability is recorded in every decision; no numerical root compliance is asserted.
Assumptions, constraints and limitations
- μ is a probability measure; Ω and State are measurable spaces.
- observationBandwidth μ O ≠ ⊤.
- predictiveRichness μ X O τ ≤ 1; it is not established from ecosystem descriptions.
- 0 < kB and 0 < T, with nonnegative P and τ.
- SatisfiesLandauerLimit μ X O τ P T kB, defined as P ≥ intelligenceCreationRate μ X O τ × ofReal(kB × T × ln 2). This physical applicability is assumed, not derived from microphysics in P0.
- Justify actual X/O/μ/τ, physical regime, observation-channel quantities and mapping from available measurements; missing for generic conservation choices.
public ci passed exact source
The conditional P0 statement and compiled transitive axiom allowlist passed the cited public CI. This implementation run inspected receipts; it did not rerun Lean.
conditional assessment implemented
Structured applicability, missing inputs and source references; numerical constraint result is null.
not recorded
No field mapping or validation supplied for this workflow.
local review preview
This package composition is available for local unsigned scenario evaluation. Production release has not been authorized.
Source artifacts
- Exact repaired P0 formal source · Apache-2.0
- Intelligence Bound Canon v10.2.0 archive · CC-BY-4.0
- Transitive P0 axiom audit · Apache-2.0
- Exact-source P0 public CI · Public build receipt
- Implementation and release boundary · Proprietary application documentation
Compare alternatives
A conditional feasible option is not automatically the preferred ecological decision.
| Pathway | State | Capital | Declared USD objective | Ecological effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat protection Protection 1; corridor 0 | unresolved | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Unknown |
| Corridor restoration Protection 0; corridor 1 | unresolved | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Unknown |
| Mixed management Protection 0.5; corridor 0.5 | unresolved | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Unknown |
Why the branches differ
Habitat protection
- Capital cost is missing for an active intervention; budget feasibility cannot be concluded.
- Budget is unknown; retain the symbolic budget constraint.
- Permission or implementation authority is unresolved.
- No supported declared-value comparison is available for this pathway.
Corridor restoration
- Capital cost is missing for an active intervention; budget feasibility cannot be concluded.
- Budget is unknown; retain the symbolic budget constraint.
- Permission or implementation authority is unresolved.
- No supported declared-value comparison is available for this pathway.
Mixed management
- Capital cost is missing for an active intervention; budget feasibility cannot be concluded.
- Budget is unknown; retain the symbolic budget constraint.
- Permission or implementation authority is unresolved.
- Fractional implementation needs an explicit divisibility assumption.
- No supported declared-value comparison is available for this pathway.
Physical consequences and responsibility
Account for ecological consequences
Compare declared physical effects alongside the financial scenario. Name who or what bears them, state a common boundary and horizon, and include no action. Reported inputs need source review; hypothetical inputs are examples.
The allocation model does not predict these effects. This account checks declared ranges and limits without turning nature into one price or choosing an ecological optimum.
These buttons replace the draft only. Evaluation uses public or non-sensitive declarations and does not save them to an account. Export a record to keep it.
Reopening a verified record replaces this draft with its original inputs. Its original parent stays attached; it is not silently applied to a different decision.
Conditional resource allocation
Run-139 · one period · divisible interventions · declared USD objective
Allocation is not evaluated. Required values, permission conditions or scientifically applicable model assumptions are missing or unsupported.
c_protection × y_protection + c_corridor × y_corridor ≤ B; 0 ≤ yᵢ ≤ 1
Compare under disturbance
Robust options
Declare what could change. The method checks constraints, then keeps viable alternatives visible for human selection. Method, example and limits.
No ecological account is attached. Ecological effects are not computed.
Traceable scientific models
Inspect a decision more closely
Explore weight sensitivity, staged commitment or two price conventions. Supply the model’s own quantities and premises; no site measurements or ecological effects are inferred. Each analysis keeps the original decision intact.
What would change the decision?
- Specify a budget and its source to distinguish financially feasible pathways.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Habitat protection: capital; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Habitat protection: avoided; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Habitat protection: embodied; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Habitat protection: friction; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Corridor restoration: capital; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Corridor restoration: avoided; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Corridor restoration: embodied; record units and a source.
- Supply or explicitly hypothesize Corridor restoration: friction; record units and a source.
- Review onePeriod; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Review divisible; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Review fixedCoefficients; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Review quadraticFriction; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Review declaredValueObjective; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Review independentInterventions; a rejected assumption prevents this allocation model from applying.
- Resolve permission for Habitat protection; no score can override a prohibition.
- Resolve permission for Corridor restoration; no score can override a prohibition.
- Obtain site-specific habitat and connectivity evidence before comparing ecological effects.
- Have the decision owner and affected stakeholders review objectives, rights, tradeoffs and acceptable uncertainty.
- Review the Intelligence Bound's information units and project mapping before any quantitative root claim.
04 · Record & review
Keep the decision record
Save this exact result in this browser or export a portable report. Device records do not sync to your account and can be lost if browser data is cleared. Export JSON to reopen the original record on another device; use the readable report to review the reasoning. Edits and new evaluations create new records.
Frozen versions and integrity
Record decision-2069b51a847ceb46
Registry 2026.09.08-preview.1
SHA-256 d1f98edbce92c0dd2e7f1258e5b5e03e9b0be352bc78d25fef7b5d1e423e9175
The digest supports integrity checking and deterministic replay. It is not a digital signature, scientific validation or production approval.
Take this into a reviewed project
For a real decision, Viridis agrees the evidence, scope and acceptance criteria with you. An evaluated ecological impact account adds its reference to the review brief; export its separate JSON to preserve the full comparison. Your project workspace holds issued quotes and reviewed deliveries; saving this preview does not submit it for review.
Continue with this evaluated question, a summary of your objectives and declared budget, and the record reference. Review the draft before submitting. Export JSON to keep the full scenario; it is not uploaded with this summary.
Need help finding a method? Ask the Viridis Guide
Viridis Guide
Tell me the decision you have to make.
Routes to a theorem-backed method · never invents a number
Nothing you type is stored unless you choose to share it. We count which kinds of questions we can't answer yet.
Use public or non-sensitive information only. The Guide routes and explains; the kernels compute; a person reviews before anything is delivered. How it’s built · Run kernels yourself
03 · Route to a kernel
Which admitted method fits your question?
17 decision kernels (9 admitted) and 14 verified theorem functions run in the Ecological OS today, compiled from the open canon: each is backed by a DOI and a kernel-checked Lean theorem, runs deterministically, and returns a receipt you can recompute without a Viridis account. None is empirically validated; every result stays conditional on the inputs you supply.
Conservation · land trusts · agencies
Where should restoration effort be concentrated, and what supply bottleneck limits delivery?
Boundary. Model outputs do not establish field suitability, seed availability, land rights, permits, or ecological success.
Admitted kernels in this family
Deterministic theorem-backed computation; empirical input validity is external.
Lean ForestNucleation · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20982979
Inputs (published example pre-filled)
Use synthetic, public, or de-identified values only. Previews do not retain inputs and are not Viridis-reviewed.
Recompute receipt