分布式系统：从理想到现实
The Inevitable Evolution: From Idealized Distributed Consensus to Realistic Responsibility Boundaries
分布式系统的必然演进：从理想化共识到现实责任边界
1. Introduction: The Gap Between Theory and Reality
1. 引言：理论与现实之间的鸿沟
[EN]
The trajectory of distributed systems engineering has historically been defined by a fundamental tension between mathematical idealism and engineering pragmatism. In the idealized theoretical model, distributed consensus is perceived as a purely algorithmic challenge—a problem to be solved through rigorous proofs of safety and liveness within a defined network model. This perspective treats the system as a closed loop where logical consistency is paramount and external variables are abstracted away. However, as these systems transition from academic abstractions to the messy reality of global-scale deployment, a "inevitable conclusion" emerges: the purely technical solution is insufficient. The evolution of distributed systems is not merely about faster algorithms or better fault tolerance; it is about the realization that these systems must acknowledge and integrate external adjudication points, distinct responsibility boundaries, and authoritative sources of truth that lie outside the cryptographic consensus mechanism itself. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this transition, dissecting the implications of the FLP impossibility result, the necessity of human adjudication in high-stakes environments, and the architectural distinction between algorithmic consensus and authoritative truth in enterprise and legal contexts.
[CN]
分布式系统工程的发展轨迹历来由数学理想主义与工程实用主义之间的根本张力所定义。在理想化的理论模型中，分布式共识被视为一个纯粹的算法挑战——即在一个定义的网络模型中，通过严格的安全性和活性证明来解决的问题。这种视角将系统视为一个闭环，其中逻辑一致性至高无上，而外部变量则被抽象化处理。然而，随着这些系统从学术抽象过渡到全球规模部署的错综复杂的现实，一个“必然结论”随之浮现：纯粹的技术解决方案是不足的。分布式系统的演进不仅仅关乎更快的算法或更好的容错能力；它关乎这样一种认识：这些系统必须承认并整合外部裁决点、清晰的责任边界以及位于加密共识机制之外的权威真实来源。本报告将对这一转变进行详尽的分析，剖析FLP不可能性结果的含义、在高风险环境中人为裁决的必要性，以及在企业和法律语境下算法共识与权威真实性之间的架构区别。
[EN]
The narrative begins with the foundational constraints of distributed computing, specifically the FLP impossibility theorem, which mathematically proves the limitations of asynchronous consensus. It then traverses the spectrum of "human-in-the-loop" systems, arguing that as algorithmic complexity grows, the need for a non-deterministic, human-centric adjudication layer becomes not less, but more critical. This is further elaborated through the lens of responsibility boundaries—defining where the system's autonomous guarantees end and where institutional or human liability begins. Finally, we contrast the concept of "consensus" in distributed ledgers with the "Authoritative Source of Truth" (AST) required in systems engineering and enterprise architecture, demonstrating that while consensus provides consistency, it does not inherently provide truth. This structural analysis provides a comprehensive framework for understanding why modern distributed systems are evolving into hybrid sociotechnical architectures rather than remaining purely autonomous algorithmic engines.
[CN]
论述始于分布式计算的基础约束，特别是FLP不可能性定理，该定理从数学上证明了异步共识的局限性。随后，我们将探讨“人在回路”系统的各个层面，论证随着算法复杂度的增加，对于非确定性、以人为中心的裁决层的需求并非减少，而是变得愈发关键。我们将通过责任边界的视角进一步阐述这一点——界定系统自治保证的终点以及制度或人为责任的起点。最后，我们将对比分布式账本中的“共识”概念与系统工程及企业架构中所需的“权威真实来源”（AST），论证共识虽然提供了其一致性，但并不内在能够提供真理。这一结构化分析提供了一个全面的框架，用于理解为何现代分布式系统正演变为混合的社会技术架构，而非仅仅停留在纯粹的自治算法引擎上。
2. The FLP Impossibility: Theoretical Limits and Engineering Workarounds
2. FLP不可能性：理论极限与工程变通
2.1 The Theoretical Absolutism of Asynchrony
2.1 异步性的理论绝对性
[EN]
The theoretical foundation of distributed consensus is irrevocably marked by the impossibility result presented by Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson (FLP), which asserts that in an asynchronous network where messages may be delayed indefinitely, it is impossible to guarantee that a deterministic consensus algorithm will ever terminate if even a single process is allowed to fail.1 This result had a monumental impact on distributed computing theory, forcing a bifurcation in how researchers and engineers approach the problem. Theoretically, the FLP result implies that the "perfect" distributed system—one that is simultaneously safe, live, and fault-tolerant in a purely asynchronous environment—is unattainable. In the absence of synchronized clocks or upper bounds on message delivery, a system cannot distinguish between a crashed node and a slow node, leading to a potential infinite wait state where consensus is never reached.3
[CN]
分布式共识的理论基础不可逆转地打上了Fischer、Lynch和Paterson（FLP）提出的不可能性结果的烙印，该结果断言，在一个消息可能无限延迟的异步网络中，如果允许即使仅仅一个进程发生故障，也无法保证确定性共识算法能够终止 1。这一结果对分布式计算理论产生了巨大的影响，迫使研究人员和工程师在解决问题的方法上出现分歧。从理论上讲，FLP结果意味着“完美”的分布式系统——即在纯异步环境中同时具备安全性、活性和容错性的系统——是无法实现的。在缺乏同步时钟或消息传递上限的情况下，系统无法区分崩溃的节点和缓慢的节点，从而导致潜在的无限等待状态，致使共识永远无法达成 3。
[EN]
This theorem is not merely a mathematical curiosity; it fundamentally defines the limits of what automated logic can achieve without external assumptions. Nancy Lynch, a pioneer in this field, utilized Input-Output (I/O) Automata to formalize these complexities, establishing that the inherent uncertainty of communication delays breaks the causal link required for deterministic agreement.2 The implication is profound: any system claiming to solve consensus in a truly asynchronous environment is either hiding an assumption about synchrony or sacrificing one of the core properties of consensus (safety or liveness). This creates a boundary between the "ideal" world of mathematical proofs, where the problem is unsolvable, and the "real" world, where systems must operate despite this impossibility.
[CN]
这个定理不仅仅是一个数学上的奇趣；它从根本上定义了自动化逻辑在没有外部假设的情况下所能达到的极限。该领域的先驱Nancy Lynch利用输入-输出（I/O）自动机来形式化这些复杂性，确立了通信延迟的固有不确定性打破了确定性协议所需的因果链这一事实 2。其含义是深远的：任何声称在真正的异步环境中解决共识的系统，要么是隐藏了关于同步性的假设，要么是牺牲了共识的核心属性之一（安全性或活性）。这在数学证明的“理想”世界（问题无法解决）与系统必须在尽管存在这种不可能性的情况下仍需运行的“现实”世界之间，划定了一条界限。
2.2 Engineering Pragmatism: Timeouts and Randomization
2.2 工程实用主义：超时与随机化
[EN]
In the realm of practical systems engineering, the FLP impossibility is not treated as a stop-sign but as a constraint to be managed through probabilistic mechanisms. Real-world consensus algorithms, such as Raft and Paxos, explicitly circumvent the FLP result by sacrificing absolute "liveness" in the theoretical sense for "practical availability" driven by timeouts and randomization.4 For instance, the Raft consensus algorithm relies on randomized election timeouts to resolve split votes. If a leader election fails due to a split vote, nodes wait for a random interval before retrying. This randomization breaks the symmetry that could lead to an infinite loop of indecision, effectively introducing a probabilistic termination condition that, while theoretically not guaranteed to finish in bounded time, works with high probability in practice.4
[CN]
在实际的系统工程领域，FLP不可能性并非被视为停止信号，而是作为一种需要通过概率机制管理的约束。现实世界中的共识算法，如Raft和Paxos，明确地通过牺牲理论意义上的绝对“活性”来换取由超时和随机化驱动的“实际可用性”，从而规避了FLP结果 4。例如，Raft共识算法依赖于随机化的选举超时来解决选票从分裂问题。如果领导者选举因选票分裂而失败，节点在重试前会等待一个随机的时间间隔。这种随机化打破了可能导致无限循环犹豫不决的对称性，有效地引入了一种概率性终止条件，虽然理论上不能保证在有界时间内完成，但在实践中以极高的概率有效运行 4。
[EN]
This engineering approach reflects a shift from the search for a mathematical proof of termination to the implementation of "reliable triggers" and "failure detectors" that approximate synchrony. As noted in the context of CAP theorem discussions (a descendant of FLP thinking), engineers prioritize consistency and partition tolerance while managing availability through these pragmatic "hacks".3 The use of abstract "failure detectors" in theory essentially maps to the simple mechanism of heartbeats and timeouts in practice. However, this reliance on time (clocks, timeouts) reintroduces the very assumption that the asynchronous model sought to avoid, thereby confirming that "reality" in distributed systems relies on assumptions that are strictly outside the logical boundary of the consensus algorithm itself—specifically, the passage of physical time and the probabilistic behavior of network latency.5 To validate these complex interactions, engineers increasingly turn to formal verification tools like TLA+, which allow for the specification of non-determinism and the simulation of distributed algorithms under various fault conditions, ensuring that the "pragmatic" solutions still adhere to safety invariants.5
[CN]
这种工程方法反映了从寻求终止的数学证明向实施“可靠触发器”和“故障检测器”以近似同步性的转变。正如在CAP定理讨论（FLP思想的延续）中所指出的，工程师在优先考虑一致性和分区容错性的同时，通过这些务实的“技巧”来管理可用性 3。理论上对抽象“故障检测器”的使用，本质上映射为实践中简单的心跳和超时机制。然而，这种对时间（时钟、超时）的依赖重新引入了异步模型试图避免的假设，从而证实了分布式系统中的“现实”依赖于严格位于共识算法逻辑边界之外的假设——具体而言，即物理时间的流逝和网络延迟的概率行为 5。为了验证这些复杂的交互，工程师们越来越多地求助于像TLA+这样的形式化验证工具，这些工具允许指定非确定性并在各种故障条件下模拟分布式算法，确保“实用”解决方案仍然遵守安全性不变量 5。
3. The Necessity of Human Adjudication
3. 人为裁决的必要性
3.1 The Limits of Algorithmic Judgment
3.1 算法判断的局限性
[EN]
As distributed systems expand to encompass complex societal and legal functions—such as smart contracts, automated regulatory compliance, and autonomous agent networks—the sufficiency of algorithmic consensus is increasingly challenged by the nuance of human judgment. "Human adjudication" involves distinctive cognitive aspects such as understanding context, adaptation to unforeseen circumstances, and the generation of trust, which are qualitatively different from the binary logic of machine execution.6 While AI and automated tools offer scale and speed, they risk "locking in" baseline definitions of equity or logic that may become outdated or misaligned with evolving social values. The rigidity of code, even when governed by a distributed consensus, cannot inherently process the "extraordinariness" of edge cases that human legal systems have evolved to handle.7
[CN]
随着分布式系统扩展以涵盖复杂的社会和法律功能——如智能合约、自动化监管合规和自主代理网络——算法共识的充分性正日益受到人类判断细微差别的挑战。“人为裁决”涉及理解语境、适应未预见情况以及建立信任等独特的认知方面，这些在性质上不同于机器执行的二元逻辑 6。虽然人工智能和自动化工具提供了规模和速度，但它们冒着“锁定”公平或逻辑的基准定义的风险，这些定义可能会过时或与不断演变的社会价值观不一致。代码的刚性，即使由分布式共识管理，也无法内在处理人类法律系统已进化至能处理的边缘案例的“非凡性” 7。
[EN]
Concerns regarding due process and equal protection highlight that the "status quo" of human adjudication, despite its flaws and slowness, provides a safeguard against the catastrophic scaling of errors inherent in automated systems.8 Automation bias—the tendency for humans to over-rely on automated suggestions—can exacerbate these risks if the system is viewed as authoritative rather than advisory. Therefore, a purely distributed, algorithmic consensus mechanism is insufficient for disputes requiring "equity" or subjective interpretation. The system must inevitably include an "escape hatch" or a referral mechanism to a human adjudication layer that can override or interpret the algorithmic state in exceptional circumstances.8
[CN]
关于正当程序和平等保护的担忧突显出，尽管人为裁决的“现状”存在缺陷和缓慢，但它提供了一种保障，防止自动化系统固有的错误发生灾难性的规模化 8。如果系统被视为权威而非咨询性的，自动化偏差——即人类过度依赖自动化建议的倾向——可能会加剧这些风险。因此，对于需要“公平”或主观解释的争议，纯粹的分布式算法共识机制是不足的。系统必须不可避免地包含一个“逃生舱”或向人为裁决层的转介机制，以便在特殊情况下覆盖或解释算法状态 8。
3.2 Hybrid Models: AI Equity and Human-in-the-Loop
3.2 混合模型：AI公平性与人在回路
[EN]
The practical evolution of adjudication in distributed environments points towards hybrid models where algorithmic efficiency is balanced with human oversight. Research into "AI equity" suggests that coding for legal or social consensus could be updated at regular intervals through intentional human action, ensuring that the system evolves in tandem with societal values.6 In clinical and high-stakes data environments, models like C3PO (Clinical consensus via NLP) demonstrate that combining NLP adjudication with human review maintains accuracy while reducing manual burden. A strategy of "adjudicating the uncertain" allows the system to handle the majority of routine cases autonomously while flagging low-confidence or high-impact cases for human consensus.10
[CN]
在分布式环境中，裁决的实际演进指向了混合模型，即在算法效率与人为监督之间取得平衡。对“AI公平性”的研究表明，用于法律或社会共识的代码可以通过有意的人为行动定期更新，确保系统随社会价值观同步演进 6。在临床和高风险数据环境中，像C3PO（通过NLP的临床共识）这样的模型证明，将NLP裁决与人工审查相结合，可以在减少人工负担的同时保持准确性。一种“裁决不确定性”的策略允许系统自主处理大多数常规案例，同时标记低置信度或高影响的案例以供人工达成共识 10。
[EN]
This hybrid approach is further formalized in concepts of "Dynamic Agent Reputation Evaluation" and "Cross-chain Agent Governance," where trust is not static but dynamically evaluated. However, even these advanced automated reputation systems eventually require a reference to an external "human rights" or "legal" baseline to prevent the system from optimizing for perverse incentives.9 For instance, the European Court of Human Rights serves as an analogue for an external adjudication oracle: it provides binary decisions (violation/no violation) that give concrete meaning to abstract rights. A distributed system respecting human rights would need to be trained to predict these external adjudications, effectively internalizing the "human adjudication" model as a constraint, but ultimately deferring to it as the source of truth.9
[CN]
这种混合方法在“动态代理声誉评估”和“跨链代理治理”的概念中得到了进一步的形式化，其中信任不是静态的，而是动态评估的。然而，即使是这些先进的自动化声誉系统，最终也需要参考外部的“人权”或“法律”基准，以防止系统针对反常激励进行优化 9。例如，欧洲人权法院可以作为外部裁决预言机的类比：它提供二元决定（违规/未违规），赋予抽象权利以具体含义。一个尊重人权的分布式系统需要被训练来预测这些外部裁决，从而有效地将“人为裁决”模型内化为一种约束，但最终仍需服从于它作为真理的来源 9。
4. Responsibility Boundaries in Distributed Architectures
4. 分布式架构中的责任边界
4.1 Defining the Boundary: The Vee Chart and Systems Engineering
4.1 定义边界：V模型与系统工程
[EN]
The transition from ideal to real in distributed systems is also a transition from limitless connectivity to strictly defined "responsibility boundaries." In systems engineering, this is visualized through the "Vee chart," which draws a horizontal dashed line separating high-level systems engineering tasks (requirements, architecture) from detailed design and implementation. This boundary illustrates that while the distributed system functions as a whole, the responsibility for defining interfaces, risk budgets, and architectural constraints resides with specific entities (Systems Engineers) distinct from those implementing the subsystems.12 The responsibility boundary dictates that a system engineer is not concerned with the internal detailed design of a subsystem but is strictly responsible for its interfaces and its compliance with mission-specific environment levels.12
[CN]
分布式系统从理想向现实的转变，也是从无限连接向严格定义的“责任边界”的转变。在系统工程中，这通过“V模型”图直观展示，该图画出一条水平虚线，将高层系统工程任务（需求、架构）与详细设计和实施分隔开。这一边界表明，尽管分布式系统作为一个整体运行，但定义接口、风险预算和架构约束的责任属于特定的实体（系统工程师），这与实施子系统的实体截然不同 12。责任边界规定，系统工程师不关心子系统的内部详细设计，但严格负责其接口及其对特定任务环境级别的合规性 12。
[EN]
In the context of distributed software architectures, specifically microservices and "Coordinated Progress" models, responsibility boundaries are essential to prevent the collapse of the system into a monolithic "distributed monolith." A true distributed system requires that work is initiated in a way that survives failure (Reliable Triggers) and that consumers operate independently. The "responsibility boundary" of a service must encapsulate its data and logic such that it does not block or wait on others synchronously. When orchestration logic (centralized "if-this-then-that") grows to wrap the entire architecture, it expands the responsibility boundary until the system becomes tightly coupled, defeating the purpose of distribution.13 Thus, preserving distinct responsibility boundaries is an engineering imperative to maintain flexibility, independence, and isolation.13
[CN]
在分布式软件架构的语境中，特别是微服务和“协调进展”模型中，责任边界对于防止系统崩塌为单体式的“分布式单体”至关重要。一个真正的分布式系统要求工作的启动方式能够幸存于故障（可靠触发器），并且消费者能够独立运作。服务的“责任边界”必须封装其数据和逻辑，以使其不会同步地阻塞或等待其他服务。当编排逻辑（集中的“如果-那么”）增长到包裹整个架构时，它会扩展责任边界，直到系统变得紧密耦合，从而违背了分布式的初衷 13。因此，保持清晰的责任边界是维持灵活性、独立性和隔离性的工程当务之急 13。
4.2 Inter-Organizational Boundaries and "Responsibilization"
4.2 组织间边界与“责任化”
[EN]
Responsibility boundaries extend beyond code to organizational and legal structures. In "System-of-Systems" (SoS) contexts, such as societal security in the Svalbard archipelago, boundaries are defined by resource control and sectoral jurisdiction. An actor's responsibility boundary may extend beyond the resources they directly control, necessitating reliance on other actors (e.g., a Governor relying on the Coast Guard). This creates a dependency graph where the "locus of interaction" is at the intersection of different legal mandates (Foreign Affairs vs. Justice).7 This reality contradicts the "ideal" of a seamless, flat distributed network; instead, the network is fragmented by legal jurisdictions and resource ownership.
[CN]
责任边界不仅限于代码，还延伸至组织和法律结构。在“系统之系统”（SoS）的语境下，例如斯瓦尔巴群岛的社会安全，边界由资源控制和部门管辖权定义。一个行动者的责任边界可能延伸至其直接控制的资源之外，这就必然导致对其他行动者的依赖（例如，总督依赖海岸警卫队）。这创建了一个依赖图谱，其中“互动轨迹”位于不同法律授权（外交事务与司法）的交汇处 7。这一现实与无缝、扁平的分布式网络的“理想”相矛盾；相反，网络被法律管辖权和资源所有权所分割。
[EN]
Furthermore, the concept of "responsibility boundary-work" highlights how organizations actively negotiate these limits to manage liability. In emerging fields like neuromorphic computing, visions of the future are used to delineate what is within an engineer's responsibility and what belongs to "society" or "regulators".14 This "responsibilization" process is a mechanism of governance. In a distributed ledger system, for example, the protocol might guarantee that a transaction is valid according to code, but the responsibility for the legality of the asset transfer remains outside the ledger, resting with the human participants. The boundary effectively separates the "validity" (system state) from the "legitimacy" (social/legal state).15
[CN]
此外，“责任边界工作”的概念突显了组织如何积极协商这些限制以管理责任。在神经拟态计算等新兴领域，对未来的愿景被用来划分什么是工程师的责任，什么是属于“社会”或“监管者”的责任 14。这种“责任化”过程是一种治理机制。例如，在分布式账本系统中，协议可能保证交易根据代码是有效的，但资产转移合法性的责任仍然位于账本之外，归属于人类参与者。该边界有效地将“有效性”（系统状态）与“合法性”（社会/法律状态）分离开来 15。
5. Authoritative Source of Truth vs. Distributed Consensus
5. 权威真实来源与分布式共识
5.1 The Divergence of Truth and Agreement
5.1 真理与协议的分歧
[EN]
A critical distinction in the maturation of distributed systems is the differentiation between "Consensus" and "Authoritative Source of Truth" (AST). In the blockchain and DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology) paradigm, consensus mechanisms ensure that all nodes agree on the state of the ledger. This provides transparency, auditability, and a shared history, effectively replacing third-party intermediaries for the verification of transactions.15 However, consensus only guarantees that the participants agree on a value, not that the value is factually accurate in the external world. The ledger is a closed loop of internal consistency.
[CN]
在分布式系统成熟过程中的一个关键区别是“共识”与“权威真实来源”（AST）的区分。在区块链和DLT（分布式账本技术）范式中，共识机制确保所有节点对账本的状态达成一致。这提供了透明度、可审计性和共享的历史记录，有效地取代了用于交易验证的第三方中介 15。然而，共识仅保证参与者对某个值达成一致，并不保证该值在外部世界中是事实准确的。账本是一个内部一致性的闭环。
[EN]
In contrast, enterprise architecture and Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) demand a "Single Authoritative Source of Truth." This is a centralized or federated reference point—such as an ERP system or a master digital model—that is designated as the trusted origin of data for decision-making.18 While a distributed system can maintain a copy of data across many nodes, the authority of that data often stems from a singular definition or a specific entry point. For example, in managing high-value assets like patents or real estate, the distributed ledger tracks ownership transfer (consensus), but the initial definition and legal recognition of the asset must come from an "authoritative" body (AST) outside the chain.15
[CN]
相比之下，企业架构和基于模型的系统工程（MBSE）要求“单一权威真实来源”。这是一个集中式或联邦式的参考点——如ERP系统或主数字模型——被指定为决策数据的可信起源 18。虽然分布式系统可以在许多节点上维护数据副本，但该数据的权威性通常源于单一的定义或特定的入口点。例如，在管理专利或房地产等高价值资产时，分布式账本追踪所有权转移（共识），但资产的初始定义和法律认可必须来自链外的“权威”机构（AST）15。
5.2 Reconciling Decentralization with Authoritative Needs
5.2 调和去中心化与权威需求
[EN]
The tension between these two concepts is evident in modern B2B implementations. Smart contracts and blockchains provide a "system of record" that automates compliance and reduces disputes through shared consensus.17 Yet, businesses still rely on centralized ERPs as their internal AST to ensure financial reporting and operational consistency.17 The "Single Source of Truth" (SSOT) is an architectural strategy to prevent data duplication and error, whereas DLT is a strategy for inter-organizational trust. The realization is that DLT acts as a bridge between the disparate ASTs of different organizations, creating a "shared truth" for the transaction without necessarily unifying the internal ASTs of the participants.16
[CN]
这两个概念之间的张力在现代B2B实施中显而易见。智能合约和区块链提供了“记录系统”，通过共享共识自动化合规并减少争议 17。然而，企业仍然依赖集中式的ERP作为其内部AST，以确保财务报告和运营的一致性 17。“单一真实来源”（SSOT）是一种防止数据重复和错误的架构策略，而DLT是一种用于组织间信任的策略。现实情况是，DLT充当了不同组织各自AST之间的桥梁，为交易创建了“共享真理”，而不必统一参与者的内部AST 16。
[EN]
Moreover, in complex systems like the "Digital Twin" or MBSE projects involving consortia, the AST is crucial for governance. It serves as the reference for verifying design changes and analyzing impacts. The challenge lies in integrating this centralized authority (the design truth) with the decentralized nature of the teams and tools (the distributed workflow).20 The "authoritative" nature implies a hierarchy that pure distributed consensus seeks to flatten. Thus, the "reality" of distributed systems is often a tiered architecture: a base layer of distributed consensus for coordination, capped by a layer of authoritative sources for governance, legal validity, and strategic direction.22
[CN]
此外，在诸如“数字孪生”或涉及财团的MBSE项目等复杂系统中，AST对于治理至关重要。它作为验证设计变更和分析影响的参考。挑战在于将这种集中式权威（设计真理）与团队和工具的去中心化性质（分布式工作流）整合起来 20。“权威”性质意味着纯粹分布式共识试图扁平化的层级结构。因此，分布式系统的“现实”通常是一种分层架构：作为协调基础层的分布式共识，其上覆盖着用于治理、法律有效性和战略方向的权威来源层 22。
6. Conclusion: The Inevitable Hybrid
6. 结论：必然的混合体
[EN]
The journey of distributed systems from the "ideal" to the "real" is a journey of accepting boundaries. The FLP impossibility theorem taught us that we cannot have perfect asynchronous consensus without compromising on time assumptions (liveness). The limits of automation taught us that we cannot have perfect justice without human adjudication. The requirements of enterprise and law taught us that we cannot have a purely decentralized "truth" without authoritative reference points.
[CN]
分布式系统从“理想”走向“现实”的旅程，是一个接受边界的旅程。FLP不可能性定理教会我们，不妥协时间假设（活性）就无法拥有完美的异步共识。自动化的局限性教会我们，没有人为裁决就无法拥有完美的正义。企业和法律的要求教会我们，没有权威参考点就无法拥有纯粹去中心化的“真理”。
[EN]
The inevitable conclusion is that successful distributed systems are not those that rigidly adhere to theoretical purity, but those that design explicit interfaces for their own limitations. They employ randomized timeouts to solve FLP; they integrate "human-in-the-loop" mechanisms for equity and exception handling; they define clear responsibility boundaries to isolate failure and liability; and they distinguish between the consensus of the network and the truth of the institution. This hybridity—technical, social, and legal—is not a failure of the distributed ideal, but the necessary condition for its operation in the real world.
[CN]
必然的结论是，成功的分布式系统并非那些严格恪守理论纯粹性的系统，而是那些为其自身局限性设计明确接口的系统。它们采用随机超时来解决FLP问题；它们整合“人在回路”机制以实现公平和异常处理；它们定义清晰的责任边界以隔离故障和责任；并且它们区分网络的共识与机构的真理。这种混合性——技术、社会和法律的融合——并非分布式理想的失败，而是其在现实世界中运行的必要条件。
Works cited
Building a Theory of Distributed Systems: Work by Nancy Lynch and Collaborators - arXiv, accessed December 12, 2025,
Q&A: The Power of Distribution - Communications of the ACM, accessed December 12, 2025,
History of the Impossibles - CAP and FLP – Anh Dinh – Senior Lecturer, accessed December 12, 2025,
Practical Understanding of FLP Impossibility for Distributed Consensus | by Melodies Sim, accessed December 12, 2025,
Formal Model Guided Conformance Testing for Blockchains - arXiv, accessed December 12, 2025,
Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice - Stanford Law School, accessed December 12, 2025,
Full article: A boundary-based framework for analysing cross-sector cooperation in societal security – Svalbard case studies - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed December 12, 2025,
Algorithmic Rulemaking vs. Algorithmic Guidance - Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, accessed December 12, 2025,
Narrow Rules are not Enough - Verfassungsblog, accessed December 12, 2025,
Natural Language Processing for Adjudication of Heart Failure Hospitalizations in a Multi-Center Clinical Trial - PubMed Central, accessed December 12, 2025,
Enabling Regulatory Multi-Agent Collaboration: Architecture, Challenges, and Solutions, accessed December 12, 2025,
Chapter 2: Systems Engineering (SE) – The Systems Design Process, accessed December 12, 2025,
Responsibility Boundaries in the Coordinated Progress model - Jack Vanlightly, accessed December 12, 2025,
(PDF) The Limits of Responsibilization? Responsibility Boundary-Work Through Visions in the Case of Neuromorphic Computing - ResearchGate, accessed December 12, 2025,
Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT): Definition and Benefits in 2025 - HashMicro, accessed December 12, 2025,
Blockchain - What is it good for? Where should you run it? - IBM, accessed December 12, 2025,
What Technologies Improve Transparency in B2B Transactions? - HRS Agency, accessed December 12, 2025,
The Authoritative Source of Truth - CameoMagic, accessed December 12, 2025,
System of Record vs Source of Truth: What is the Difference? - Kohezion, accessed December 12, 2025,
Applying Blockchain Technology on Model-Based Systems Engineering | AIAA SciTech Forum, accessed December 12, 2025,
Is "single source of truth" a cliché? : r/dataengineering - Reddit, accessed December 12, 2025,
MBSE Wiki - Authoritative Source of Truth, accessed December 12, 2025,