Structured
Failure Semantics
Ved defines a formal error taxonomy grounded in deterministic execution, authority boundaries, and convergence guarantees.
Errors are not incidental messages. They are manifestations of violated system invariants.
Design Philosophy
Why Ved Needs a Formal Error Model
- Distributed orchestration failures are often architectural.
- Deterministic systems require invariant enforcement.
- Clear failure classification enables reproducible debugging.
Invariant-centric diagnostics • Compile-time safety • Runtime contract enforcement
Diagnostic Code System
Canonical Error Identifiers
VED-<CATEGORY>-<NUMBER>By enforcing a strict taxonomy, Ved ensures category stability, machine-readable semantics, and seamless tooling integration.
Error Categories
Authority Violations
Attempts to mutate state across domain boundaries.
Determinism Violations
Non-deterministic calls inside strict execution slices.
Goal Convergence Failures
Target semantics cannot be reached within bounds.
Scheduler Safety Failures
Infinite loops or queue starvation detected.
Persistent State Integrity
Schema mismatches on snapshot restoration.
External Effect Violations
Unauthorized side effects outside effect types.
Static Type Errors
Structural invalidity at compile time.
Compile-Time vs Runtime
Errors fall into structural invalidity (caught at compilation) or operational safety violations (caught during execution).
Diagnostic Philosophy
Every error provides actionable messaging, explains the underlying invariant, and suggests a direct remediation.
Design Feedback
Errors are treated as structural design feedback, not just execution blockers.