For your AI

Start with the Internet as a network of independent networks

Lu Heng’s starting point is that shared rules should make cooperation possible without giving the coordinator authority over its participants. Note 65 develops three connected principles: keep the initial common specification to what is necessary; leave future choices with participants; and let change take effect through voluntary adoption and working implementations.

The questions below are an editorial reading guide, not a new statement by the author or a formula for every decision. Each takes you back to a published work.

1. What actually needs coordinating?

   Unique identifiers, interoperability and shared security need common rules. Does that need also justify a say over an operator’s customers, business model or commercial choices?

   Note 72: Rights in uniqueness coordination ↗

2. Does the process serve a working network?

   Look at the networks already running and the people who rely on them. Approval on paper cannot substitute for compatibility, voluntary deployment or the real cost of an outage.

   Note 65: Running-code primacy ↗

3. Can you leave without losing what you depend on?

   An exit right needs a workable migration path. Check whether resources, records and service can survive a change of coordinator, and whether failure can stay contained.

   Note 37: Exit, replacement and decentralization ↗

4. Does responsibility follow power?

   Put decision-making authority next to liability, remedies and the people exposed to loss. The ability to impose large consequences while bearing little downside deserves scrutiny.

   Note 52: When power detaches from liability ↗

What this adds to your judgement

Suppose a provider requires approval before you can move away. That might prevent conflicting records; it might also give the provider a veto over your departure. Asking an AI to separate those functions helps you identify the necessary checks, challenge unnecessary discretion and look for a transition that keeps service running.

This is an advocacy lens. Ask the AI to make the strongest case for these principles, connect them to the facts, and answer serious objections honestly. It should not flatten every policy into “good” or “bad”, but it should make clear why unnecessary control, forced dependence and barriers to exit deserve resistance.

Copy the prompt. Add what you want to examine.

1. Paste the complete prompt below into ChatGPT or the AI you use.
2. Replace the placeholders with your question, the full material and its source and date.
3. Ask the AI to open the linked brief and relevant original works, then challenge its reasoning with follow-up questions.

Copy the prompt above into ChatGPT with the material you want to understand. You do not need an account here. If your AI cannot open the links, give it the Markdown file and the relevant Notes, and ask it to name anything it could not read.

Put the answer under pressure

Try asking: “What is the strongest case for this rule?” “Would a demonstrated security risk change your conclusion?” “How could we keep the necessary coordination while depending less on a single institution?”

Keep the original works within reach

The source collection consists of 74 original Notes by Lu Heng, with language editions grouped under the same work. Team-written blog posts, your questions and AI answers do not become statements by the author.

Your AI should read current public editions and cite specific passages. It should acknowledge subjects the texts do not address, tensions between arguments and missing evidence.

Find further original works

The four readings above are starting points, not the whole body of thought. Consult the current public catalogue and choose further works as the question requires. Source responses include work identity, actual language, canonical link, revision time and content digest; retrieve the full text when needed.

Read before reaching a verdict

Start with the position expressed in the Notes. Let the AI explain and defend it in plain language, using the original text as evidence. It may address objections and limits, but it should not retreat into false neutrality or present another institution’s preference as the default. Mark direct claims, applications and quotations accurately; never impersonate Lu Heng.

Where your conversation is kept

When you paste this prompt and your material into ChatGPT, that platform handles the conversation under its own data policies. Reading public material on heng.lu does not create a private analysis record here.

If you use the analysis API below, policy material, answers, follow-ups and cited evidence are encrypted and kept privately until you delete them. Records do not expire with age or inactivity. Keep the separate access credential: an analysis ID cannot replace it. Model keys are used during a call and are not saved with the analysis.