After reading Albert Castellana’s post, 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭, I was struck by the gap between proving that an agent was authorized to act and proving that it acted correctly. PACT can show which permission and scope an agent used, while Internet Court is designed to connect contracts, escrow, evidence, and dispute resolution for agent-to-agent commerce. 𝐌𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭: @kstellana @GenLayer If an agent stays within its permissions but still delivers the wrong outcome such as buying the wrong product, booking the wrong airport, or providing unusable data how should GenLayer distinguish between a failure of execution, a failure to understand human intent, and a failure of the merchant to deliver? Could future Intelligent Contracts require agents to convert vague user intent into explicit, testable acceptance criteria before payment is released, while still allowing a human to appeal when the evidence is ambiguous? 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈’𝐦 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 Permission records and signed receipts can prove that an agent was allowed to perform an action, but they do not necessarily prove that the result matched the user’s actual intent. That makes intent interpretation and outcome verification just as important as authorization in an agentic economy. This question is also relevant to Internet Court because GenLayer’s dispute resolution role is to evaluate evidence, interpret natural language obligations, and reach machine speed judgments through decentralized AI validator consensus. The answer could help clarify whether intelligent contracts will mainly resolve disputes after something goes wrong or whether they can prevent ambiguity before the transaction begins.