Do definitions of Agent, Agent Capability, and Act conflict?

[swartik]

The definition of Agent is:

A Material Entity that bears an Agent Capability.

The definition of Agent Capability is:

A Realizable Entity that inheres in a Material Entity in virtue of that Material Entity's capacity to realize it in some Planned Act.

The definition of Act is:

A Process in which at least one Agent plays a causative role.

If the definitions are correct, there can exist an Act a that is not a Planned Act, and for which there is an Agent in a causative role, and that Agent bears an Agent Capability that is realized in some Planned Act that is not a.

This doesn't seem right. Obviously an Agent can play a causative role in an Unplanned Act, but that Agent must also bear an Agent Capability that is realized in a Planned Act. What would that Planned Act be in relation to the Unplanned Act?

I can think of two resolutions:

1. Change the definition of Agent Capability.

A Realizable Entity that inheres in a Material Entity in virtue of that Material Entity's capacity to realize it in some Act.

2. Change the definition of Agent.

A Material Entity that can bear an Agent Capability.

[alanruttenberg]

Having a realizable does not mean the realizable is realized in every process in which the bearer participates. Example, the president trips knocking over a bowl that breaks.
This is an unplanned act
The president bears and agent capability, realized in carrying out presidential duties
That role is not realized in the process in which a bowl breaks.

The president bears an agent capability - check
The capability is such that the bearer can realize presidential duties - check
The knocking over of bowl process is one where there agent plays a causative role - check

So it looks like, from the current definitions, that there isn't the problem you are proposing.
This should not be considered an endorsement of those definitions.