Following up on my previous post (#39), and on the guardrails note floated in the post before (#38): I’ve written the counting half up as its own thread so it doesn’t take over this one, ERC-1833: Bounded Agent Actions - a metering layer for agent authority.
It’s deliberately narrow. It is not an enforcement standard and it doesn’t carry the bound. The bound stays where your posts #37/#38 put it, a term in the 8001 agreement.
Enforcement stays where you put it: Action-time and atomic, in the executor/settler.
The only thing it adds is the piece my last post was about: a standing counter each action advances, so the headroom an aggregate bound needs actually exists at action time, including across surfaces where no single contract can recompute it.
Against 8301 concretely: a gate reads getCursor(id) and calls advanceCursor in the same step. 8301 sequences the stages; the cursor records how much authority they’ve spent; the substrate underneath keeps the total inside the committed bound. Counting, not enforcing, next to 8301, not on top of it.
If the “bounded-execution guardrails” note lands in the same form as the rest of the cluster, I think the cursor is the counting primitive it can point at, the same way precedence points at 8263. Two of the questions I left on the thread are really for you: whether splitting the cursor from the budget profile is the right cut, and where exactly this should overlap the 8301 guardrails vs stay out of the way.
Happy to draft the cursor’s slice of the note directly if that’s useful.