Define non-overlapping agent scopes — scope collisions are architecture problems, not willpower failures

Why This Is a Rule

When two behavioral agents claim authority over the same situation, you experience internal conflict — the feeling of "I don't know what I should do right now" when both "deep work from 9-11" and "respond to messages within 2 hours" apply to a 10 AM message. This conflict is typically experienced as a willpower problem ("I can't decide"), but it's actually an architecture problem: two agents have overlapping scopes, and the system has no resolution mechanism.

Resolve inter-agent conflicts with documented priority hierarchies — case-by-case deliberation defeats the purpose of automation addresses inter-agent conflicts with priority hierarchies. This rule goes upstream: prevent conflicts by designing non-overlapping scopes from the start. If "deep work" owns 9-11 and "message response" owns all other working hours, there's no collision — each moment belongs to exactly one agent's jurisdiction.

The scope definition must be explicit: which situations, resources, or decisions does each agent claim authority over? "My exercise agent owns health-related physical activity decisions" is too vague — does it own the decision to take stairs vs. elevator? Does it own the decision to walk to a meeting vs. drive? Explicit scope prevents ambiguity: "My exercise agent owns scheduled workout sessions. Incidental physical activity is not in scope."

When This Fires

• When designing a multi-agent behavioral system with 5+ active agents
• When you experience recurring "what should I do right now?" conflicts between agents
• When adding a new agent to an existing system — verify its scope doesn't overlap with existing agents
• When Resolve inter-agent conflicts with documented priority hierarchies — case-by-case deliberation defeats the purpose of automation's priority hierarchy keeps getting invoked — the underlying scopes need separation

Common Failure Mode

Defining agent scopes by topic instead of by situation: "My health agent handles health things." What does "health things" mean at 2 PM on a Tuesday when you're at your desk? Health agent says stand up; productivity agent says finish the task. The scopes overlap because "health things" and "productivity things" aren't mutually exclusive situations. Define by concrete situations: "Health agent owns: scheduled workout sessions, food preparation decisions, and the 2:30 PM stretch break. Productivity agent owns: all desk-work time between scheduled breaks."

The Protocol

(1) List all active agents. (2) For each agent, write its explicit scope: "This agent has authority over [specific situations/decisions/resources]." (3) Check for overlaps: are there any situations where two agents both claim authority? (4) For each overlap: redraw boundaries so each situation belongs to exactly one agent. Techniques: temporal partitioning (agent A owns mornings, agent B owns afternoons), situational partitioning (agent A owns desk work, agent B owns physical spaces), or resource partitioning (agent A owns time allocation, agent B owns energy allocation). (5) When a new agent is added, verify its proposed scope doesn't overlap with existing agents before installation. (6) Treat any experienced "conflict between agents" as a scope overlap diagnosis — fix the boundaries, don't try harder to choose between conflicting agents.