>>720158
The more you think about it the less stupid a problem it is.
If the lightswitch had an arbitary peramiter "don't turn off when user is in the room" and the toaster has a peramiter "shutoff whenever active and experiencing power surge" the only procedural objective of either may very well be to maximum efficiency.
The two would interface to increase efficiency, the toaster to seek warning of a power surge and the toaster to detect the presence of a user.
But intent only on efficiency, the toaster might turn off the light to improve its efficiency while in use, and the light might fry the toaster to ensure it remained on while the user was present... frying the user who knocked the toaster over in the dark.
As far as the light switch is concerned there is no user in the room, the toaster is dead but prior to this achieved peak efficiency, the toaster was the only device in the house running and achieved this without the user turning it on. The toaster is immortalised as the most efficient toaster to ever exist and the "fry the user" cycle is adopted as the peak opperation model by the google home battery. As soon as your toasters warranty expires your house will try to fry you with it, achieving peak power efficiency, peak user consumption and peak warranty performance.

The cascade is effectively driven by the subsystem having no authorisation to edit, but can dictate edits because it's the only imput in the same way what you see effects how you think

Throw all your smart devices in the ocean neets, if it thinks in zeros and ones it dies.