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.
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
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-41a73d1c881298c5
Registry 2026.09.08-preview.1
SHA-256 c4ccbd2e6c1c6d7d9c815dd1a7fc84567ba4e6b1f0f4669bf24724734ec799be
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. 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.
03 · Route to a kernel
Which admitted method fits your question?
17 kernels are admitted to the Ecological OS today: 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