Published

Lawmaking Process

vr.wm-pol-002 · wm-pol-002-lawmaking-process

Describe a jurisdiction-qualified lawmaking route and the evidence needed to trace a proposal through consideration, decisions and a possible handoff to enacted law.

World Models Society, people and institutions SOC.POL.LEG

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

7 bundles · 14 layers · 14 findings · 56 questions

Procedure profile Procedure profile concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Applicability

A proposed profile binds a legislative route to a jurisdiction, competent bodies, instrument class and dated rule basis. Different legal routes are not interchangeable.

Jurisdiction and route authority

A proposed profile binds a legislative route to a jurisdiction, competent bodies, instrument class and dated rule basis. Different legal routes are not interchangeable.

Which stable profile and revision identify the selected lawmaking route? identity
Which jurisdiction and instrument class fall within this route? classification
Which legal or procedural rule authorizes this route and its participating bodies? authority
Which special procedures require a different profile or an explicit exception? exception

Execution binding

Keep the reusable profile separate from each execution and its bill references. A displayed number or a recurring title alone cannot identify an execution across legislatures or sessions.

Proposal and execution identity

Keep the reusable profile separate from each execution and its bill references. A displayed number or a recurring title alone cannot identify an execution across legislatures or sessions.

Which authoritative proposal and execution identifiers are being traced? identity
Which predecessor or related proposal is linked without assuming it is the same execution? relationship
Which clerk or designated registrar owns the local execution record? ownership
What evidence establishes the initial binding between the execution and its proposal? provenance

Proposal and text history Proposal and text history concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Initiation

Record evidence that a proposal entered the selected procedure. Drafting, sponsorship, submission, formal introduction and admission are distinguishable assertions; none means adoption.

Introduction and admission evidence

Record evidence that a proposal entered the selected procedure. Drafting, sponsorship, submission, formal introduction and admission are distinguishable assertions; none means adoption.

What official event introduced or admitted the proposal to this procedure? event
Which sponsor or initiating actor had the relevant standing at that time? authority
Which initial text and supporting documents were placed before the body? composition
When did initiation occur and when was that event recorded locally? temporal

Version lineage

Bind each consideration to a specific externally mastered text and language. Distinguish versions, representations and summaries; a local diff does not create an authoritative text.

Text under consideration

Bind each consideration to a specific externally mastered text and language. Distinguish versions, representations and summaries; a local diff does not create an authoritative text.

Which text version and language were authoritative for the stated stage? identity
Which predecessor text and incorporated changes explain this version? provenance
Which representation or extracted clause locator resolves to the cited text version? interoperability
What unresolved differences exist between the official text and a local copy or summary? quality

Scrutiny and amendments Scrutiny and amendments concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Referral and evidence

Capture referrals and scrutiny outputs with their procedural status. Evidence submissions, committee recommendations and plenary decisions must not collapse into one approval flag.

Committee consideration

Capture referrals and scrutiny outputs with their procedural status. Evidence submissions, committee recommendations and plenary decisions must not collapse into one approval flag.

Which committee or competent body received which referral? relationship
Which submissions or hearings informed this consideration? evidence
What recommendation or report did the reviewing body issue? decision
Which profile rule requires, permits or bypasses this scrutiny step? constraint

Amendment handling

Track a proposed change against the exact target text, separately from selection for consideration, decision and incorporation. A proposal may remain unresolved or not be selected.

Amendment disposition

Track a proposed change against the exact target text, separately from selection for consideration, decision and incorporation. A proposal may remain unresolved or not be selected.

Which provision and text version does this amendment target? composition
Who proposed the amendment and what evidence records its admissibility or selection? authority
What disposition is officially recorded for this amendment? state
Which subsequent text confirms that an adopted change was actually incorporated? validation

Stages and continuity Stages and continuity concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Stage transitions

Represent a route as qualified transitions, including branches, returns and repeated consideration. A timetable or informal agreement is not evidence of a completed formal stage.

Ordered and conditional progress

Represent a route as qualified transitions, including branches, returns and repeated consideration. A timetable or informal agreement is not evidence of a completed formal stage.

Which predecessor conditions authorize the next proposed stage? process
Which body performed the reported stage and what formal outcome was recorded? event
Which clock, trigger and extension rule govern this stage if a time limit applies? temporal
Which repeated, skipped or returned stage needs a recorded procedural justification? exception

Closure and continuation

Allow rejection, withdrawal, expiry or lapse as profile-defined outcomes without creating enacted-law records. Continuation needs evidence; reintroduction is not automatically the same execution.

Unfinished or terminated business

Allow rejection, withdrawal, expiry or lapse as profile-defined outcomes without creating enacted-law records. Continuation needs evidence; reintroduction is not automatically the same execution.

Which terminal or suspended condition is recorded for the execution? lifecycle
Which session boundary or deadline affected unfinished business? temporal
What decision permits any carry-over or resumption of the prior execution? authority
How is a newly introduced proposal related to the prior closed or unfinished one? relationship

Decision evidence and agreement Decision evidence and agreement concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Voting evidence

Record the exact question put and the official result with its rule basis. Store individual positions only where an authoritative record provides them; absence is not an abstention.

Motion, method and declared result

Record the exact question put and the official result with its rule basis. Store individual positions only where an authoritative record provides them; absence is not an abstention.

What motion or question was actually decided and against which text? definition
What voting method, counts and participation information are actually reported? measurement
Which quorum and decision threshold apply to this specific motion? constraint
What official declaration establishes the result and are any corrections or challenges unresolved? evidence

Concurrence

Where multiple bodies participate, bind their formal positions to exact text versions and distinguish negotiation from legally relevant concurrence. Single-body profiles may mark this concern inapplicable.

Agreement on a common text

Which bodies must concur under the selected route? relationship
Which exact text did each body approve? composition
What supports a claim that all required approvals concern the same text? validation
Which reconciliation, conciliation or failure path applies when positions diverge? exception

Enactment and legal handoff Enactment and legal handoff concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Enactment outcome

Enactment is a legally qualified outcome, not a synonym for a favorable vote. Signature, assent, override and other supported routes need their own evidence; a signature is not universal.

Enactment basis and instrument reference

Enactment is a legally qualified outcome, not a synonym for a favorable vote. Signature, assent, override and other supported routes need their own evidence; a signature is not universal.

Which legal route and competent authority establish the enactment outcome? authority
Which official record supports assent, signature, override or another applicable enactment event? evidence
Which enacted instrument is linked to the approved legislative text? identity
What refusal, veto, inaction condition or unresolved approval prevents an enactment assertion? exception

Publication and commencement

Preserve publication evidence and provision-level commencement references without assuming all enacted provisions are in force. Continuing force, consolidation and enforcement belong to the legal instrument master.

Official publication and force references

Which official publication or authenticated instrument record is cited? provenance
Which provisions have a commencement date or unresolved commencement condition? temporal
What does the instrument master report as enacted, partly commenced or not yet commenced? state
Which external instrument record owns subsequent force changes and implementation? relationship

Evidence and governed views Evidence and governed views concerns within the lawmaking process boundary.

Corrections and provenance

Proposed local evidence governance keeps reported facts, interpretations and unknowns distinct. Corrections supersede local assertions through traceable revisions and do not amend the official source record.

Qualified assertions and corrections

Which source, actor and observation support this procedural assertion? provenance
What review state and uncertainty qualify the assertion? quality
Which correction supersedes which local assertion and on what evidence? validation
Which retention or legal hold applies to superseded evidence and personal data? retention

Release and interchange

Proposed local views expose approved process evidence with provenance. Official publication examples motivate discoverability but do not establish universal public access, licensing or bulk-export rights.

Access-controlled process projection

Which parts of the process record are cleared for the requested audience? access
Which local permission permits a view or export of restricted drafts and submissions? security
Which versioned mapping preserves process, text and source identities in the requested format? interoperability
What minimization or redaction is required before releasing personal or restricted material? privacy

Classifiers Filled

Family: World Models
Category: Society, people and institutions
Entry kind: pattern
Navigation path: NAV.SOC.POL.LEG
Domain: SOC.POL.LEG
Industry: Cross-industry
Tags: lawmakingprocesssoc.pol.leg
Also called: A10

What it is Filled

A reusable legislative process pattern with a versioned jurisdiction profile and separately identified execution records. It owns local route definitions, stage evidence bindings and transition assertions. Bills, authoritative texts, institutions, officeholders, official votes and enacted legal instruments retain their master identities. It is neither a legal norm nor an engine authorized to legislate.

In scope

Profile identity, applicability and procedure version; separately scoped execution identity and proposal references.
Initiation, text lineage, amendment disposition, scrutiny, stage order, time constraints, decision evidence and interinstitutional agreement.
Terminal and exceptional paths, assent or equivalent enactment evidence, official-publication references and provision-level commencement handoff.
Evidence qualification, local corrections, release views and explicitly proposed local operations.

Out of scope

Substantive interpretation, enforcement, consolidation and continuing lifecycle of enacted law.
Membership, election, appointment or generic institution lifecycle; legally effective voting, signature, promulgation or publication operations.
Universal parliamentary sequence, universal majority/quorum formula or automated legal-validity certification.
Operational handling of weapons, detention or controlled items; such proposals are represented only by policy-level legislative references.

Why it exists Filled

Describe a jurisdiction-qualified lawmaking route and the evidence needed to trace a proposal through consideration, decisions and a possible handoff to enacted law.

Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review

Unlike WM-POL-001 Legal Instrument / Norm: The process may produce or cite an instrument; its text authority, force, amendments, repeal and interpretation remain externally mastered.
Unlike WM-ORG-009 Public Office: Officeholder and authority references are resolved as of the relevant event. This pattern does not appoint officials or reconstruct their tenure.
Unlike WM-POL-013 Registry Mandate: An official legislative register mandate is a candidate external dependency. Local research publication or record creation does not confer public faith.
Unlike WM-XCT-004 Access Audit: Candidate audit binding logs local access and changes. PROV-style lineage here is not an audit engine or proof of immutability.
Unlike A10 legacy legislative record and unreviewed supplement: Retain text, amendment, stage, vote and enactment concerns as process evidence. Reject universal one-to-one reading/vote and enactment/text relationships, mandatory roll calls and commencement as a prerequisite for enacted-law status.

Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.

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

Must not

Deny access to unclassified or restricted local material until policy resolves it.
Embargo, privacy, privilege and legal-hold exceptions need a cited policy and accountable authority; never infer them from document title.

May

Bind a reviewed procedure profile: Create a local profile-to-execution binding without admitting a bill or determining legal competence. Proposed operation, not implemented.
Link text and amendment evidence: Index externally mastered text versions and amendment dispositions without editing the official text. Proposed operation, not implemented.
Record a stage assertion: Record an observed stage outcome and assess local evidence completeness against a reviewed profile; not a legal-validity ruling. Proposed operation, not implemented.
Record official decision evidence: Bind a motion, method and declared outcome, preserving absence of roll-call detail and unknown quorum evidence. Proposed operation, not implemented.
Record enactment and commencement handoff: Link official outcome records to a separate legal instrument and its scoped force observations. Proposed operation, not implemented.
Prepare an authorized evidence view: Build a proposed local projection with identity mappings and disclosed omissions; no external publication. Proposed operation, not implemented.

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

Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review

Restrict drafts, submissions and personal data under an adopting legal and access profile.
Historical traceability does not mandate indefinite retention of personal data, and deleting a local copy does not repeal a law or delete an official record.
Embargo, privacy, privilege and legal-hold exceptions need a cited policy and accountable authority; never infer them from document title.

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

Owners Filled

Steward

A legislature, competent public authority or its designated registrar owns the adopting package; identify the role, mandate and accountable office.

Roles

Procedure steward: Review route scope, rule versions, exceptions and profile changes.
Legislative registrar: Bind executions and authoritative records; resolve procedural-status disputes.
Evidence curator: Record sources, text versions, uncertainty and local corrections.
Release reviewer: Approve audience, redaction, embargo handling and permitted projections.
Reader or research agent: Use authorized views, preserve unknowns and escalate missing authority without taking legal action.

Links to other meta-models Filled

references

WM-POL-001 - Candidate binding to enacted instruments and cited legal bases. Pin a reviewed target version before deployment; norm lifecycle stays external.
WM-ORG-009 - Candidate office and officeholder binding for procedural roles and time-qualified authority. It does not establish membership from a vote entry.
WM-POL-013 - Candidate mandate for the authoritative legislative register; no public-faith guarantee is granted by this research pattern.
WM-XCT-004 - Candidate external access-audit service binding. Local provenance records supply evidence inputs and do not implement audit infrastructure.

aligned

Akoma Ntoso 1.0 - Conceptual legal-document identity and reference alignment; exact schema and naming-profile validation deferred.
PROV-O 2013 Recommendation - Conceptual attribution and revision alignment only; no proof of truth, authority or conformance.

neighbor

WM-POL-001 Legal Instrument / Norm - The process may produce or cite an instrument; its text authority, force, amendments, repeal and interpretation remain externally mastered.
WM-ORG-009 Public Office - Officeholder and authority references are resolved as of the relevant event. This pattern does not appoint officials or reconstruct their tenure.
WM-POL-013 Registry Mandate - An official legislative register mandate is a candidate external dependency. Local research publication or record creation does not confer public faith.
WM-XCT-004 Access Audit - Candidate audit binding logs local access and changes. PROV-style lineage here is not an audit engine or proof of immutability.
A10 legacy legislative record and unreviewed supplement - Retain text, amendment, stage, vote and enactment concerns as process evidence. Reject universal one-to-one reading/vote and enactment/text relationships, mandatory roll calls and commencement as a prerequisite for enacted-law status.

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete

Sources Filled

First reading (Commons) - UK Parliament
Committee stage (Commons) - UK Parliament
Royal Assent - UK Parliament
Carry-over motions/Bills - UK Parliament
The Legislative Process: Overview - Library of Congress
The Legislative Process: House Floor - Library of Congress
The Legislative Process: Presidential Actions - Library of Congress
The ordinary legislative procedure - Council of the European Union
Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0. Part 1: XML Vocabulary - OASIS
PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - W3C

Open questions

Review primary legal rules and historical applicability for adopting jurisdictions, including special, unicameral, subnational, urgent, delegated, referendum and constitutional-amendment routes.
Build nested schemas and adversarial fixtures for text mismatch, non-roll-call decisions, unknown quorum, informal compromise, session discontinuity, enactment without signature, partial commencement, restricted submissions and lawful disposal.
Verify exact source versions and licensing, then test explicit mappings and separately reviewed external master bindings. ELI and Popolo remain deferred legacy leads.
Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion.
Independent external review is absent; Claude and Grok are skipped under the owner waiver.
Direct HTTP checks are unattempted under the owner-reported sandbox restriction. Browser text was inspected; origin status, redirects, byte integrity and current versions remain unverified.
Jurisdiction-specific constitutional rules, current standing orders, amendment admissibility, quorum, eligibility, calendars and exception completeness need qualified review.
Unicameral, subnational, constitutional-amendment, referendum, delegated-legislation, urgent and special-budget routes need additional profiles; this draft does not implement them.
Nested instance schemas, executable transitions, legal calendars, authority resolution and adversarial conformance fixtures are not implemented.
ELI and Popolo legacy imports, wildcard conformance claims, universal public access and a blanket public-faith guarantee are not admitted; licensing and concrete mappings need separate verification.

Machine files

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

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-pol-002-lawmaking-process/spec.yaml