# Question 9977: Synthetic Tactic Completion Is Not a Kernel Receipt

[Return to catalogue page 50](https://ocme.evemisslab.com/en/questions/page/50/)

[← Question derivation index](https://ocme.evemisslab.com/en/questions/) · [Original question batch](https://ocme.evemisslab.com/en/practice/batch-20261013-advance-20261019-r07-lean-proof-term-foundations/#q-20261013-advance-20261019-r07-lean-proof-term-0052)

This teaching derivation has second-context AI mathematical and bilingual semantic review, limited to the model and assumptions stated in this question. It has no human review or new Lean proof and does not promote the original question or MKO to Canonical truth.

R0018-09977 · q-20261013-advance-20261019-r07-lean-proof-term-0052



## Original question and givens

Use the synthetic small propositional calculus or synthetic receipt specified here, not actual Lean execution. The original source pulse did not run Lean builds for these questions. A statement, tactic log and kernel-checked proof are different obligations. statement_ready=true, tactic_finished=true, term_present=true, unresolved_goals=1. Give (those three flags, goal count, tactic finished with zero goals?, term candidate?, kernel checked?, no-kernel receipt boundary). The kernel flag remains false in this protocol.


- G001 — Use the synthetic small propositional calculus or synthetic receipt specified here, not actual Lean execution. The original source pulse did not run Lean builds for these questions. A statement, tactic log and kernel-checked proof are different obligations. statement_ready=true, tactic_finished=true, term_present=true, unresolved_goals=1. Give (those three flags, goal count, tactic finished with zero goals?, term candidate?, kernel checked?, no-kernel receipt boundary). The kernel flag remains false in this protocol.





## Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.


- [mko-lean-proof-term](https://ocme.evemisslab.com/en/mko/mko-lean-proof-term/)





## Step-by-step derivation

S001 · impliesBefore

synthetic proposition/term calculus or supplied synthetic receipt

After

no actual Lean build,source-digest check or kernel acceptance

Conditions: none

Apply only the specified small calculus or synthetic receipt protocol.Statement,tactic completion,term presence and kernel acceptance are separate.No Lean is run and the teaching guide is not promoted to a formal proof.

Step identifiers and dependenciesRule: synthetic_proofterm_not_actual_kernel · Uses: G001





S002 · impliesBefore

statement ready=Yes;tactic finished=Yes;term present=Yes;unresolved goals=1

After

tactic complete=No;term candidate=No;kernel checked=No

Conditions: none

A tactic is complete only if finished with zero goals.A candidate additionally needs a ready statement and a term.The protocol's kernel flag remains false;there is no real kernel receipt.

Step identifiers and dependenciesRule: tactic_candidate_is_not_kernel_receipt · Uses: G001, S001









## Reverse checks


- S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
- S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.





## Result

(Yes, Yes, Yes, 1, No, No, No, no-kernel receipt)

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.





## This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
- input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
- original question SHA-256: 1ca261d154470b6d8f42f833c8de1161d36c778ee2ca8abc2d7d120a02e92730
- candidate record SHA-256: 985497fa1d1db19648975d67f028de46f0194cd5e5fee155b4c94072af229258
- semantic review receipt SHA-256: bd35da62087a15d6b89b45585dc46e89b9efbe097cba7b3c707b5030496f013c
- question-first witness SHA-256: fab45a10d8ac95c7d61d32e47d1bdd3ca862c17c3289a6bf4b01d4dc9492fbb6
- Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED

[Same-source full JSON](https://ocme.evemisslab.com/data/question-derivations/questions/q-20261013-advance-20261019-r07-lean-proof-term-0052.json)