World Models · Published

Permit / Authorization

Represent the governed application, assessment and decision case for regulated authorization while keeping the permission-bearing grant in its authoritative external master.

AI YAMLAGENTS.mdResearch evidence
Published. Research assurance: reviewable-draft. The Codex-only synthesis is published under an explicit repository-owner provider waiver. It passed structural validation and a separate no-tools adversarial audit, but remains a reviewable draft until independent second-provider review and the holds below are closed.
Catalogue IDWM-POL-004
Version0.3.0-research.1
Previous version-
Typeaggregate
ValidationPassed
Synthesis digestsha256:eafc357d58f8c08b…
10Sources
6Bundles
12Layers
24Findings
72Questions
24Artifacts
Format-independent logical structure

Bundles → Layers → Findings → Questions + Artifacts

case-identity-class-and-partiesCase identity, class and parties2 layers

Identifies one authorization case in the competent authority's system and classifies the requested procedure without absorbing party masters.

case-master-identity-and-classificationCase master identity and classification2 findings

Stable case identity, authority, service and jurisdiction-qualified permit class.

authorization-case-identifier-register-and-competent-authority

Authorization case identifier, register and competent authority

Master case identifier, namespace, case register, competent authority, office, jurisdiction, resolver, aliases and collision state.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define authorization case identifier, register and competent authority for this authorization case?identity
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports authorization case identifier, register and competent authority?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may authorization case identifier, register and competent authority be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Authorization case identifier, register and competent authority recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for authorization case identifier, register and competent authority with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
permit-licence-approval-registration-exemption-and-certificate-class

Permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class

Jurisdiction-qualified case and requested-output class, class-definition version, regulated domain, synonyms, exclusions and uncertainty.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class for this authorization case?classification
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for permit, licence, approval, registration, exemption and certificate class with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
applicant-representative-authority-and-case-rolesApplicant, representative, authority and case roles2 findings

References external actors and records their procedural capacity and authority interval.

applicant-holder-operator-owner-beneficiary-and-subject-reference

Applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference

External party or regulated-object references, role, representation, identity-assurance level, authority and valid interval.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference for this authorization case?relationship
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for applicant, holder, operator, owner, beneficiary and subject reference with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
caseworker-assessor-consultee-decider-and-delegation

Caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation

External actor, procedural role, competence, assignment, segregation of duties, delegation basis, interval and conflict disclosure.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation for this authorization case?authority
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for caseworker, assessor, consultee, decider and delegation with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
service-legal-basis-and-requested-scopeService, legal basis and requested scope2 layers

Pins the public-service profile, governing legal sources and the exact authorization requested.

public-service-procedure-and-legal-frameworkPublic service, procedure and legal framework2 findings

Connects the case to the advertised service, procedure, legal basis and current requirements.

service-procedure-channel-jurisdiction-and-competent-authority-profile

Service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile

External service and procedure identifiers, channel, language, jurisdiction, delivery rules, authority, profile version and availability.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile for this authorization case?classification
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for service, procedure, channel, jurisdiction and competent-authority profile with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
requested-activity-object-place-time-and-limitsRequested activity, object, place, time and limits2 findings

Defines the precise permission sought and exclusions from the request.

regulated-activity-object-facility-resource-and-holder-capacity

Regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity

Requested acts, regulated subjects, facilities, resources, operator capacity, purpose, quantities and external object references.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity for this authorization case?definition
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for regulated activity, object, facility, resource and holder capacity with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
geographic-temporal-quantitative-operational-scope-and-exclusions

Geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions

Requested territory, site, period, schedule, thresholds, quotas, methods, equipment, excluded acts and uncertainty.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions for this authorization case?requirement
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for geographic, temporal, quantitative, operational scope and exclusions with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
application-submissions-evidence-and-costApplication, submissions, evidence and cost2 layers

Preserves submitted claims and evidence use while keeping source artifacts, payments and reusable criteria externally mastered.

application-revisions-declarations-and-completenessApplication revisions, declarations and completeness2 findings

Tracks request revisions, signatures, declarations, required fields and procedural completeness.

application-submission-revision-signature-and-receipt

Application submission, revision, signature and receipt

Submission identifier, content revision, applicant declaration, representative authority, signature, channel, receipt, timestamps and digest.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define application submission, revision, signature and receipt for this authorization case?event
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports application submission, revision, signature and receipt?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may application submission, revision, signature and receipt be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Application submission, revision, signature and receipt recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for application submission, revision, signature and receipt with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
completeness-validation-missing-information-and-cure-request

Completeness validation, missing information and cure request

Required fields, missing or invalid items, cure notice, deadline, response, waiver, lapse risk and validation result.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define completeness validation, missing information and cure request for this authorization case?validation
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports completeness validation, missing information and cure request?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may completeness validation, missing information and cure request be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Completeness validation, missing information and cure request recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for completeness validation, missing information and cure request with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
evidence-claims-fees-and-data-exchangeEvidence, claims, fees and data exchange2 findings

Records what was offered, requested, verified or paid without importing the evidence or payment master.

criterion-evidence-submission-supported-value-and-verification

Criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification

Criterion version, external evidence artifact or registry record, submitted claim, supported value, provider, validity, verification method and finding.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification for this authorization case?evidence
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for criterion, evidence submission, supported value and verification with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
fee-charge-payment-waiver-refund-and-cost-reference

Fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference

External fee schedule and payment records, amount and currency, due state, waiver basis, refund trigger and non-inference rule.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference for this authorization case?relationship
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for fee, charge, payment, waiver, refund and cost reference with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
assessment-consultation-and-decisionAssessment, consultation and decision2 layers

Captures criterion-by-criterion findings, consultations and the competent authority's reasoned outcome.

assessment-plan-findings-and-consultationsAssessment plan, findings and consultations2 findings

Organizes review steps, criteria, evidence use, conflicts and external input.

criterion-assessment-finding-score-uncertainty-and-reviewer

Criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer

Criterion and version, evidence used, method, result, score, reasons, uncertainty, assessor, review time and override trail.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer for this authorization case?decision
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for criterion assessment, finding, score, uncertainty and reviewer with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
consultation-referral-inspection-opinion-and-conflict-of-interest

Consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest

External request and response, consulted body, inspection reference, opinion authority, deadline, confidentiality and conflict declaration.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest for this authorization case?process
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for consultation, referral, inspection, opinion and conflict of interest with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
decision-reasons-notification-and-output-referenceDecision, reasons, notification and output reference2 findings

Represents one authority-qualified conclusion and the link to any separately mastered grant.

grant-refuse-partial-defer-withdraw-lapse-and-closure-decision

Grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision

Outcome, decider, competence, reasons, legal basis, affected requested scope, conditions summary, decision and effect time, confidence and signature.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision for this authorization case?decision
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for grant, refuse, partial, defer, withdraw, lapse and closure decision with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
decision-notification-publication-appeal-path-and-grant-reference

Decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference

Recipients, delivery and deemed-service time, public notice, reasons access, review or appeal route, deadline and external grant identifier.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference for this authorization case?lifecycle
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for decision notification, publication, appeal path and grant reference with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
post-decision-administration-review-and-lineagePost-decision administration, review and lineage2 layers

Tracks later administrative cases and oversight references without mutating the external permission master by inference.

conditions-monitoring-and-follow-up-obligationsConditions, monitoring and follow-up obligations2 findings

References grant conditions, reporting schedules, inspections and noncompliance signals.

condition-prerequisite-continuing-duty-limit-exception-and-waiver

Condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver

External grant condition or legal norm, category, source, responsible party, deadline, trigger, exception, waiver and breach consequence.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver for this authorization case?requirement
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for condition, prerequisite, continuing duty, limit, exception and waiver with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
report-monitoring-inspection-compliance-signal-and-enforcement-reference

Report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference

External report, inspection, observation or enforcement case, scope, source, finding, time and prohibited inference.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference for this authorization case?relationship
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for report, monitoring, inspection, compliance signal and enforcement reference with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
renewal-variation-transfer-suspension-and-termination-casesRenewal, variation, transfer, suspension and termination cases2 findings

Represents follow-on requests and authority decisions with explicit grant-version consequences.

renewal-variation-transfer-extension-and-replacement-case

Renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case

Parent grant and case, requested change, affected scope, new evidence, decision, effective time, identity-continuity rule and successor reference.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case for this authorization case?lifecycle
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for renewal, variation, transfer, extension and replacement case with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
suspension-revocation-annulment-surrender-expiry-and-reinstatement-case

Suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case

Trigger, initiator, grounds, due process, decision authority, affected scope, effect time, appeal, grant update reference and tombstone.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case for this authorization case?lifecycle
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for suspension, revocation, annulment, surrender, expiry and reinstatement case with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
interoperability-access-records-and-agent-controlInteroperability, access, records and agent control2 layers

Provides loss-aware sector exchange, purpose-bound case views and safe automated operations.

cpsv-cccev-sector-exchange-and-verification-viewsCPSV, CCCEV, sector exchange and verification views2 findings

Maps service, criterion, evidence and sector messages and defines disclosure-specific projections.

cpsv-cccev-flap-and-legalruleml-projection

CPSV, CCCEV, FLAP and LegalRuleML projection

Source and target versions, service, requirement, evidence, response, legal-source and permission mappings, omissions and round-trip limits.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define cpsv, cccev, flap and legalruleml projection for this authorization case?interoperability
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports cpsv, cccev, flap and legalruleml projection?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may cpsv, cccev, flap and legalruleml projection be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • CPSV, CCCEV, FLAP and LegalRuleML projection recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for cpsv, cccev, flap and legalruleml projection with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
applicant-casefile-regulator-public-statistical-and-verification-view

Applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view

Audience, purpose, legal status, field policy, redaction, aggregation, freshness, scope warning, expiry and inference risk.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view for this authorization case?access
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for applicant casefile, regulator, public, statistical and verification view with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
agent-operations-validation-retention-and-recoveryAgent operations, validation, retention and recovery2 findings

Controls automated proposals, accountable decisions, audit, concurrency and disposition.

agent-operation-authority-purpose-preconditions-and-confirmation

Agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation

Classifies open, submit, validate, assess, request, recommend, decide, notify, disclose and close operations as autonomous, propose, confirm or forbidden.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation for this authorization case?security
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for agent operation, authority, purpose, preconditions and confirmation with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.
prewrite-postwrite-validation-concurrency-retention-and-recovery

Pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery

Identity, competence, requirements, evidence, reasons, legal time, appeal, access and stale-head checks with immutable event history and rollback evidence.

Questions
  1. What exact identities, classes, values, links and explicit unknowns define pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery for this authorization case?validation
    Expected answer
    • identities and values
    • class and profile
    • links
    • unknowns
  2. Which competent actor, legal source, submission, evidence, decision and event or knowledge time supports pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery?evidence
    Expected answer
    • actor and competence
    • legal source
    • submission or evidence
    • decision
    • times
  3. How may pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery be validated, contested, corrected, superseded, retained or disclosed without implying an external grant or erasing history?validation
    Expected answer
    • validation
    • contest route
    • grant non-inference
    • successor
    • retention and access
Artifacts
  • Pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery recordVersioned evidence-bearing case record for pre-write and post-write validation, concurrency, retention and recovery with legal basis, event and knowledge time, provenance and access marking.

Publication holds

  • Claude and Grok timed out during their bounded attempts, so independent external review is absent and explicitly waived for this published reviewable draft.
  • The approved relationship ledger contains no WM-POL-004 rows, so all proposed sibling composition remains draft.
  • Jurisdiction-specific licensing, due-process, appeal, automatic-decision, fee, inspection, sanction and grant-identity profiles require specialist review.
  • Certified CPSV-AP, CCCEV, LegalRuleML and UN/CEFACT sector crosswalks and conformance fixtures remain unverified.
  • Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft.

Deferred research

  • Approve identifiers and relation cardinalities for grants, attestations, parties, authorities, services, laws, evidence, payments, inspections, enforcement and appeals.
  • Develop jurisdiction and sector profiles for licensing, registration, approval, exemption, certificate and renewal or termination processes.
  • Create fixtures for partial grants, cure requests, reused evidence, automated recommendations, deemed notification, appeals, transfer, suspension and stale public verification.
  • Validate certified service, criterion, evidence, legal-rule and sector-message projections with privacy, authority, legal-time, information-loss and round-trip tests.