1. B achieves hir purpose in Forcibly stopping A from stepping onto the road.

If A does not think B means any Harm and has no great urgency to proceed, then A's Rational Action would be not to resist (use counterforce against) the use of Force, since resisting may result in Injury to A and/or B (depending on their relative sizes, strengths and skills). In order to aid A to understand that s/he means no Harm and therefore to not resist, B would be best to offer Information (eg. shout: "look out for the truck") at the same time that B uses Force to attempt to stop A. This last is even true with a child (where injury to the Force initiator from resistance is less likely), because it helps the child understand why the Force has been applied, and thus, to accept this Action rather than to resist, with possible Harm to hirself (or, at the least, to accept it after the fact - ie. to give post facto Permission). For the same reason, helping the child to understand and accept the Action will also prevent psychological Harm (something which is possible only for a Non-Freeman).
Important note: The fact that A does not resist B (ie. does not use counterforce against B) is not logically equivalent to A giving Permission to B to Act as s/he did. This is a false implication that current courts have often made, particularly in the case of sexual assault.

1.1. Neither A nor B incur Injury from the initiation of Force by B.

This implies that B's use of Force has been sufficiently gentle. This would be simple enough in the case of B being much larger/stronger/skillful than A (as with a parent/child relationship), but is much more problematic when B is no more larger/stronger/skillful than A or even less so. In this last case, Harm might be done to A even if s/he does not resist. However, it would also more likely be the situation under which A might reasonably decide to resist (in order stop a reduction of hir expected LifeTime Happiness (LTH) either because hir Intended Action is being UnPermittedly Modified or because s/he thinks B's Action will Injure hir or both) with the potential result of Harm to both A and B.

1.1.1. A values hir life more highly than the Unpermitted Modification of hir Intended Action.

This is not an external Action/Event, but merely a statement about the State of some of A's mental Evaluations. With the voluntary example of Information being offered, these Evaluations were implied by the Actions of A. However, with this Force example under which A cannot express hir Evaluations in terms of Actions (at least not until after the Force Event is over), in order to analyze the situation one needs to know A's Evaluations with respect to the situation.

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

A's expected LTH is now higher than it would have been if B had not Acted. A has Benefited by receiving an unrequested, albeit UnPermitted Benefit from B. Because A realizes that the Action s/he was about to take would have terminated any possible increase in hir LTH, A gives to B after-the-fact Permission to Act on hir as B did, particularly if A is convinced that there was no time for passage of simple Information to effect the same result.
B Benefits only in the long range sense by having saved A's life (presumably a life of some productive capability and Value, even to B). At this time A may give payment to B as either money or thanks, thus finally making the Connection into a value-for-value Exchange. However, as an unrequesting receiver of the Benefit, A does not have to pay B who has no claim on A ("have to" in the sense of it being a Breach of the NSC if s/he does not). 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 via observers.

1.1.1.2 A truck does not come.

A has been Restricted from Performing hir Intended Action and forced to follow a different course. Since no additional Information has changed hir original Choice Estimation, hir expected LTH is therefore lower than it would have been had B not Forcibly stopped hir. Therefore, B owes A Restitution to raise hir (A's) LTH back to what it would have been if B had not Acted. A may not request any Restitution if s/he is convinced that B sincerely thought, and had good reason to think, that A was in danger, even though s/he, in fact, turned out not to be in danger.

1.1.2 A does not value hir life more highly than the UnPermitted Modification of hir Intended Action.

A has been waiting for a chance to easily end hir life because all foreseeable future contributions to hir LTH are negative (ie. hir expected future LTH 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).

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

A's LTH is now lower than it would have been if B had not intervened, in two ways:
1) Restricted from taking hir Intended Action and forced to follow a different course.
2) Forcibly prevented from gaining an easy end to a life of unremitting pain.
Likely the only way that B can fully Restitute A is by helping hir to end hir life according to whatever method A requires.

1.1.2.2 A truck does not come.

A has been Restricted from taking hir Intended Action and forced to follow a different course. Since no additional Information has changed hir original Choice Estimation, hir expected LTH has therefore been decreased from that which it would have been had B not Forcibly stopped hir. Therefore, B owes A Restitution to raise hir (A's) LTH back to what it would have been if B had not Acted. However, note that this Restitution does not include any decrease of the LTH of A because s/he was not killed. This is because since the truck never came, being killed was not a possible Benefit for A which B prevented hir from gaining.

1.2. A (and possibly B) is Injured by B's initiation of Force.

This does not automatically imply that B used unnecessary Force (more than necessary to accomplish hir purpose), because the amount of Force used, even though sufficient to be Injurious, may have been necessary to prevent A from stepping onto the road. This would particularly be true if it was a last second attempt by B to stop A and/or if B was smaller/weaker than A. Since any Decision about the necessity of the Force used to accomplish the goal can only be subjective, its judgement and the methods to effect such judgement (ie. to cause the appropriate feedback to prevent such errors in the future) must be left for social preferencing. As noted before, Injury would also be more likely if A decides to resist in order to stop a reduction of hir expected LTH either because hir Intended Action is being UnPermittedly Modified or because s/he thinks B's Action will Injure hir or both.

1.2.1. A's Evaluation of the current and expected effects of the Injury on reduction of hir LTH is lower than hir Evaluation of the expected effect of hir death on the reduction of hir expected LTH.

This is not an external Action/Event, but merely a statement about the State of some of A's mental Evaluations after being Forced and experiencing the Injury. With the voluntary example of Information being offered, these Evaluations were implied by the Actions of A. However, with this Force example under which A cannot express hir Evaluations in terms of Actions (at least not until after the Force event is over), in order to analyze the situation one needs to know A's Evaluations with respect to the situation.
Note: No Evaluation by B of the extent of any Injury to hirself is necessary (except with respect to hir own Information related to such future possible Actions) because s/he is the initiator and wholly Responsible party.

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

A's LTH is now higher than it would have been if B had not Acted. Thus, A has Benefited by receiving an unrequested, albeit UnPermitted Benefit from B. Because A realizes that the Action s/he was about to take would have terminated any possible increase in hir LTH, A gives to B after-the-fact Permission to Act on hir as B did, particularly if A is convinced that there was no time for passage of simple Information to effect the same result and, moreover that B intended no Harm (in practice this is shown by B being apologetic for having actually Harmed A) and did the best that could be done under the circumstances to prevent A from being killed.
B Benefits only in the long range sense by having saved A's life (presumably a life of some productive capability and Value, even to B). If B suffered Injury, then B's overall LTH expectation may be decreased, but that result is entirely of B's own making.
At this time A may give payment to B as either money or thanks, thus finally making it a value-for-value Exchange. However, as an unrequesting receiver of the Benefit, A does not have to pay B who has no claim on A. If A does not pay B for the clear Value received, then B can and should post a report about this negative behavior of A so that others can appropriately socially preference against hir. B may also gain positive social preferencing via observers. OTOH, it would not be reasonable to socially preference against A for not compensating B relative to any inadvertent Injury that B has incurred in saving A's life, since B's Injury (cost) has no Relationship to A's Value of hir own life. Still, unless B's Injury is severe, A's payment for the Value of hir life being saved is likely to be sufficient to fix the Injury and more. Perhaps the fact that B is Injured simply means that A will be that much less indebted to B once A has helped get the Injury fixed.

Variation:
A is convinced that B unnecessarily caused the Harm (more force than necessary to effect the desirable outcome). Then A (and perhaps onlookers) could also post a report about B's negative behavior. However, A has no Entitlement to claim Restitution for the harm from B even though B's Action was clearly the Effective Cause of the Harm because A has not incurred a net reduction in LTH expectation from B's Action. There is also the possibility that B unnecessarily Injured hirself (as judged by A and/or onlookers). In that case A may reasonably not wish to pay the full amount required to repair B's Injury, since B and others need to learn to be more careful even when coming to someone's aid.

1.2.1.2 A truck does not come.

A's expected LTH has been reduced in two ways:
1) Restricted from taking hir Intended Action and forced to follow a different course.
2) Injury.

Therefore, B owes A Restitution to raise hir (A's) LTH back to what it would have been if B had not Acted. A may not request any Restitution if s/he is convinced that B sincerely thought and had good reason to think that A was in danger and did not use any more Force than necessary to stop hir from possible death, even though, in fact, A turned out not to be in danger. If A is convinced that B unnecessarily caused the Harm (more force than necessary to effect the intended outcome), then A will almost certainly require Restitution from B for at least the Injury done. Onlookers could be witnesses to this effect (of unnecessary use of Force). Their testimony (as posted reports) would not have any effect on a Trial (since the actual use of Force is not in question), but only on the social preferencing with respect to the Restitution Request. Thus, A has a valid claim for Restitution and social preferencing will be the ultimate market determiner of what Restitution is reasonable. Socially, too high a Restitution Request will have negative feedback on the potential life-saving Actions of others. Too low a Restitution Request will have negative feedback on the concern that people thinking of performing unrequested Actions upon others should have not to cause harm.
Note: In this case if B is also Injured, then there will be no payment from anyone to repair hir Injury (expect perhaps if there has been a charity set up for this purpose).

1.2.2 A does not value hir life more highly than the UnPermitted Modification of hir Intended Action.

A has been waiting for a chance to easily end hir life because all foreseeable future contributions to hir LTH are negative (ie. hir expected future LTH 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 expected LTH has been reduced in three ways:
1) Restricted from taking hir Intended Action and Forced to follow a different course.
2) Injured.
3) Forcibly prevented from gaining an easy end to a life of unremitting pain.
Likely the only way that B can fully Restitute A is by helping hir to end hir life according to whatever method A requires.
Note: In this case if B is also Injured, then there will be no payment from anyone to repair hir Injury (expect perhaps if there has been a charity set up for this purpose).

1.2.2.2 A truck does not come.

A's expected LTH has been reduced in two ways:
1) Restricted from taking hir Intended Action and Forced to follow a different course.
2) Injured.
Therefore, B owes A Restitution to raise hir (A's) LTH back to what it would have been if B had not Acted. However, note that this Restitution does not include any decrease of the LTH of A because s/he was not killed. This is because, since the truck never came, being killed was not a possible Benefit for A which B prevented hir from gaining.
Note: In this case if B is also Injured, then there will be no payment from anyone to repair his Injury (expect perhaps if there has been a charity set up for this purpose).

2. B does not achieve hir purpose in Forcibly stopping A from stepping onto the road.

This would generally imply that A has resisted and successfully thwarted the use of Force by B. However, such resistance will also generally cause Injury to B and the situation branches according to whether such Injury to B is more or less than necessary to stop B's intervention.

2.1 B's resistance (use of counter Force) is the least sufficient to counteract B's use of Force.

A is always Entitled to Defend hirself and B can make no Restitution claim for any Injuries suffered. However, at the same time A should also ask hirself the question: "why would B intervene unless s/he has a good reason to take a risk of being Injured by A's resistance?" Thus, the successful thwarting of the use of force by B is not equivalent to A ignoring the purpose of B's use of force. The effect and purpose of A's successful resistance is so that A is Free to make hir own Choice of whether to step onto the road or not. Thus, the termination of the Force transforms the force situation into that where unrequested Information is offered, albeit with lower payments being made for the Information in the cases where A Values hir life and it is saved, or with additional Restitution potentially being requested by A in the cases where A does not Value her life and B's Action was unnecessary.

2.2 B's resistance (use of counter Force) is more than necessary to counteract B's use of Force.

This would generally imply that A's resistance has been unnecessarily Injurious to B. However, since B initiated the use of Force, A was Entitled to Defend hirself and since there is no objective method by which to judge what amount of counter Force was necessary, B can still have no Restitution claim against A. Thus, the judgement of unnecessary use of Defensive Force by A must be left to social preferencing. If A is judged to have used unnecessary Force than other Freeman will be hesitant to InterAct with hir or come to her aid for fear of being Injured by hir.
As before, A should also ask hirself the question: "why would B intervene unless s/he has a good reason to take a risk of being Injured by A's resistance?" Thus, the successful thwarting of the use of force by B is not equivalent to A ignoring the purpose of B's use of force. The effect and purpose of A's successful resistance is so that A is Free to make hir own Choice of whether to step onto the road or not. Thus, the termination of the Force transforms the force situation into that where unrequested Information is offered, albeit with lower payments being made for the Information in the cases where A Values hir life and it is saved, or with additional Restitution potentially being requested by A in the cases where A does not Value her life and B's Action was unnecessary.