In short each node would have its own risk management profile. Entering a transaction using any settlement path or asset type (even multi-hop transactions involving multiple paths or assets) is the explicit decision of the actor in question, against that risk profile, available information, and its own priorities (eg. must complete by X date, prefer to avoid Y actor/system/asset, etc.)
Because the properties of each settlement network, asset type or actor are able to be formally defined, cross-system automation is possible and new systems with interesting properties are able to present themselves on a fair and equal footing.
Of course, with such lofty goals, it was never finished (I was keen but asked to direct attentions to urgent areas elsewhere), but recently I have begun to revisit it owing to my study of physical logistics networks and scheduling algorithms for my current startup http://8-food.com/
I'm still on the horse for now... sorry to hear you got burnt out at kraken.
I'm not sure the specific formulation needed to be successful, but there is clearly value in something that helps people better manage digital trust. It's a shit show right now.