Published

Context Policy

vr.wm-mem-017 · wm-mem-017-context-policy

Describe an authorized, scoped policy whose applicable constraints take precedence over ordinary memory use at each recall.

World Models Information and virtual systems INF.MEM.POL

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Classifiers What it is Why it exists Distinguishing features What robots and AI may and may not do Moral aspects Owners Links to other meta-models Identity and identifiers Direct properties Recognition Capabilities and actions Hazards and failure modes Standards and interfaces Context of use Sources

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled

6 bundles · 12 layers · 18 findings · 54 questions

Policy foundation Identity, mandate and authored origin for a context policy.

Identity and intent

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for identity and intent.

Policy identity

One authored policy has a stable identity and separately identified revisions; neither a retrieved sentence nor its relevance score is a policy identifier.

Which master identifier denotes this context policy across revisions? identity
What recall behavior is this policy intended to constrain? definition
Is the statement a mandatory rule, preference or advisory note? classification

Authority and origin

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for authority and origin.

Issuer mandate

The proposed profile requires an authorized issuer and a bounded mandate. Authorship, personal preference and authority to constrain another tenant are different assertions.

Which mandate permits this issuer to set rules for the selected recall scope? authority
Which accountable role maintains the policy and approves changes? ownership
Which higher authority limits or withdraws this mandate? exception

Authored origin

A policy may cite a conversation or memory item as motivation, but promotion from observed text into an authored rule needs separate approval evidence. A digest establishes byte identity only.

Which authored source and approval evidence support this policy revision? provenance
How is a rule candidate distinguished from instructions embedded in recalled content? security
Which derivation links explain translation or summarization of the original rule? evidence

Applicability Recall-specific scope and evidence requirements.

Targeting and validity

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for targeting and validity.

Recall scope

Policy selectors bind tenant, subject, purpose, resource class and recall operation. This is a proposed application of attribute-based targeting, not a new sharing grant.

Which memory stores or item classes can this policy reference? composition
Which subject, tenant and purpose must match before this rule applies? access
Does an execution region constrain recall, and how is unknown location handled? spatial

Effective time

The local profile separates validity bounds, approval time and recorded time. It requires an explicit clock source and uncertainty rule; an old cached policy cannot silently remain current.

When does this revision become effective and when does it cease to apply? temporal
What lifecycle status must hold for recall applicability? state
What clock uncertainty or stale time evidence requires withholding recall? constraint

Input evidence requirements

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for input evidence requirements.

Attribute evidence

The policy declares required attribute evidence, freshness and handling of missing or disputed inputs. Trust assessments remain external references; confidence is not permission.

Which attributes and evidence authorities are required to bind this policy to a recall? requirement
How recent and reliable must the referenced trust or consent evidence be? quality
What is required when an attribute is missing, contradictory or unavailable? decision

Normative intent Declared overrides, precedence bindings and obligations.

Effects and precedence

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for effects and precedence.

Override intent

An authorized applicable policy constrains use of ordinary memory. Override means selection, exclusion, qualification or required context behavior; it does not rewrite facts, grant tool authority or make a claim true.

Does the rule exclude, qualify, require or prefer context content? definition
Which ordinary memory behavior is overridden within the issuer mandate? constraint
Which factual evidence must remain distinguishable from a normative instruction? requirement

Precedence binding

The policy binds to a governed conflict profile rather than owning a conflict engine. Newness, ranking and rhetorical emphasis are not authority. Equal-authority unresolved conflicts withhold the affected recall under the proposed profile.

Which external precedence profile governs conflicting applicable policies? relationship
How does the bound profile distinguish a prohibition from a mere preference? decision
What happens if precedence is cyclic, ambiguous or unsupported? exception

Obligation requirements

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for obligation requirements.

Required obligations

A recall profile can require redaction, qualification or acknowledgement before release. Obligation definitions and fulfillment evidence are linked; advice alone is not a blocking requirement.

Which obligations must be fulfilled before the affected context can be released? requirement
Which external component supplies fulfillment evidence? process
What response is required when a mandatory obligation cannot be fulfilled? exception

Recall integration Requirements at runtime boundaries without owning their execution.

Runtime boundaries

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for runtime boundaries.

Recall checkpoints

The proposed integration contract requires policy resolution for every recall path, including summaries, caches and delegated recalls. Runtime enforcement and the recall event remain outside this policy record.

At which selection and release checkpoints must the runtime obtain current policy applicability? process
Which recall event and context assembly records must reference the policy revision? relationship
What prevents an alternate retrieval path from bypassing the required policy check? security

Cache and revocation

The profile requires policy-version dependencies and freshness criteria for cached contexts. Revocation cannot erase an already disclosed answer; future release must use an admissible current snapshot or stop.

Which policy and attribute versions must a reusable context cache bind? temporal
Which revocation or scope change invalidates a cached authorization assumption? event
What should the runtime do if a policy changes between selection and release? exception

Capacity and omission

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for capacity and omission.

Context budget failure

A local acceptance requirement forbids silently dropping mandatory constraints when context capacity is exhausted. Assembly owns packing and token measurement; this policy declares an omission and failure contract.

Which policy constraints must survive summarization or context truncation? constraint
Which external capacity measurement determines whether required context fits? measurement
When mandatory constraints do not fit, which reduced scope or refusal is permitted? exception

Policy governance Controlled revisions, exceptions and disposition of policy records.

Change control

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for change control.

Revision lifecycle

The proposed record lifecycle is draft, approved, suspended, superseded or retired. Approval records authorize a revision locally; activation in a runtime requires separate deployment and acknowledgment evidence.

Which revision is proposed, approved, suspended or retired? lifecycle
Which approval evidence permits a transition for this exact revision? authority
What review and compatibility evidence is required before a replacement is approved? validation

Bounded exception

An exception is a separately authorized, scoped and expiring reference. It cannot override the issuer mandate, a non-overridable parent constraint or an unrelated sharing restriction.

Which exact rule and recall scope may this exception modify? exception
Who may approve the exception and which constraints remain non-overridable? authority
When does the exception expire or require renewed approval? temporal

Record disposition

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for record disposition.

Policy record disposition

The local record follows an adopting retention profile. Minimal revision lineage may survive authorized payload erasure; a policy retirement never deletes the underlying memory and deletion does not silently authorize recall.

Which retention basis and hold apply to this policy text and approval evidence? retention
Which personal details can be removed while preserving necessary policy lineage? privacy
Which external retention or forgetting policy owns disposition of referenced memory? relationship

Policy assurance Evidence requirements and explicitly qualified interoperability.

Assurance evidence

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for assurance evidence.

Application evidence

Policy-specific evidence requirements point to externally mastered recall and decision records. Local attachments document assurance; they do not manufacture a decision or duplicate an audit ledger.

Which external receipt shows the exact policy revision considered for a recall? evidence
Which input versions and fulfillment references are necessary to explain that receipt? provenance
What may a caller learn about a withheld item without exposing its sensitive content? privacy

Acceptance evidence

Proposed acceptance fixtures cover cross-tenant scope, forged authority, stale caches, conflicting policies, overflow and unfulfilled obligations. Passing the research validator does not run these fixtures or prove enforcement.

Which acceptance cases test scope, precedence and mandatory recall checkpoints? validation
Which false blocks, missed blocks and unsupported paths remain in the evidence? quality
Who reviews the assurance evidence before approving operational use? security

Interoperability profiles

Policy-specific declarations and reference contracts for interoperability profiles.

Profile mapping

ODRL, XACML and PROV-O are candidate alignments. No automatic equivalence between obligation, decision and provenance terms is assumed; unsupported semantics must survive an export as an explicit gap.

Which vocabulary versions and mapping profiles interpret the policy terms? interoperability
Which semantics are lost or unsupported in a target projection? constraint
What round-trip evidence demonstrates that mandatory constraints remain intact? validation

Classifiers Filled

Family: World Models
Category: Information and virtual systems
Entry kind: entity
Navigation path: NAV.INF.MEM.POL
Domain: INF.MEM.POL
Industry: Cross-industry
Tags: contextpolicyinf.mem.pol

What it is Filled

One identifiable authored context policy with revisioned recall requirements and external bindings. Every recall must resolve applicable authorized policies under the adopting profile; this record does not itself execute recall, enforce permissions or certify evidence. Mandatory constraints and advisory preferences remain distinct.

In scope

Policy-specific identity, issuer mandate, authored provenance and recall selectors
Override intent, governed precedence references, obligations and runtime checkpoint contracts
Local policy revision, exception and disposition records; assurance and interoperability requirements

Out of scope

Memory storage, ranking, token packing, truth adjudication and factual conflict resolution
Runtime policy evaluation, grant issuance, tool execution, redaction, quarantine and erasure operations
Generic policy-language implementation, complete audit-ledger semantics and universal legal compliance

Why it exists Filled

Describe an authorized, scoped policy whose applicable constraints take precedence over ordinary memory use at each recall.

Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review

Unlike WM-KNW-012 Policy / Rule: Registry parent is a conceptual specialization candidate. Generic normative machinery is referenced; this draft declares recall-specific parameters and does not claim a tested inheritance schema.
Unlike WM-MEM-001 Memory Store and WM-MEM-002 Memory Item: Storage, record truth, ordinary memory identity and their lifecycles stay outside the policy record.
Unlike WM-MEM-007 Memory Recall Event and WM-MEM-013 Context Assembly: Own actual retrieval, ranking, packing, use and event evidence. This model only states checkpoint, capacity and evidence requirements.
Unlike WM-MEM-009 Memory Conflict and Precedence Rule: Owns precedence machinery and contradictions between memory records. Context Policy binds an external profile and declares intended overrides; it does not resolve factual contradictions.
Unlike WM-MEM-010 Memory Retention and Forgetting Policy: Owns memory decay and erasure rules. Local policy-record disposition is distinct from forgetting the referenced memory.
Unlike WM-MEM-011 Memory Scope and Sharing Grant: Owns memory grants. Context Policy may restrict their exercise but cannot create rights by carrying a selector or a permission-like word.
Unlike WM-MEM-018 Memory Trust Assessment: Owns trust determinations. This model asks for referenced evidence and acceptance conditions, without calculating trust.
Unlike WM-MEM-019 Memory Poisoning Incident and WM-MEM-020 Memory Quarantine and Redaction: Own incident management and quarantine or redaction operations. Here only protective requirements and evidence references are recorded.
Unlike Runtime policy evaluator and enforcement boundary: Owns decisions, enforcement, revocation propagation and audit events. A textual policy and local approval record do not establish actual enforcement.

Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.

What robots and AI may and may not do Derived, awaiting review

Must not

Context policy cannot expand sharing grants, override a higher authority outside its mandate, convert a preference to a prohibition or rewrite factual evidence.
Deny access or mutation unless an adopting authority grants the specific purpose and scope.

May

Record a policy draft: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create an unapproved local policy record from an authorized submission.
Propose recall bindings: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Record typed scope and external profile bindings for review.
Record approval evidence: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Attach approval of an exact revision after authorized review.
Propose a policy revision: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a successor draft with a semantic change rationale.
Link assurance evidence: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Attach a receipt or test-report reference to the policy assurance index.
Record retirement intent: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Record an authorized retirement and its required downstream acknowledgments.

Note: Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.

Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review

Record applicable privacy, retention, exception and review policies before operational adoption.
No implementation, runtime test, distributed revocation guarantee, complete consent regime or jurisdiction-specific legal profile is supplied.
Authority, consent, residency, retention and emergency exceptions require an adopting jurisdiction and organizational profile.

Note: Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.

Owners Filled

Steward

Name the accountable policy steward and adopting authority by role, with mandate references.

Roles

Policy steward: Maintains policy identity, purpose, scope and evidence references.
Approving authority: Verifies mandate and approves exact revisions and bounded exceptions.
Runtime integrator: Binds external evaluation and enforcement points and supplies activation or revocation acknowledgments.
Assurance reviewer: Reviews scope, conflict, capacity and injection-resistance evidence without asserting untested conformance.
Record custodian: Applies authorized policy-record retention, minimization and access controls.

Links to other meta-models Filled

aligned

WM-KNW-012 - Candidate parent alignment for normative statements; no executable inheritance claim. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.

references

WM-MEM-001 - Reference store scope only; store administration remains external. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-002 - Reference governed ordinary items without changing their factual content or lifecycle. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-007 - Reference recall evidence contract and externally mastered event receipts. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-009 - Reference precedence profile and revision; no local conflict engine. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-010 - Reference memory disposition rules; no memory erasure operation. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-011 - Reference sharing authority without granting additional access. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-013 - Reference assembly capacity and preservation obligations; no token packing. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-018 - Reference trust assessments rather than compute them. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.
WM-MEM-020 - Reference restriction and fulfillment evidence without executing quarantine or redaction. Binding is a proposed design link because the current relation ledger has no rows for WM-MEM-017; adopter must pin the target specification.

neighbor

WM-KNW-012 Policy / Rule - Registry parent is a conceptual specialization candidate. Generic normative machinery is referenced; this draft declares recall-specific parameters and does not claim a tested inheritance schema.
WM-MEM-001 Memory Store and WM-MEM-002 Memory Item - Storage, record truth, ordinary memory identity and their lifecycles stay outside the policy record.
WM-MEM-007 Memory Recall Event and WM-MEM-013 Context Assembly - Own actual retrieval, ranking, packing, use and event evidence. This model only states checkpoint, capacity and evidence requirements.
WM-MEM-009 Memory Conflict and Precedence Rule - Owns precedence machinery and contradictions between memory records. Context Policy binds an external profile and declares intended overrides; it does not resolve factual contradictions.
WM-MEM-010 Memory Retention and Forgetting Policy - Owns memory decay and erasure rules. Local policy-record disposition is distinct from forgetting the referenced memory.
WM-MEM-011 Memory Scope and Sharing Grant - Owns memory grants. Context Policy may restrict their exercise but cannot create rights by carrying a selector or a permission-like word.
WM-MEM-018 Memory Trust Assessment - Owns trust determinations. This model asks for referenced evidence and acceptance conditions, without calculating trust.
WM-MEM-019 Memory Poisoning Incident and WM-MEM-020 Memory Quarantine and Redaction - Own incident management and quarantine or redaction operations. Here only protective requirements and evidence references are recorded.
Runtime policy evaluator and enforcement boundary - Owns decisions, enforcement, revocation propagation and audit events. A textual policy and local approval record do not establish actual enforcement.

parent

WM-KNW-012

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete

Sources Filled

Open questions

Run the prepared source checker outside the sandbox, pin immutable revisions and inspect current errata and full claim support without treating HTTP success as substantive verification.
Develop nested policy schemas and test tenant isolation, forged authority, ambiguous precedence, unavailable attributes, stale caches, concurrent revocation, capacity overflow and unfulfilled obligations.
Pin generic policy and memory-neighbor profiles and verify loss-aware ODRL, XACML and PROV-O mappings.
Restore independent external review before any canonical promotion and obtain adopting authority and retention profiles before operational use.
Independent external review absent under the owner waiver.
Direct HTTP checks not attempted because the owner reports a sandbox block; coordinator must run check_sources.py. Browser content access is not measured direct HTTP success.
Current errata, immutable OWASP revision, licensing and complete source-version verification remain open. NIST evidence is limited to its official abstract.
Executable nested schemas, pinned neighbor specifications and tested ODRL/XACML mappings remain incomplete.
No implementation, runtime test, distributed revocation guarantee, complete consent regime or jurisdiction-specific legal profile is supplied.

Machine files

Card as JSON Specification AGENTS.md Source Card backlog vercy.card/1

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-mem-017-context-policy/spec.yaml