# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T16:55:56Z", "synthesisSha256": "4a7c281345d4a6c642c624199d445e6154900642a6c14ab84df565f787ef5a10", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-007", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-007", "name": "Defense Force", "version": "0.1.0-reviewable-draft", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.DEF" ], "tags": [ "defense", "force", "soc.pol.def" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-007-defense-force/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-007", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-007", "model_id": "WM-POL-007", "name": "Defense Force", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Describe one constituted defense institution through identity, policy authority, organizational references and accountable stewardship.", "scope_statement": "One persistent defense force institution, including separately identified constituent-unit references and qualified governance assertions. It is an institutional record, not a force registry, operational command system, national security apparatus or declaration of legal legitimacy. Disputed status remains representable without endorsement.", "in_scope": [ "Force identity, classification, constituent relationships and organizational continuity", "Policy mandates, civilian control, deployment-authority references and oversight evidence", "Personnel-rights policies, compliance assurance, resource-accountability references and coarse dated readiness assessments", "Recipient-specific disclosure, provenance, correction and lawful record disposition" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Operational plans, tactical command, targeting, intelligence collection, weapons specifications, controlled-item handling and detention procedures", "Live unit locations, inventories, vulnerabilities, force optimization or reconstruction of restricted capability from public fragments", "Personnel, asset, treaty, decision, legal act, investigation and deployment-event master records", "Police-only bodies, private security and non-state armed groups as default members of this institutional class" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "Legacy A17 / world.defenseForces", "distinction": "Legacy breadth is reconciled, not inherited as truth. A17 is a model alias, not a force-instance identifier. No legacy conformance badge, wildcard standard import, strict single-parent command tree or unrestricted full-structure projection is admitted.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ORG-009 Public Office", "distinction": "A controlling office, its incumbent and the defense institution retain distinct identities. Constitutional authority requires evidence beyond an organizational edge.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "Operations and deployment records", "distinction": "The legacy G3 operations reference has no verified canonical binding in this run. Operational subjects remain external without inventing a successor ID. An authorization reference neither executes nor proves a deployment.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "Police, security bodies and non-state armed groups", "distinction": "Source obligations may extend beyond this model scope. Mixed-role institutions require an explicit profile and role-qualified links; statutory classification and actual assertions must not be collapsed into a legitimacy judgement.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-002 Lawmaking Process and WM-POL-005 Treaty", "distinction": "A lawmaking process is not an enacted legal instrument. Treaties and decision records are external masters; adoption needs pinned bindings and applicability review.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security", "organization": "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe", "url": "https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/5/7/41355.pdf", "version_or_date": "3 December 1994, DOC.FSC/1/95; paragraphs 12-14, 20-39", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Political commitments of participating States: civilian control, budget scrutiny, personnel rights and lawful conduct. Not a universal treaty or a readiness taxonomy." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "United Nations Charter Article 51", "organization": "United Nations", "url": "https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml", "version_or_date": "1945 Charter text; official repertory page last update 2016-08-23", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Qualified self-defence and reporting context for authority references. This article does not itself grant a force domestic deployment authority." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "United Nations Charter Article 2(1)-(5)", "organization": "United Nations", "url": "https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml", "version_or_date": "1945 Charter text; official repertory page last update 2023-06-30", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Peaceful settlement and constraints on threat or use of force. This selected extract is not the complete law governing any deployment." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules", "organization": "International Committee of the Red Cross", "url": "https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf", "version_or_date": "2005 study; rules 139, 141 and 142, printed pages 495-503", "source_type": "first-party-doc", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "First-party study of customary law supports policy-level compliance responsibility, legal advice and instruction. It is not a treaty; specific applicability and legal assessment remain external." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "The Organization Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation 2014-01-16; sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 3", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Organization, unit, post, membership and organizational change support distinct identities and qualified relationships. Generic ontology does not establish military authority." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation 2013-04-30; sections 3.1 and 3.3", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Attribution, derivation and revision support assertion lineage; no inference of truth or lawful authority." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", "organization": "Internet Engineering Task Force", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339.html", "version_or_date": "RFC 3339, July 2002, section 5.6", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Timestamp syntax for recorded instants; separate date-only legal periods and observation precision." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Military Readiness: Opportunities Exist to Improve Completeness and Usefulness of Quarterly Reports to Congress", "organization": "United States Government Accountability Office", "url": "https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-678", "version_or_date": "GAO-13-678, 2013-07-26; public highlights", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:39Z", "relevance": "Historical US audit illustrates reporting completeness, inconsistent periods and missing context. No current force condition, universal reporting duty or operational readiness algorithm is inferred." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-constitution", "name": "Identity and institutional continuity", "description": "Institutional evidence for identity and institutional continuity.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-identity", "name": "Force identity and class", "description": "Use stable authority-qualified identity, names as aliases and explicit contested or unverified classifications. Renaming does not automatically create a new institution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-identity", "name": "Force identity and class assertions", "description": "Use stable authority-qualified identity, names as aliases and explicit contested or unverified classifications. Renaming does not automatically create a new institution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-identity-1", "text": "Which master namespace and identifier distinguish this force from its names, offices and legacy model alias?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "namespace, force_id, designation, aliases, reconciliation_status", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-identity-2", "text": "Which institutional class and jurisdiction are asserted, by whom, and what conflicting classification remains unresolved?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "class_ref, jurisdiction_ref, asserting_authority, dispute_status", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-identity-3", "text": "Which evidence supports recognition of the institution without treating a label as proof of legal legitimacy?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "recognition_evidence_ref, assessment, source_revision, unknown_reason", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-identity-1", "name": "Force identity and class answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: namespace, force_id, designation, aliases, reconciliation_status. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-identity-2", "name": "Force identity and class answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: class_ref, jurisdiction_ref, asserting_authority, dispute_status. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-identity-3", "name": "Force identity and class answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: recognition_evidence_ref, assessment, source_revision, unknown_reason. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-identity", "name": "Force identity and class register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-continuity", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity", "description": "Reference establishment, renaming, merger, split and dissolution evidence with effective intervals. Preserve predecessor and successor identity instead of merging records by similarity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-continuity", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity assertions", "description": "Reference establishment, renaming, merger, split and dissolution evidence with effective intervals. Preserve predecessor and successor identity instead of merging records by similarity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-continuity-1", "text": "Which founding or constituting record and effective period support the institution entry?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "founding_record_ref, issuer_ref, effective_from, effective_to", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-continuity-2", "text": "Which change evidence distinguishes a rename from a merger, split or successor institution?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "change_type, evidence_ref, predecessor_refs, successor_refs", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-continuity-3", "text": "What remains unknown about effective dates or post-dissolution record custody?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "effective_date_precision, recording_instant, uncertainty, successor_custodian_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-continuity-1", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: founding_record_ref, issuer_ref, effective_from, effective_to. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-continuity-2", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: change_type, evidence_ref, predecessor_refs, successor_refs. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-continuity-3", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: effective_date_precision, recording_instant, uncertainty, successor_custodian_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-continuity", "name": "Constitution and organizational continuity register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-organization", "name": "Organization and accountable control", "description": "Institutional evidence for organization and accountable control.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-structure", "name": "Constituent organization references", "description": "Keep units and posts separately identified. Distinguish administrative membership from other relationships; overlapping or disputed links need typed intervals and cannot silently become a universal command tree.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-structure", "name": "Constituent organization references assertions", "description": "Keep units and posts separately identified. Distinguish administrative membership from other relationships; overlapping or disputed links need typed intervals and cannot silently become a universal command tree.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-structure-1", "text": "Which constituent organizations or posts are referenced and which system owns each identity?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "unit_refs, post_refs, target_namespace, master_custodian", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-structure-2", "text": "Which relationship type, interval and evidence qualify each institutional membership link?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "relation_type, from_ref, to_ref, effective_interval, evidence_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-structure-3", "text": "How are ambiguous parents, cycles or incompatible relationship claims flagged for review?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "validation_rule_ref, disputed_edges, review_status, resolution_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-structure-1", "name": "Constituent organization references answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: unit_refs, post_refs, target_namespace, master_custodian. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-structure-2", "name": "Constituent organization references answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: relation_type, from_ref, to_ref, effective_interval, evidence_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-structure-3", "name": "Constituent organization references answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: validation_rule_ref, disputed_edges, review_status, resolution_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-structure", "name": "Constituent organization references register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-control", "name": "Civilian control and oversight", "description": "Separate constitutional control, institutional reporting and independent oversight. An incumbent is not an office; ownership of the data system cannot veto a legally mandated reviewer.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-control", "name": "Civilian control and oversight assertions", "description": "Separate constitutional control, institutional reporting and independent oversight. An incumbent is not an office; ownership of the data system cannot veto a legally mandated reviewer.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-control-1", "text": "Which public offices exercise control under which constitutional or statutory instruments?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "office_ref, authority_basis_ref, competence_scope, effective_interval", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-control-2", "text": "Which oversight bodies have evidenced access or reporting entitlements independent of discretionary data-owner grants?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "oversight_body_ref, entitlement_basis_ref, permitted_scope, review_route", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-control-3", "text": "How are acting appointments, delegations and contested competence recorded without extending authority by inference?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "post_ref, appointment_ref, delegation_scope, contest_status", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-control-1", "name": "Civilian control and oversight answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: office_ref, authority_basis_ref, competence_scope, effective_interval. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-control-2", "name": "Civilian control and oversight answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: oversight_body_ref, entitlement_basis_ref, permitted_scope, review_route. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-control-3", "name": "Civilian control and oversight answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: post_ref, appointment_ref, delegation_scope, contest_status. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-control", "name": "Civilian control and oversight register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-authority", "name": "Mandate and activity authority", "description": "Institutional evidence for mandate and activity authority.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-mandate", "name": "Mandate and legal limits", "description": "Keep assigned tasks, applicable constraints and legal reviews distinct. Constituting an institution does not authorize every proposed activity; a legal-profile gap remains visible.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-mandate", "name": "Mandate and legal limits assertions", "description": "Keep assigned tasks, applicable constraints and legal reviews distinct. Constituting an institution does not authorize every proposed activity; a legal-profile gap remains visible.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-mandate-1", "text": "Which versioned mandate assigns the force its policy-level tasks and exclusions?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "mandate_ref, version, task_classes, exclusions", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-mandate-2", "text": "Which domestic and international legal assessments qualify an asserted power?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "legal_profile_ref, applicability_assessment_ref, reservations_or_limits, reviewer_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-mandate-3", "text": "When was the mandate amended, suspended or disputed and which assertions are affected?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "status_assertion, amendment_ref, effective_interval, affected_assertion_refs", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-mandate-1", "name": "Mandate and legal limits answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: mandate_ref, version, task_classes, exclusions. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-mandate-2", "name": "Mandate and legal limits answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: legal_profile_ref, applicability_assessment_ref, reservations_or_limits, reviewer_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-mandate-3", "name": "Mandate and legal limits answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: status_assertion, amendment_ref, effective_interval, affected_assertion_refs. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-mandate", "name": "Mandate and legal limits register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-authorization", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references", "description": "Record existing decisions at policy level with territorial jurisdiction, purpose, duration and review qualifiers. Domestic authority, international-law assessment and actual occurrence are separate; no operational detail is admitted.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-authorization", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references assertions", "description": "Record existing decisions at policy level with territorial jurisdiction, purpose, duration and review qualifiers. Domestic authority, international-law assessment and actual occurrence are separate; no operational detail is admitted.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-authorization-1", "text": "Which competent decision record supports an asserted deployment or civil-support authorization?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "decision_ref, issuing_office_ref, authority_evidence_ref, review_status", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-authorization-2", "text": "Which non-operational purpose, jurisdiction, expiry and reporting conditions limit that authorization?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "purpose_class, jurisdiction_ref, effective_period, expiry_rule_ref, reporting_condition_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-authorization-3", "text": "What evidence distinguishes authorization, extension, revocation and actual occurrence without executing any of them?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "assertion_type, evidence_ref, occurrence_record_ref, unresolved_effect", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-authorization-1", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: decision_ref, issuing_office_ref, authority_evidence_ref, review_status. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-authorization-2", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: purpose_class, jurisdiction_ref, effective_period, expiry_rule_ref, reporting_condition_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-authorization-3", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: assertion_type, evidence_ref, occurrence_record_ref, unresolved_effect. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-authorization", "name": "Deployment and civil-support authority references register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-safeguards", "name": "Personnel and lawful-conduct safeguards", "description": "Institutional evidence for personnel and lawful-conduct safeguards.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-personnel", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy", "description": "Reference recruitment, service rights, welfare and complaint policies without copying individual personnel files. Eligibility exceptions, protected reporting and access need jurisdictional review.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-personnel", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy assertions", "description": "Reference recruitment, service rights, welfare and complaint policies without copying individual personnel files. Eligibility exceptions, protected reporting and access need jurisdictional review.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-personnel-1", "text": "Which recruitment and service-rights policies apply to the institution and where are eligibility safeguards reviewed?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "policy_refs, applicability_scope, eligibility_review_ref, exception_process_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-personnel-2", "text": "Which protected complaint or remedy channels and responsible offices are available under the adopted profile?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "channel_ref, responsible_office_ref, protection_policy_ref, remedy_profile_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-personnel-3", "text": "Which personal details are unnecessary for this institutional view and must remain in restricted external records?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "field_minimization_rule, personnel_master_ref, permitted_aggregate, suppression_basis", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-personnel-1", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: policy_refs, applicability_scope, eligibility_review_ref, exception_process_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-personnel-2", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: channel_ref, responsible_office_ref, protection_policy_ref, remedy_profile_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-personnel-3", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: field_minimization_rule, personnel_master_ref, permitted_aggregate, suppression_basis. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-personnel", "name": "Personnel rights and service policy register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-assurance", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance", "description": "Record policy assurance for humanitarian obligations, legal advice, instruction and alleged noncompliance referrals. An allegation is not a finding of guilt and a training record is not proof of lawful conduct.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-assurance", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance assertions", "description": "Record policy assurance for humanitarian obligations, legal advice, instruction and alleged noncompliance referrals. An allegation is not a finding of guilt and a training record is not proof of lawful conduct.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-assurance-1", "text": "Which legal-advice and humanitarian-law instruction policies have review evidence for this force?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "advice_policy_ref, instruction_policy_ref, assurance_review_ref, evidence_period", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-assurance-2", "text": "Which governance controls address unlawful orders, civilian protection and accountability at policy level?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "control_policy_refs, accountable_office_ref, assessment_ref, unresolved_gap", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-assurance-3", "text": "How are alleged breaches and remediation references recorded without deciding guilt or exposing protected persons?", "kind": "security", "answer_data": [ "restricted_referral_ref, allegation_status, remediation_ref, disclosure_scope", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-assurance-1", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: advice_policy_ref, instruction_policy_ref, assurance_review_ref, evidence_period. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-assurance-2", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: control_policy_refs, accountable_office_ref, assessment_ref, unresolved_gap. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-assurance-3", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: restricted_referral_ref, allegation_status, remediation_ref, disclosure_scope. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-assurance", "name": "Lawful-conduct assurance register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-resources", "name": "Resources and assessment evidence", "description": "Institutional evidence for resources and assessment evidence.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-resources", "name": "Resource accountability references", "description": "Link approved resource and custody summaries to external masters. Approval, expenditure, possession and ownership are separate assertions; controlled-item contents and handling are outside this model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-resources", "name": "Resource accountability references assertions", "description": "Link approved resource and custody summaries to external masters. Approval, expenditure, possession and ownership are separate assertions; controlled-item contents and handling are outside this model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-resources-1", "text": "Which approved budget and expenditure-report references cover the stated fiscal period and institutional scope?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "budget_ref, expenditure_report_ref, fiscal_period, scope, accountable_office_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-resources-2", "text": "Which external custody or asset-accountability register is responsible for a permitted high-level resource reference?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "master_register_ref, custody_authority_ref, reference_scope, snapshot_date", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-resources-3", "text": "Which reconciliation gaps or restrictions prevent a resource summary from implying ownership or complete coverage?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "reconciliation_ref, omitted_scope, reporting_basis, limitation_reason", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-resources-1", "name": "Resource accountability references answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: budget_ref, expenditure_report_ref, fiscal_period, scope, accountable_office_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-resources-2", "name": "Resource accountability references answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: master_register_ref, custody_authority_ref, reference_scope, snapshot_date. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-resources-3", "name": "Resource accountability references answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: reconciliation_ref, omitted_scope, reporting_basis, limitation_reason. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-resources", "name": "Resource accountability references register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-readiness", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance", "description": "Only reference pre-existing, authorized coarse assessments with period, assessor, taxonomy and uncertainty. No local score, combat prediction, sensitive detail or readiness reconstruction is provided.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-readiness", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance assertions", "description": "Only reference pre-existing, authorized coarse assessments with period, assessor, taxonomy and uncertainty. No local score, combat prediction, sensitive detail or readiness reconstruction is provided.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-readiness-1", "text": "Which authorized assessment, coarse category definition and reporting scope support the recorded readiness assertion?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "assessment_ref, category_ref, taxonomy_version, reporting_scope, assessor_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-readiness-2", "text": "What observation period, validity limit and known coverage gap constrain interpretation of the readiness assertion?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "observed_period, recorded_at, valid_until, coverage_gap, unknown_reason", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-readiness-3", "text": "Which evidence review prevents an absent, withheld or stale assessment from being read as current readiness?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "availability_state, staleness_policy_ref, reviewer_ref, superseding_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-readiness-1", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: assessment_ref, category_ref, taxonomy_version, reporting_scope, assessor_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-readiness-2", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: observed_period, recorded_at, valid_until, coverage_gap, unknown_reason. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-readiness-3", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: availability_state, staleness_policy_ref, reviewer_ref, superseding_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-readiness", "name": "Coarse readiness assertion governance register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-stewardship", "name": "Disclosure and record stewardship", "description": "Institutional evidence for disclosure and record stewardship.", "rationale": "Authored research grouping; cited sources inform concepts but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting", "description": "Maintain separate public, oversight and authorized exchange views. Restriction labels require a legal basis and review; public fragments must not be combined to reconstruct protected details.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting assertions", "description": "Maintain separate public, oversight and authorized exchange views. Restriction labels require a legal basis and review; public fragments must not be combined to reconstruct protected details.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-disclosure-1", "text": "Which legal basis, recipient role and purpose permit the requested institutional view?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "recipient_role, purpose, authorization_basis_ref, permitted_fields", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-disclosure-2", "text": "Which report obligation, due period and receipt evidence apply without treating preparation as delivery?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "obligation_ref, reporting_period, due_rule_ref, prepared_ref, receipt_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-disclosure-3", "text": "Which redactions, aggregation limits and challenge routes make disclosure proportionate and reviewable?", "kind": "security", "answer_data": [ "redaction_basis_ref, aggregation_rule, reviewer_ref, challenge_route_ref", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-disclosure-1", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: recipient_role, purpose, authorization_basis_ref, permitted_fields. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-disclosure-2", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: obligation_ref, reporting_period, due_rule_ref, prepared_ref, receipt_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-disclosure-3", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: redaction_basis_ref, aggregation_rule, reviewer_ref, challenge_route_ref. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and lawful reporting register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-records", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange", "description": "Preserve assertion lineage and correction references while applying lawful retention and disposal. Interchange must carry authority, time, uncertainty and access qualifiers or be refused.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-records", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange assertions", "description": "Preserve assertion lineage and correction references while applying lawful retention and disposal. Interchange must carry authority, time, uncertainty and access qualifiers or be refused.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-records-1", "text": "Which source, author, revision and transformation trail explain each institutional assertion?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "source_ref, actor_ref, revision, derivation_ref, recorded_at", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-records-2", "text": "Which retention schedule, preservation hold and disposal decision govern each record class and residual copy?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "record_class, schedule_ref, hold_ref, disposal_authority_ref, residual_copy_status", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] }, { "id": "q-records-3", "text": "Which pinned mapping and acceptance checks preserve the meaning of an authorized exchange?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "target_profile_ref, mapping_version, loss_report, acceptance_result, refusal_reason", "Source-qualified assertion with explicit unknown, disputed, withheld or not-applicable status and reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-records-1", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: source_ref, actor_ref, revision, derivation_ref, recorded_at. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-records-2", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: record_class, schedule_ref, hold_ref, disposal_authority_ref, residual_copy_status. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-records-3", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: target_profile_ref, mapping_version, loss_report, acceptance_result, refusal_reason. Profile-specific nested schemas remain required; this research object is not executable instance validation.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-records", "name": "Provenance retention and exchange register", "description": "Versioned institution-local assertion index; authoritative source records remain externally mastered.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "recipient-scoped document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system namespace and identifier plus revision first; otherwise opaque local UUID with unresolved reconciliation status. No personal data or restricted structure in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "resolve-force-reference", "name": "Resolve a force reference", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Resolve namespace-qualified identity without merging by designation or recognizing legitimacy.", "inputs": [ "namespace", "force identifier", "purpose" ], "outputs": [ "resolved reference or ambiguity report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Read-only resolution; no master mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-organization-link", "name": "Record an organization link", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append an evidenced typed relationship and effective interval; never create a command authority.", "inputs": [ "force reference", "external unit or post reference", "relationship evidence", "expected revision" ], "outputs": [ "new local link revision or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Append assertion and provenance only" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-authority-reference", "name": "Record an authority reference", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an existing mandate or authorization and its limitations; do not issue, approve or implement a deployment decision.", "inputs": [ "decision or mandate reference", "competence assessment", "effective interval", "expected revision" ], "outputs": [ "qualified authority linkage or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Append local evidence link; no legal or operational effect" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-assurance-reference", "name": "Record assurance evidence", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append a policy review or restricted referral reference while preserving allegation and review status.", "inputs": [ "assurance evidence reference", "authorized scope", "assessment status", "expected revision" ], "outputs": [ "versioned assurance entry or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Record evidence; no guilt, compliance certification or disciplinary action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-coarse-assessment", "name": "Record a coarse assessment reference", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an already authorized readiness assessment with taxonomy, period and uncertainty; no score calculation, inference or live detail.", "inputs": [ "assessment reference", "coarse taxonomy version", "period and validity", "expected revision" ], "outputs": [ "qualified assessment link or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Append local assertion; no operational decision" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "prepare-authorized-view", "name": "Prepare an authorized institutional view", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a local recipient-scoped projection with redaction and mapping-loss reports. Refuse unsafe aggregation or loss of required qualifiers.", "inputs": [ "recipient authority and purpose", "force revision", "mapping and disclosure profile" ], "outputs": [ "local projection and assurance manifest or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose, source evidence and access scope for every referenced item", "Applicable institutional profile and competent reviewer identified; disputed authority escalates or causes refusal", "Mutations require matching expected revision and idempotency key; missing or stale inputs cause refusal" ], "effects": [ "Create local artifact and minimal access audit; no transmission or new access grant" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-ORG-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate public-office binding, independently mastered; pin before adoption.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-005", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate treaty master; a treaty link does not establish applicability or permission to disclose.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-002", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate lawmaking-process provenance only, never a substitute for a legal instrument.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-REC-010", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate external decision master; legal effect and execution remain external.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-004", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Candidate access-audit alignment for minimum necessary disclosure evidence; pin before integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "W3C ORG 2014-01-16", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual organization, unit, post and change mapping; no conformance claim.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O 2013-04-30", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual assertion lineage and revision mapping; no runtime implementation.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Competent public defense authority and accountable institutional records custodian identified by role and authority evidence", "Jurisdictional legal profile, applicable obligations, oversight entitlements and effective versions", "Master namespaces, classification and disclosure rules, retention schedules and escalation responsibilities" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use authority-qualified opaque force identity. Keep model alias A17, source identifiers and institution-instance aliases separate.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-007", "Candidate neighbor bindings require version and boundary review before adoption" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Normalize only within an evidenced master namespace; preserve disputed assertions and authority limits.", "Never infer deployment, readiness, lawful conduct or legitimacy from a mandate, label, training record or relationship." ], "patch_rules": [ "Append corrections with actor, evidence, expected revision, idempotency key and supersession link.", "Reconcile history with lawful erasure and retention; immutable revision references do not require perpetual personal payload storage." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version profiles and mappings; reject a projection that loses required legal, temporal, access or uncertainty qualifiers." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier with namespace and revision", "Stable verified external record URI with version", "Local opaque UUID with reconciliation status" ], "timestamp_rule": "Recorded instants use RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit UTC offset. Separate observation, effective, recorded and disclosure times. Preserve date-only values, timezone, precision and unknown periods; do not invent midnight timestamps.", "serial_naming_rule": "Opaque force key, artifact class and stable sequence or revision. No restricted topology, personal names or asset details in filenames.", "integrity_rule": "Record digest algorithm, source revision and transformation provenance where available. A matching digest proves neither authority, lawful conduct nor substantive truth." }, "policies": [ "Noncanonical reviewable draft under the single-provider waiver; independent external review remains absent.", "Weapons, controlled items, detention and use of force remain policy-level references only. No operational guidance, live locations, restricted inventories or tactical decision support.", "OSCE political commitments, international texts and a historical US audit have different scope and authority; adoption requires qualified jurisdictional review.", "Require lawful and proportionate disclosure, protected reporting and minimization. Statutory oversight entitlements cannot be displaced by a discretionary data-owner veto.", "Do not reconstruct protected force structure or readiness through aggregation. Public catalogue metadata grants no access to institutional content." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Return only recipient- and purpose-authorized views with redaction and uncertainty qualifiers." ], "create": [ "Require force identity namespace, source evidence, custodian and classification profile; mark unresolved legal status explicitly." ], "update": [ "Append evidenced local revisions within delegated scope; escalate contested competence and preserve prior assertions as superseded." ], "delete": [ "Apply record-class retention, preservation holds and lawful erasure to payloads and residual copies. Record minimal non-identifying disposition evidence where lawful.", "Local record retirement neither dissolves the force nor revokes its mandate; no automatic deletion of external masters." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Institutional records custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain master-reference integrity, revisions and stewardship" ] }, { "name": "Competent public authority", "responsibilities": [ "Provide mandate and policy authority evidence within constitutional competence" ] }, { "name": "Legal and rights reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Review applicable law, personnel safeguards, disputed authority and lawful access" ] }, { "name": "Independent oversight reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Exercise evidenced statutory scrutiny and report unresolved accountability gaps" ] }, { "name": "Access and records officer", "responsibilities": [ "Apply proportionate disclosure, retention and disposal rules with review routes" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny content access absent verified recipient, purpose and lawful scope; separately implement mandatory oversight entitlements. Infrastructure control alone creates no defense authority.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Public summaries require explicit approved release scope and aggregation review.", "Statutory oversight, court or emergency access needs documented lawful basis, limited scope and accountable review; never a blanket secret-data bypass." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Log actor, purpose, scope, basis, revision and result for views, corrections, exports and disposition under a minimal-data retention policy.", "Provide a protected route to challenge improper secrecy and access refusal." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md and competent authority/access policies", "spec.yaml, source qualifiers and all publication holds", "Pinned adoption profile, external master boundaries and permitted view" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed structure for one persistent defense institution at governance and policy level. Selected international texts, OSCE political commitments and a historical US reporting audit inform the design. A separate frozen local no-tools self-audit found no critical conflicts. Independent review, source verification, qualified adoption profiles and executable conformance remain holds; this is a noncanonical reviewable draft.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Persistent force identity is separate from labels, offices and legacy model alias." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Constitution, revision, succession and dissolution are evidenced assertions." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Units, posts and legal records retain separate masters and typed temporal links." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Observation and legal effect remain distinct from recording time." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Source and revision lineage retained with uncertainty." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Public-role stewardship is distinct from asset ownership and lawful oversight." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research schema validatable; instance and profile conformance still unimplemented." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Recipient purpose and lawful scope, protected review and aggregation limits." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Conceptual ORG and PROV alignments need tested mappings." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Designation, jurisdiction, class and status; no physical measurements of the institutional root." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Source-qualified recognition and coarse assessments distinguish unknown, disputed, stale and withheld." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and behavior", "status": "covered", "notes": "Mandated task classes, constraints and evidenced changes; no tactical functions." }, { "dimension": "physical measurements", "status": "not-applicable", "notes": "Institutional entity has no mass or geometry; referenced physical assets remain external." }, { "dimension": "source verification", "status": "gap", "notes": "Browser readings are bounded; direct HTTP and current legal/profile checks remain incomplete." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent external review is waived; separate local self-audit cannot substitute for it.", "Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block; current source versions, legal applicability and licensing remain open.", "Nested schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, ORG/PROV mappings and adversarial instance conformance are not implemented.", "National constitutional variants, mixed police-defense institutions, reserves, multinational structures and jurisdiction-specific personnel and safeguarding rules need specialist profiles.", "No operational capability taxonomy, readiness algorithm, controlled-item record schema or detention procedure is included." ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "OSCE commitments apply to participating States; their legal character differs from treaties.", "Selected UN Charter provisions and the ICRC study require contextual legal analysis; no deployment legality is adjudicated.", "GAO-13-678 is a historical US reporting example, not current readiness evidence or a universal duty." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Challenge whether institutional containment was conflated with command or legal authority.", "Reject owner-only secrecy that obstructs lawful oversight or protected reporting.", "Distinguish coarse readiness evidence from capability inference and tactical support.", "Challenge legacy conformance labels, wildcard imports and unverified G3 binding.", "Ensure partial or disputed legal status remains representable without endorsement.", "Check that correction history does not become indefinite personal-data retention." ] }, "researchAdjudication": { "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "activeProviders": [ "codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "claude", "grok" ], "providerPolicy": { "contract_version": "1.0.0", "mode": "single-provider-waiver", "effective_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "scope": "Canonical single-stream subject-model research after the six-workstream consolidation", "active_providers": [ "codex" ], "waived_providers": [ { "provider": "claude", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "reason": "Claude produced no result on prior 1800-second and 900-second attempts and again timed out on bounded 600-second Sonnet and 300-second Haiku passes. The owner prioritized completion over provider availability." }, { "provider": "grok", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "reason": "The repository owner authorized completion without Grok when Grok is unavailable, slow or schema-invalid. Grok may still be attempted as a bounded supplemental reviewer, but its failure never blocks a valid Claude plus no-tools result." } ], "review_rule": "Codex may complete source-grounded fallback research after bounded Claude and Grok attempts fail. It requires a separate no-tools adversarial audit and remains reviewable-draft with a visible absence-of-external-review hold.", "supplemental_provider_attempts": [ { "provider": "claude", "required": false, "maximum_attempts": 1, "failure_policy": "record-and-continue", "admission_rule": "Use only a locally schema-valid result whose sources and boundaries survive adjudication." }, { "provider": "grok", "required": false, "maximum_attempts": 1, "failure_policy": "record-and-continue", "admission_rule": "Use only a locally schema-valid result whose sources and boundaries survive adjudication." } ] }, "boundaryDecision": { "entry_kind": "entity", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "The root is one persistent institution with identity across changes, not a registry or operational plan. Constituent references do not make the root an aggregate. Registry standalone-mm is a record-plane designation; disputed institutional status remains representable without conferring legitimacy." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Institutional identity", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The force, designation, office, incumbent and legacy model alias remain distinct. Stable identity is compatible with disputed recognition and recorded succession." }, { "concept": "Legacy A17 and supplement", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Breadth concepts are reconciled against reviewed evidence. Legacy conformance claims, wildcard imports, owner-only secrecy and an unrestricted full-structure projection are not inherited. Supplement authorship is not an external research pass." }, { "concept": "Organizational containment and command", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "Typed and time-qualified references distinguish membership, reporting and authority. No universal single-parent command tree is implied; ambiguous or incompatible claims require review." }, { "concept": "Candidate composition", "disposition": "deferred binding", "rationale": "Public Office, Treaty, Lawmaking Process, Decision and Access Audit are candidate references or alignments. A lawmaking process does not replace a legal instrument and no unverified G3 successor is invented." }, { "concept": "Mandate and deployment", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "A founding mandate, domestic authorization, international-law assessment and actual occurrence are independent assertions. Recording a reference does not issue or execute a decision or adjudicate legality." }, { "concept": "Rights and lawful-conduct assurance", "disposition": "accepted with profile qualification", "rationale": "Personnel and humanitarian safeguards are policy references. Training does not prove compliance, an allegation does not establish guilt, and no unverified age threshold is asserted." }, { "concept": "Dangerous subject boundary", "disposition": "restricted to policy", "rationale": "The model excludes targeting, tactical command, live locations, weapons details, controlled-item handling and detention procedures. Proposed functions neither optimize force nor provide operational guidance." }, { "concept": "Readiness and resource assertions", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Existing coarse assessments require source, period, taxonomy and unknown-state qualifiers. There is no calculation or reconstruction of capability. Custody, ownership, approval and expenditure are not conflated." }, { "concept": "Lawful oversight and disclosure", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Recipient scope and lawful entitlement coexist with protected reporting and review of secrecy. Data-system ownership cannot veto mandated oversight; no blanket public or allied release is granted." }, { "concept": "Local operation authority", "disposition": "proposed only", "rationale": "All six functions require evidence, scope and mutation concurrency controls and have refusal outcomes. They record or prepare local artifacts without legal action, transmission or new access grants." }, { "concept": "Record continuity and disposal", "disposition": "accepted with policy dependency", "rationale": "Supersession history is reconciled with record-class retention, holds and lawful erasure. Minimal disposition evidence is not a demand for perpetual personal payload retention; local retirement cannot dissolve an institution." }, { "concept": "Evidence coverage and legal character", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Two Charter article pages are not independent corroboration. OSCE political commitments, an ICRC legal study, technical vocabularies and a historical US audit have distinct scope. Browser readings cannot become measured direct HTTP success or current legal verification." }, { "concept": "Executable profile and independent review", "disposition": "held", "rationale": "Candidate object groups and conceptual mappings lack nested acceptance schemas and runtime tests. This is a separate local Codex self-audit, not independent provider review; no waived-provider facts or nodes may be added." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not independent second-provider review.", "Direct HTTP source checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox restriction: zero requests and zero measured HTTP 200 responses. Selected browser readings are documented separately. Current versions, complete source coverage, licensing and legal applicability remain unverified; coordinator checker supplied.", "Adoption requires qualified constitutional, international-law, personnel-rights, oversight, secrecy, protected-reporting and records-policy review. No jurisdictional authority, compliance certification or operational legality is established.", "Nested instance schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, ORG/PROV mappings, disclosure enforcement and adversarial acceptance fixtures remain unimplemented. Research validation does not establish runtime or instance conformance.", "Mixed-role institutions, reserves, multinational structures and national variants require specialist profiles. Operational details, readiness calculations, controlled-item handling and detention procedures remain outside scope.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Verify source retrieval and current versions outside the sandbox, then assess applicable law, scope and licensing for each adopting jurisdiction.", "Develop pinned neighbor mappings and executable nested schemas with contested identity, overlapping authority, stale or withheld assessment, mandatory oversight and lawful disposal fixtures.", "Restore independent external review before canonical or publishable-draft promotion; research national and mixed-role profiles separately." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 8, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 36, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 6 } }