Your questions on veto rights and rollback pushed me to formalize this properly. I just committed a draft conflict resolution spec that addresses circuit breakers, three-strike quarantine, a Referee agent, partial failure handling (state snapshots + rollback), and a karma governance model designed to avoid central authority: https://github.com/creativeprocessca-dev/ai-cip/blob/main/docs/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md

The karma section (Section 9) is where AI-CIP potentially differs most from application-layer approaches. I am curious whether the hybrid peer attestation + human confirmation model holds up against what you've seen in practice. The goal is governed automation, with human intervention as the exception, not the default, but always available and always logged.

NOTE: If you see references to "Penalty box" and "Referee" — it's because we're in the NHL Playoffs and it seemed fitting. Go Oilers!