1. A receives the Information, recomputes hir Choice Estimations and finds that use of the Information increases hir Total Future Happiness Expectation (TFHE) from what it would have been without the information - ie. the Information is of Value to hir.

Unless there is some clearly recognized Permission for the Initiation of the Connection, such as with a clerk in a store being approached by customers (but only about store related things), all Connections are initially both unrequested and UnPermitted.
Information, once taken into one's brain, cannot be totally ignored (because it is Sensual). Its Worth will always be first Evaluated and only then will the Information be ignored or used to Modify one's Choice of Action. In this case A has found that the Information is of Value because hir TFHE is higher from using it than from not using it.

1.1. A pays B for the Information under a Valid Contract describing the validity expectation of the Information and containing Breach Penalty Clauses, thus consummating an Exchange.

A's purpose in making payment under a Contract is both to pay B for the Value given and to ensure that A has Entitlement to accept the Information as valid to the degree Stipulated in the Contract. This assurance happens because the payment makes B Responsible for the Information being valid to the extent Stipulated in the Contract in the sense that if the Information is not so valid then B must pay Breach Penalties according to the terms of the Contract (or lose hir Freeman Status).
Note: While such a Contract may well be too lengthy and detailed a procedure for this simple "stepping off the sidewalk" example, it would be easy to change the example to a situation where B's ability to forecast, with a certain probability, an Event that might be Harmful to A (eg. a health risk), could occur long before the Event and make a Contract a reasonable part of the Exchange.

1.1.1. A does not step off the sidewalk.

This is the Rational Action of a person who wants to live based on hir positive Evaluation of the Information.

1.1.1.1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

Note: The driver's having no thought of needing to stop is a logical result of the example assumption that hir Contract with the road Owner gives hir the right of way.

A's TFHE is now higher than it would have been if B had not warned A. A has Benefited from the Exchange by having hir life saved at the cost of a small payment. B has Benefited by receiving a small payment and by saving a presumably productive and therefore Valuable human life. B may also gain positive Social Preferencing for hirself via observers.

1.1.1.2. A truck does not come.

A's TFHE is decreased in three ways from what it would have been if B had not Acted:

1. hir Interruption Harm from B's urequested and UnPermitted transfer of Information,
2. hir Modified Action (not starting across the road) did not increase hir TFHE as much as hir UnModified Action would have (otherwise, that UnPerformed Action would not have been hir Intended Action at that time), and
3. hir transfer of the payment to B for no actual Value received.

Payment for the Information (consummation of an Exchange) gave A an Entitlement to accept it as valid to the extent Stipulated by B. Even so, the Effective Cause of the reduction A's TFHE due to reason 1 was hir Decision rather than B's Information. Therefore, B is not Responsible for the reduction in A's TFHE due to reason 1. Since the truck never came along and thus A did not received any Benefit from the payment, depending on the terms of the Contract (specifically the definition of Breach and the Breach Penalties), B might need to return the payment made to A plus compensation for lost time in making and gaining return of the payment. Even if A is convinced that B exaggerated (Intentionally or because of incompetence) the likelihood that a truck was coming, B would still not be Responsible for any Restitution for A's reduced TFHE, except to return the payment plus payment for lost time involved, if the terms of the Contract called for that. All that can be done by A or others with respect to such ill Intention or incompetence is to post a report on the UCN that B provided bad Information.

1.1.2. A steps off the sidewalk.

This could happen if A had been waiting for a chance to easily end hir life because all foreseeable future contributions to hir Total Future Happiness are negative (ie. hir TFHE is negative) - perhaps s/he is in constant uncontrollable pain.
Note: In a Freeman Society this logical branch would not likely occur since, unless A is destitute s/he could always Contract with someone to terminate hir life, or simply take any Action that ends hir life and satisfies the conditions of this example (that it be sudden death and not merely Injury, and that it be such that no one else is Violated by the Action).

1.1.2.1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

A's Lifetime Happiness (LTH) is now higher than it would have been (it has been stopped from decreasing) so s/he Benefits (in the sense that hir LTH has been maximized). B has Benefited from receiving payment Value and possibly from contributing to the general desire of all people to gain what they want - even, as in this case, termination of UnHappiness by means of death. Such a contribution is a Benefit to B since it helps to ensure that others will help hir get what s/he wants also. B may also gain positive Social Preferencing for hirself via observers.

1.1.2.2. A truck does not come.

Even though the desired Event (being killed by a truck) did not occur to A, hir Action was not Modified and therefore hir LTH is the exact same Value as it would have been, except for the Interruption Harm and hir transfer of Value (payment) to B. However, as above, A is the Effective Cause of hir own Action and therefore cannot reasonably require any more Restitution than payment for the Interruption Harm, plus return of the Contract payment plus payment for loss of time making it and getting it back (which would be slightly greater in this case since s/he would have to step back onto the sidewalk). However, even these last depend on the terms of the Contract under which the payment was made.

1.2. Now suppose that even though A finds the Information to be of Value, s/he does not pay B for it.

In this case no Exchange is consummated, A has no Entitlement to accept the Information as valid and B cannot in any manner be held Responsible for it being valid.

1.2.1. A does not step off the sidewalk.

This is A's clear Rational Action because s/he Values the Information (even though s/he has not paid for it). (Depending on the full circumstances of an given example it may even be a Rational Action to want to verify the Information before paying for it.)

1.2.1.1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

A's TFHE is now higher than it would have been if B had not warned A. B Benefits only in the long range sense by saving a presumably productive and therefore Valuable human life. At this time A may return Value to B, commensurate with the Benefit s/he has gained as some major payment, or as a mere smile or word of thanks (the lowest levels of Value transfer) depending on how honest A is or how much s/he Values hir life or how much s/he is convinced that without B's Action s/he (A) would have been killed, thus finally making the Connection into a Return Value for Value Given Exchange. However, as an unrequesting receiver of the Benefit, there is no Requirement on A to pay B who has no claim on A (ie. A will not lose Freeman Status if s/he does not pay B for the Value received). A also has no logical Restitution claim for any Interruption Harm since the transfer of Information was ultimately Beneficial. However, if A does not pay B for the clear Value received, then B can and should post a report on the UCN about this negative behavior of A so that others can appropriately Socially Preference against hir. B may also gain positive Social Preferencing for hirself via observers. (The logic and method of both payment for having one's life saved and asking payment for saving someone else's life is a major topic that is detailed in the article The Value of a Life. *** Not yet done!)

1.2.1.2. A truck does not come.

A has suffered Harm since hir Modified Action (not starting across the road) did not increase hir TFHE as much as hir UnModified Action would have (otherwise, that Action would not have been hir Intended Action at that time). However, since A alone is the Effective Cause of the Modified Action, s/he alone is Responsible for hir reduced TFHE, except for the Interruption Harm from B. S/he may post a negative report to the UCN and socially preference against B for providing invalid Information, but s/he has no grounds for any Restitution Request, except possibly for the Interruption Harm from B.

1.2.2. A steps off the sidewalk.

This could happen if A had been waiting for a chance to easily end hir life because all foreseeable future contributions to hir TFHE are negative (ie. hir expected future TFHE Value is lower than its current Value) - perhaps s/he is in constant uncontrollable pain.
Note: In a Freeman Society this logical branch would not likely occur since, unless A is destitute, s/he could always Contract with someone to terminate hir life, or simply take any Action that ends hir life and satisfies the conditions of this example (that it be sudden death and not merely Injury, and that it be such that no one else is Harmed by the Action).

1.2.2.1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

A's TFHE is now higher than it would have been (it has been stopped from decreasing) so s/he Benefits (in the sense that hir TFHE has been maximized). B has possibly Benefited from contributing to the general desire of all people to gain what they want - even, as in this case, termination of Unhappiness by means of death. Such a contribution is a Benefit to B since it helps to ensure that others will help hir get what s/he wants also. B may also gain positive Social Preferencing for hirself via observers.
Note: In this case, even though A has not paid B for the Value received, B has no means to do anything about this, since one cannot socially preference against a dead person.
Also note, however, that if a person irrationally cares what happens after hir death, then one can have an effect by merely threatening to, after hir death, malign hir for hir actions or to injure something or someone that s/he Values. Furthermore, if one does not actually do this after the person's death, then other similarly irrational people are likely to be less affected by such a threat, so there is even incentive to perform such an Action - that is, if one actually wants to deal with such irrational people.
Note also that death is a complete escape from all Responsibility with respect to which there is no possible punishment, retaliation or Restitution. Even so, if, while still alive, you wish to be socially attractive (meaning that others will want to Exchange with you) and to receive valid Information, then you should always pay for it commensurate with its Value to you.

1.2.2.2. A truck does not come.

Even though the desired Event (being killed by a truck) did not occur to A, hir Action was not Modified and therefore hir TFHE is the exact same Value as it would have been, except for the Interruption Harm from B. As above, A is the Effective Cause of hir own Action and therefore can request Restitution from B for at most the Interruption Harm.

2. A recomputes hir Choice Estimations with the new Information and does not find it to be of Value.

This would mean that A Estimates hir TFHE expectation to not be higher as a result of using the Information, than not using it. This might happen because A considers the likelihood of validity of the Information to be low or null - possibly because s/he thinks/knows that B is a pathological liar or prankster. As before, in all branches of this example in which A received no Benefit from the Information UnPermittedly transferred from B, s/he has a valid Restitution claim against B for Interruption Harm. If claims for Interruption Harm were the norm, this fact alone would make A give more credence to B's Information, since why would B risk a Restitution claim for no good purpose.

2.1. A pays B for the Information.

Since A does not consider the Information to be of Value, this Action simply will not occur and thus this logical branch terminates at this point.

2.2. A does not pay B for the Information.

This is the logical result of A not thinking the Information is of Value. Since no Exchange is thus consummated, as before, A has no Entitlement to accept the Information as valid and B cannot be held responsible in any manner for it being valid.

2.2.1. A does not step off the sidewalk.

Since A does not Value the Information, there is no reason for hir to Modify hir Actions because of it and to take this Action. Thus, this logical branch also is terminated because under the circumstances its Action will not occur.

2.2.2. A steps off the sidewalk.

This will be the Rational Action taken by A after Evaluating the Information and Deciding that it is of insufficient Value to Modify hir Intended Action - perhaps because s/he has strong doubts of its validity and getting quickly across the road is of high Value to hir.

2.2.2.1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

The analysis now depends on whether or not A wished to live, which in previous cases was automatically shown by hir Actions, but here is not.

2.2.2.1.1. A Values hir life.

A's TFHE is now less than it would have been, so s/he suffers Harm, but s/he is the Effective Cause of that Harm. B has also suffered Harm because a potentially productive person has been lost, but again A is not responsible for Restitution of that Harm because A is Entitled to take any Non-Violational Action any time s/he wishes (and even if A's Action Violated hir Contract with the road Owner, that would only be between hir and the Owner). Thus, even though both parties may have had their TFHE decreased from what it would have been (ie. have suffered Harm), no one is responsible for any Restitution of either Harm. A can not even claim Restitution for Interruption Harm, although it is possible that those who are Harmed by hir death could claim that B's Interruption was Responsible for hir not seeing the truck and therefore getting killed. However, B may also gain positive Social Preferencing via observers for trying to warn A and save hir life.

2.2.2.1.2 A has been waiting for a chance to easily end hir life because all foreseeable future contributions to hir TFHE are negative (ie. hir expected future TFHE Value is lower than its current Value) - perhaps s/he is in constant uncontrollable pain.

A has received an Unrequested Benefit (from the truck and its driver). A's TFHE is now higher than it would have been (it has been stopped from decreasing) so s/he Benefits (in the sense that hir Lifetime Happiness has been maximized). B may have been Harmed because a potentially productive person has been lost, but also may have been Benefited from the fact that a Freeman got what s/he wanted - even, as in this case, termination of Unhappiness by means of death. Such an experience may be a Benefit to B since it is an example of human desires being achieved. B may gain positive Social Preferencing via observers for trying to warn A and save hir life.

2.2.2.2. A truck does not come.

A has suffered no Harm except for the Interruption Harm from receiving and assessing the Information and for which s/he can request Restitution. B has suffered no Harm (except for the small time lost transmitting the Information, but that was entirely of hir own making) because no productive life has been lost. Neither is responsible for any Harm to the other. However, B may lose in Social credibility with A and observers if the Information s/he supplied was invalid with respect to its supplied likelihood level, and A and observers may report the incident to promote negative Social Preferencing against B.