Imagine you're organizing a four-way stop where drivers speak different languages and each has a private destination they won't reveal. You can't just assign a single priority ranking — sometimes "yield to the right" and "avoid collision" genuinely conflict, and the law doesn't say which wins. What you can do is post a partial rulebook: these concerns always beat those, but between these two, we're agnostic. Now every driver builds their own plan consistent with that partial order, and if someone cheats, any bystander reading the posted rules can prove it. That's the core mechanism of posetal games. The committed claim: posetal games — games with partially ordered (poset-structured) preferences derived automatically from scenario-independent legal guidelines — can produce multi-agent motion plans where every rule violation is either certified as forced by the legal hierarchy or traceable to a specific defector, all without agents sharing private objectives. This is not "we solved multi-agent planning"; it is "we built auditable legal compliance into the game-theory layer itself." The key architectural move is separating legal concern ordering from scenario instantiation. Abstract guidelines — think COLREGs for maritime navigation — define a partial order over concerns (safety > right-of-way > efficiency, but some pairs are left unranked). For any concrete encounter, the framework automatically derives per-agent preference posets and a corresponding game. Agents may privately refine preferences (adding sub-objectives), and regulators may tighten the guideline. The paper proves both operations can only remove equilibria, never introduce illegal ones. This monotonicity theorem is the load-bearing formal contribution: customization is safe by construction. Coordination without revealing private preferences happens through "belief play." Each agent reasons over all possible private refinements other agents might hold, plays conservatively, and the paper proves this recovers the true equilibria of the full-information game. A distributed iterative best-response protocol further reduces the information each agent needs. The formal machinery lives in order theory and game theory — no neural networks, no learned policies, no gradient descent. This is classical formal methods applied to a multi-agent problem. Validation is on seven maritime encounter scenarios with up to four vessels, systematically lifting COLREGs pairwise rules to multi-vessel settings. In every tested case, committed equilibria had all rule violations certified as forced (the legal hierarchy made simultaneous satisfaction impossible) or unsatisfiable, and defectors were identifiable from public information. The scenarios are simulated, not physical, and the vessel count is small. The paper is honest about this being a proof-of-concept, but the formal guarantees are mathematical proofs, not empirical approximations. The ladder context matters. Prior multi-agent planning under constraints typically either scalarizes objectives (collapsing the partial order into a single utility function, losing legal structure), uses fully specified priority hierarchies (requiring the law to resolve every conflict, which real law doesn't), or treats compliance as a hard constraint (binary feasible/infeasible, no notion of forced violation or blame). This paper's contribution is the partial-order middle ground and the auditability properties that flow from it. The closest prior work is in game-theoretic motion planning (e.g., level-k reasoning, Stackelberg games) and rule-based maritime planners, but none provide the legal monotonicity guarantee or defector identification. The obvious experiment not run: scaling to dozens or hundreds of agents, or deploying on physical vessels with real sensor noise. The four-vessel ceiling is almost certainly a compute and complexity issue — posetal game equilibrium computation likely scales poorly with agent count. Whether belief play remains tractable at scale is the open question that will determine whether this leaves the formal-methods sandbox.
