# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T16:55:52Z", "synthesisSha256": "eb01235a74b7af3b984821b54f086e6da9e9444008b13b9c4409b72660bba1e1", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-008", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-008", "name": "Offense / Investigation", "version": "1.0.0", "previousVersions": [ { "version": "0.2.0", "url": "https://ver.cy/models/world-a18-offense-investigation-and-enforcement/" } ], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.OFF" ], "tags": [ "offense", "investigation", "soc.pol.off" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-008-offense-investigation/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-008", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-008", "model_id": "WM-POL-008", "name": "Offense / Investigation", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Represent one persistent investigation dossier containing qualified allegations, procedural assertions and links to independently mastered evidence and outcomes.", "scope_statement": "One authority-qualified investigation dossier is the root. It can address multiple alleged acts and parties, and reference related investigations without merging their identities. An alleged offense is an assertion about conduct, not a finding of guilt. This policy-level research covers local records and reference indexes through review and closure, including optional post-decision reports; it neither authorizes nor executes enforcement.", "in_scope": [ "Dossier identity, alleged occurrence, national legal qualification and optional statistical mapping", "Mandate, participants, safeguards, inquiry review, evidence links and disclosure decisions", "Local lifecycle, charge/referral assertions, external decisions and sanction-status references, retention and authorized projections" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Determining guilt, imposing sanctions, executing detention or corrections, tactical investigation, weapons and controlled-item handling", "Evidence-item master lifecycle, physical custody operations, forensic methods, court case and judgment masters", "Person, public-office, law and authorization masters; intelligence targeting, predictive enforcement, production integrations and automated legal decision making" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "Legacy A18 / world.offenseEnforcement", "distinction": "Reconcile as historical input. Retain offense, investigation and sanction context, but sanctions and correction execution are external reports. An investigation need not produce a charge, conviction or correction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-009 Court / Arbitration Case and WM-POL-010 Dispute Forum", "distinction": "Optional separately identified case and forum references. Legacy prose alternates A19 and A6; neither alias is admitted as an automatic binding. Referral does not create or prove acceptance of a court case.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-020 Evidence Item / Exhibit", "distinction": "Evidence objects, custody events and admissibility decisions remain externally mastered. This dossier owns only relevance links and attributed assessments of received custody evidence, including gaps.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-021 Judgment / Legal Decision", "distinction": "Reference decision revision, scope and reported legal status. Imposition, finality, enforceability, appeal and execution are independent assertions and are never inferred from dossier state.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "ICCS and ECRIS", "distinction": "ICCS supports optional statistical mappings; ECRIS describes a distinct criminal-record exchange context. Neither defines investigation identity or makes an allegation a conviction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes - registry entry", "organization": "United Nations Statistics Division", "url": "https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Family/Detail/1000", "version_or_date": "ICCS 1.0, March 2015; registry accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Purpose, statistical units and methodology: a statistical classification for cross-jurisdiction comparisons. No national offense definition or culpability determination is imported." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "European Convention on Human Rights", "organization": "Council of Europe", "url": "https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG", "version_or_date": "Convention of 1950 with protocols in official English compilation accessed 2026-10-06; applicability pin pending", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Articles 3, 5-8, 13-14: policy-level liberty, fair-trial, legality, privacy and remedy constraints. Treaty participation, reservations and local procedural interpretation require review." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Disclosure Manual Chapter 4 - Relevance, Recording and Retention", "organization": "Crown Prosecution Service", "url": "https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/disclosure-manual-chapter-4-relevance-recording-and-retention", "version_or_date": "Refreshed 14 July 2022; accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "England and Wales example of recording relevant material, including contrary material, durable records and explained examination scope. Not a universal retention duration or forensic custody standard." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Disclosure Manual Chapter 5 - Reasonable Lines of Enquiry and Third Parties", "organization": "Crown Prosecution Service", "url": "https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/disclosure-manual-chapter-5-reasonable-lines-enquiry-and-third-parties", "version_or_date": "Updated 14 January 2026 as displayed; accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "England and Wales example of case-specific enquiry reasoning, proportionality and third-party privacy. Used only for governance questions, not operational collection methods." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "The Code for Crown Prosecutors", "organization": "Crown Prosecution Service", "url": "https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors", "version_or_date": "26 October 2018 edition displayed; accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Sections 3-7 and 10 distinguish prosecution decisions, evidential assessment, disposal alternatives and reconsideration. The prosecutor assessment is distinct from the court standard; no test is implemented here." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "Guide to Law Enforcement Processing - Principles", "organization": "Information Commissioners Office", "url": "https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/law-enforcement/guide-to-le-processing/principles/", "version_or_date": "Live guidance accessed 2026-10-06; guide update index reports 4 November 2025 changes", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "UK Part 3 example: purpose, minimization, accuracy, fact versus assessment, person categories, storage review and security. Applicable statutory text and local regime must be pinned separately." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation 30 April 2013", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Sections 3.1-3.3 support entities, activities, agents, derivations and qualified attribution. Conceptual provenance alignment does not certify custody continuity, evidence truth or admissibility." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "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": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Timestamp representation with seconds and offset; authored precision and event-versus-recording distinctions extend this syntax without defining legal deadlines." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "European criminal records information system (ECRIS)", "organization": "European Union Publications Office", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/european-criminal-records-information-system-ecris.html", "version_or_date": "Official legal summary accessed 2026-10-06; underlying current legal and interface versions unverified", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T16:54:34Z", "relevance": "Official summary establishes criminal-record exchange context. Used only to bound a possible conviction projection; no ECRIS wire schema, eligibility test or operational integration is claimed." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-subject", "name": "Dossier and alleged conduct", "description": "Identify the dossier and qualify the alleged conduct.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-identity", "name": "Dossier identity", "description": "Preserve one dossier identity and explicit links across transfers, splits and related inquiries. Similar parties or alleged acts do not establish duplicate identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-identity", "name": "Qualified investigation identity", "description": "Preserve one dossier identity and explicit links across transfers, splits and related inquiries. Similar parties or alleged acts do not establish duplicate identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-identity-1", "text": "Which authority namespace and stable reference identify this investigation dossier?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identity: master_namespace, dossier_id, local_aliases, identity_evidence", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-identity-2", "text": "How are related dossiers, alleged acts and split or joined matters linked without conflating their identities?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "links: relation_id, source_dossier, target_reference, relation_kind, scope, reconciliation_status", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-identity-3", "text": "Who is accountable for this dossier and which transfer record supports a change of custodian?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "custodian: office_reference, accountable_role, transfer_reference, effective_interval, unresolved_responsibility", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-identity-1", "name": "identity", "description": "Proposed nested field group: identity: master_namespace, dossier_id, local_aliases, identity_evidence. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-identity-2", "name": "links", "description": "Proposed nested field group: links: relation_id, source_dossier, target_reference, relation_kind, scope, reconciliation_status. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-identity-3", "name": "custodian", "description": "Proposed nested field group: custodian: office_reference, accountable_role, transfer_reference, effective_interval, unresolved_responsibility. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-identity", "name": "Dossier identity register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-classification", "name": "Allegation and classification", "description": "Keep alleged conduct and domestic legal qualification separate from an optional statistical code. Retain reclassification history and disputed mappings.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-classification", "name": "Qualified conduct and code assertions", "description": "Keep alleged conduct and domestic legal qualification separate from an optional statistical code. Retain reclassification history and disputed mappings.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-classification-1", "text": "What conduct is alleged and what is its assertion status rather than an assumed offense finding?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "allegation: allegation_id, conduct_summary, asserting_source, alleged_or_established_status, contrary_reference", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-classification-2", "text": "Which legal provision version and optional statistical scheme support each classification assertion?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "classification: jurisdiction, provision_reference, effective_version, scheme_version, code, mapping_basis, unmapped_reason", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-classification-3", "text": "What occurrence time range and location are asserted, with what precision and competing accounts?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "occurrence: event_interval, time_precision, location_reference, spatial_precision, source, competing_assertions", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-classification-1", "name": "allegation", "description": "Proposed nested field group: allegation: allegation_id, conduct_summary, asserting_source, alleged_or_established_status, contrary_reference. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-classification-2", "name": "classification", "description": "Proposed nested field group: classification: jurisdiction, provision_reference, effective_version, scheme_version, code, mapping_basis, unmapped_reason. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-classification-3", "name": "occurrence", "description": "Proposed nested field group: occurrence: event_interval, time_precision, location_reference, spatial_precision, source, competing_assertions. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-classification", "name": "Allegation and classification register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-authority", "name": "Mandate and participants", "description": "Record authority and role-specific safeguards.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-mandate", "name": "Authority and initiation", "description": "Record the legal profile and opening assertion. Operational allocation or possession of data is not proof of competence; unknown legal authority prevents action.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-mandate", "name": "Evidenced authority and initiation", "description": "Record the legal profile and opening assertion. Operational allocation or possession of data is not proof of competence; unknown legal authority prevents action.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-mandate-1", "text": "Which jurisdictional mandate and delegation support the recorded investigation scope?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "mandate: legal_basis_reference, authority_reference, delegation, territorial_scope, subject_scope, validity_interval", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-mandate-2", "text": "What report, referral or other authorized trigger supports the opening assertion?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "initiation: trigger_kind, originating_reference, receipt_time, opening_decision_reference, record_time", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-mandate-3", "text": "Which limits, expiry conditions and review requirements constrain any referenced investigative measure?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "limits: measure_reference, authorization_reference, permitted_scope, expiry, reviewer, unresolved_authority", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-mandate-1", "name": "mandate", "description": "Proposed nested field group: mandate: legal_basis_reference, authority_reference, delegation, territorial_scope, subject_scope, validity_interval. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-mandate-2", "name": "initiation", "description": "Proposed nested field group: initiation: trigger_kind, originating_reference, receipt_time, opening_decision_reference, record_time. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-mandate-3", "name": "limits", "description": "Proposed nested field group: limits: measure_reference, authorization_reference, permitted_scope, expiry, reviewer, unresolved_authority. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-mandate", "name": "Authority and initiation register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-participants", "name": "Participants and safeguards", "description": "Maintain role assertions and safeguard requirements without prejudging conduct. Subject access, counsel access, witness protection and public access are distinct scopes.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-participants", "name": "Role-specific rights and protection", "description": "Maintain role assertions and safeguard requirements without prejudging conduct. Subject access, counsel access, witness protection and public access are distinct scopes.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-participants-1", "text": "Which party references have which case-specific roles, and when did those role assertions change?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "roles: party_reference, role_code, assertion_status, effective_interval, source, disputed_role", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-participants-2", "text": "Which representation, language, age-related or other safeguard needs require qualified review in this matter?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "safeguards: need_reference, applicable_rule, responsible_role, provision_evidence, outstanding_need", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-participants-3", "text": "How are vulnerable-party identities and contact details separated from wider dossier views?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "protection: protected_reference, view_scope, restriction_basis, expiry_review, authorized_recipient", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-participants-1", "name": "roles", "description": "Proposed nested field group: roles: party_reference, role_code, assertion_status, effective_interval, source, disputed_role. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-participants-2", "name": "safeguards", "description": "Proposed nested field group: safeguards: need_reference, applicable_rule, responsible_role, provision_evidence, outstanding_need. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-participants-3", "name": "protection", "description": "Proposed nested field group: protection: protected_reference, view_scope, restriction_basis, expiry_review, authorized_recipient. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-participants", "name": "Participants and safeguards register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-inquiry", "name": "Inquiry and evidence context", "description": "Preserve balanced reasoning and linked evidence assessments.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-inquiry", "name": "Inquiry review", "description": "Index reviewable questions and evidence gaps, including material pointing away from an allegation. This is policy-level case reasoning, not collection instructions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-inquiry", "name": "Balanced and bounded inquiry record", "description": "Index reviewable questions and evidence gaps, including material pointing away from an allegation. This is policy-level case reasoning, not collection instructions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-inquiry-1", "text": "Which case question and recorded rationale support each proposed or completed inquiry reference?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "inquiry: question_id, rationale_reference, responsible_role, status, review_reference", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-inquiry-2", "text": "What contrary material or alternative explanation has been linked and what remains unevaluated?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "alternatives: hypothesis_reference, supporting_material, contrary_material, assessment_reference, unresolved_gap", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-inquiry-3", "text": "What necessity and privacy assessment limits the scope of any third-party material request?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "scope_review: request_reference, necessity_basis, proportionality_review, alternatives_considered, authorized_scope", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-inquiry-1", "name": "inquiry", "description": "Proposed nested field group: inquiry: question_id, rationale_reference, responsible_role, status, review_reference. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-inquiry-2", "name": "alternatives", "description": "Proposed nested field group: alternatives: hypothesis_reference, supporting_material, contrary_material, assessment_reference, unresolved_gap. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-inquiry-3", "name": "scope_review", "description": "Proposed nested field group: scope_review: request_reference, necessity_basis, proportionality_review, alternatives_considered, authorized_scope. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-inquiry", "name": "Inquiry review register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-evidence", "name": "Evidence links and continuity", "description": "Link externally mastered items and versions to assertions. Local review can identify missing custody evidence but cannot repair a custody gap or decide admissibility.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-evidence", "name": "Evidence attribution and continuity assessment", "description": "Link externally mastered items and versions to assertions. Local review can identify missing custody evidence but cannot repair a custody gap or decide admissibility.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-evidence-1", "text": "Which evidence master, version and derivation support each dossier assertion?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "evidence_link: assertion_id, item_namespace, item_id, version, source_activity, derivation_reference", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-2", "text": "Which received continuity records contain gaps, conflicting times or unexplained transformations?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "continuity: custody_record_references, reviewer, review_scope, gap_intervals, conflict_references, unresolved_status", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-3", "text": "Which competent assessment distinguishes relevance, integrity and admissibility for the linked material?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "assessment: item_reference, assessment_kind, decision_reference, authority, status, contested_basis", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-evidence-1", "name": "evidence_link", "description": "Proposed nested field group: evidence_link: assertion_id, item_namespace, item_id, version, source_activity, derivation_reference. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-evidence-2", "name": "continuity", "description": "Proposed nested field group: continuity: custody_record_references, reviewer, review_scope, gap_intervals, conflict_references, unresolved_status. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-evidence-3", "name": "assessment", "description": "Proposed nested field group: assessment: item_reference, assessment_kind, decision_reference, authority, status, contested_basis. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-evidence", "name": "Evidence links and continuity register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-procedure", "name": "Disclosure and procedural continuity", "description": "Track permitted views and evidenced administrative progress.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and access", "description": "Separate inventory, review, disclosure authorization and actual delivery. Relevance or a public hearing does not automatically make the entire dossier public.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-disclosure", "name": "Recipient-specific disclosure decisions", "description": "Separate inventory, review, disclosure authorization and actual delivery. Relevance or a public hearing does not automatically make the entire dossier public.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-disclosure-1", "text": "What material is authorized for each recipient and purpose at this stage?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "access: recipient_role, purpose, record_scope, authority_reference, permitted_view, review_due", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-disclosure-2", "text": "Which restrictions or redactions have a recorded basis and review or challenge route?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "exceptions: item_reference, withheld_scope, restriction_basis, decision_maker, review_route, expiry", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-disclosure-3", "text": "What delivery evidence and outstanding obligations distinguish approved disclosure from completed disclosure?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "delivery: disclosure_decision_reference, projection_revision, recipient, delivery_evidence, receipt_status, outstanding_item", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-disclosure-1", "name": "access", "description": "Proposed nested field group: access: recipient_role, purpose, record_scope, authority_reference, permitted_view, review_due. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-disclosure-2", "name": "exceptions", "description": "Proposed nested field group: exceptions: item_reference, withheld_scope, restriction_basis, decision_maker, review_route, expiry. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-disclosure-3", "name": "delivery", "description": "Proposed nested field group: delivery: disclosure_decision_reference, projection_revision, recipient, delivery_evidence, receipt_status, outstanding_item. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and access register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-progress", "name": "Lifecycle and time", "description": "Dossier status reflects recorded administration, not guilt or legal finality. Legal due dates require profile authority, calendars and qualified computation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-progress", "name": "Evidenced progress and review obligations", "description": "Dossier status reflects recorded administration, not guilt or legal finality. Legal due dates require profile authority, calendars and qualified computation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-progress-1", "text": "What recorded event supports the current open, suspended, transferred or closed dossier status?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "state: status_code, event_reference, authority_reference, prior_revision, reason, recorded_by", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-progress-2", "text": "Which event, recording and legally effective times apply, and which deadlines remain unresolved?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "times: event_time, recorded_time, effective_time, precision, deadline_rule, calendar_reference, unresolved_calculation", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-progress-3", "text": "What competent review permits a closure, correction or reopening assertion without erasing earlier outcomes?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "review: prior_outcome_reference, review_basis, authority_reference, resulting_state, supersedes_reference, affected_scopes", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-progress-1", "name": "state", "description": "Proposed nested field group: state: status_code, event_reference, authority_reference, prior_revision, reason, recorded_by. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-progress-2", "name": "times", "description": "Proposed nested field group: times: event_time, recorded_time, effective_time, precision, deadline_rule, calendar_reference, unresolved_calculation. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-progress-3", "name": "review", "description": "Proposed nested field group: review: prior_outcome_reference, review_basis, authority_reference, resulting_state, supersedes_reference, affected_scopes. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-progress", "name": "Lifecycle and time register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-outcome", "name": "Referral and external outcomes", "description": "Link formal decisions while preserving external ownership.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-referral", "name": "Charge and referral", "description": "Separate recommendation, charging decision, recorded filing and accepted referral. A charge may change or be withdrawn, and an investigation may end without one.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-referral", "name": "Formal accusation and handoff references", "description": "Separate recommendation, charging decision, recorded filing and accepted referral. A charge may change or be withdrawn, and an investigation may end without one.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-referral-1", "text": "Which authorized decision supports each charge, no-charge or alternative-disposal assertion?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "decision: decision_reference, deciding_role, affected_allegations, affected_parties, outcome_kind, reasons_reference", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-referral-2", "text": "Which charge revision links which accused-party reference to which alleged conduct and legal provision?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "charge: charge_master_reference, revision, accused_reference, allegation_references, provision_version, status", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-referral-3", "text": "What evidence confirms submission and acceptance or rejection by the receiving prosecution or forum?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "handoff: recipient_reference, submitted_revision, submission_evidence, acknowledgment, receiving_case_reference, unresolved_receipt", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-referral-1", "name": "decision", "description": "Proposed nested field group: decision: decision_reference, deciding_role, affected_allegations, affected_parties, outcome_kind, reasons_reference. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-referral-2", "name": "charge", "description": "Proposed nested field group: charge: charge_master_reference, revision, accused_reference, allegation_references, provision_version, status. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-referral-3", "name": "handoff", "description": "Proposed nested field group: handoff: recipient_reference, submitted_revision, submission_evidence, acknowledgment, receiving_case_reference, unresolved_receipt. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-referral", "name": "Charge and referral register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-outcomes", "name": "External outcomes and sanction reports", "description": "Preserve the legacy sanction context as external outcome and execution-report links. Never impose or execute a penalty, infer finality from closure, or require a sanction in every investigation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-outcomes", "name": "Qualified post-decision references", "description": "Preserve the legacy sanction context as external outcome and execution-report links. Never impose or execute a penalty, infer finality from closure, or require a sanction in every investigation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-outcomes-1", "text": "Which external case and decision revisions dispose of which parties and allegations?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "outcomes: case_reference, decision_reference, revision, affected_scope, disposition, source", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-outcomes-2", "text": "What evidence separately supports reported finality, enforceability, appeal or suspension status?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "legal_status: decision_reference, status_kind, asserted_value, competent_source, effective_interval, disputed_status", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-outcomes-3", "text": "Which authorized external report supports a sanction or correction-status entry, and what remains outside dossier control?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "execution_report: order_reference, responsible_authority, report_reference, reported_status, observation_time, unresolved_change", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-outcomes-1", "name": "outcomes", "description": "Proposed nested field group: outcomes: case_reference, decision_reference, revision, affected_scope, disposition, source. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "data-outcomes-2", "name": "legal_status", "description": "Proposed nested field group: legal_status: decision_reference, status_kind, asserted_value, competent_source, effective_interval, disputed_status. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "data-outcomes-3", "name": "execution_report", "description": "Proposed nested field group: execution_report: order_reference, responsible_authority, report_reference, reported_status, observation_time, unresolved_change. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-outcomes", "name": "External outcomes and sanction reports register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-stewardship", "name": "Stewardship and projections", "description": "Control record continuity and qualified downstream use.", "rationale": "Authored investigation-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; no cited authority mandates this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-retention", "name": "Record stewardship", "description": "Preservation duties and lawful correction or disposal require an adopting policy. A record of change must not become indefinite retention of every personal payload.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-retention", "name": "Scoped retention correction and disposal", "description": "Preservation duties and lawful correction or disposal require an adopting policy. A record of change must not become indefinite retention of every personal payload.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-retention-1", "text": "Which record-specific schedule, review trigger and hold govern each dossier payload and derived copy?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "retention: record_scope, schedule_reference, trigger, review_date, hold_reference, responsible_custodian", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-retention-2", "text": "How are disputed or inaccurate assertions corrected and affected recipients identified?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "correction: assertion_reference, challenge_reference, assessment, revised_value, supersession_link, affected_recipient_references", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-retention-3", "text": "Which approved disposition record governs deletion, restriction or preservation of a particular payload?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "disposition: record_scope, decision_reference, legal_basis, hold_resolution, executor_reference, completion_evidence, minimal_tombstone", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-retention-1", "name": "retention", "description": "Proposed nested field group: retention: record_scope, schedule_reference, trigger, review_date, hold_reference, responsible_custodian. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-retention-2", "name": "correction", "description": "Proposed nested field group: correction: assertion_reference, challenge_reference, assessment, revised_value, supersession_link, affected_recipient_references. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-retention-3", "name": "disposition", "description": "Proposed nested field group: disposition: record_scope, decision_reference, legal_basis, hold_resolution, executor_reference, completion_evidence, minimal_tombstone. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-retention", "name": "Record stewardship register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-projection", "name": "Projection and acceptance", "description": "Build authorized local projections with explicit qualification and loss reports. Statistical aggregation needs disclosure review; a conviction exchange cannot be inferred from an investigation record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-projection", "name": "Bounded exports and conformance gaps", "description": "Build authorized local projections with explicit qualification and loss reports. Statistical aggregation needs disclosure review; a conviction exchange cannot be inferred from an investigation record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-projection-1", "text": "Which pinned destination profile preserves identity, legal status, provenance and restriction qualifiers?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "mapping: target_profile, version, field_map, retained_qualifiers, loss_report, refusal_reason", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-projection-2", "text": "What counting unit, denominator and privacy review justify a proposed statistical projection?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "statistics: unit_definition, population_scope, reporting_period, mapping_version, suppression_review, duplicate_policy", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] }, { "id": "q-projection-3", "text": "Which adversarial fixtures and independent reviews are still required before this dossier profile is used operationally?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "acceptance: fixture_reference, expected_result, actual_result, reviewer, unresolved_failure, review_holds", "Include assertion source and explicit unknown, disputed or not-applicable status." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-projection-1", "name": "mapping", "description": "Proposed nested field group: mapping: target_profile, version, field_map, retained_qualifiers, loss_report, refusal_reason. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "data-projection-2", "name": "statistics", "description": "Proposed nested field group: statistics: unit_definition, population_scope, reporting_period, mapping_version, suppression_review, duplicate_policy. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "data-projection-3", "name": "acceptance", "description": "Proposed nested field group: acceptance: fixture_reference, expected_result, actual_result, reviewer, unresolved_failure, review_holds. A typed instance schema and applicability rules remain to be implemented.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-projection", "name": "Projection and acceptance register", "description": "Local versioned register of supported assertions and external references, preserving uncertainty. It does not replace authoritative master records.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "restricted human-readable projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision; otherwise governed global identifier or local opaque UUID with reconciliation status. Entries have immutable sequence IDs, never names or dates as sole identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "resolve-dossier", "name": "Resolve a dossier reference", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Resolve an exact qualified master reference; return ambiguity instead of merging matters by similarity.", "inputs": [ "namespace", "dossier reference", "authorized purpose" ], "outputs": [ "resolved reference or ambiguity report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Read-only local result; no identity merge" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "record-allegation", "name": "Record an allegation assertion", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Append an attributed account and legal or statistical qualification without declaring guilt.", "inputs": [ "dossier revision", "assertion source", "conduct and classification evidence" ], "outputs": [ "assertion revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append qualified assertion and provenance; no opening of a real investigation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "link-evidence", "name": "Link evidence and assessment", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Append relevance and continuity-assessment links without altering evidence masters, custody events or admissibility decisions.", "inputs": [ "item reference and version", "assertion reference", "assessment source" ], "outputs": [ "link revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append local linkage with gaps preserved; no collection or forensic operation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "record-procedure", "name": "Record a procedural assertion", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Record an already evidenced state, charge, handoff or outcome assertion, preserving separate authority and effect.", "inputs": [ "event or decision reference", "scope and time qualifiers", "expected dossier revision" ], "outputs": [ "journal revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append attributed status; no charge filing, referral transmission, detention or sanction execution" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "review-dossier-gaps", "name": "Report structural and evidence gaps", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Inspect the authorized view for missing references, conflicting assertions and overdue recorded review obligations; legal interpretation remains with qualified reviewers.", "inputs": [ "authorized dossier revision", "pinned profile", "available evidence index" ], "outputs": [ "gap report with unknowns and reviewer routing" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Create local report only; no finding of guilt, automatic enforcement or invented deadline" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "prepare-projection", "name": "Prepare an authorized local projection", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Construct a recipient-scoped local view with provenance, restrictions and mapping losses. Refuse loss of mandatory qualifiers.", "inputs": [ "recipient authority", "purpose and scope", "mapping version", "dossier revision" ], "outputs": [ "local projection and loss report or refusal" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access to every referenced item", "Evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "Mutation requires matching expected revision and idempotency key; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Create local artifact and access record; no transmission, conviction exchange or public release" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-POL-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional adjudication case master; candidate binding must be pinned. The dossier does not own court procedure.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-010", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional adjudication forum master; forum competence requires separate evidence.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-020", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Evidence item master and custody records remain external; dossier links alone grant no control of an item.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-021", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional judgment or legal-decision master; preserve version and effect qualifiers.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "Person and public-office master bindings", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Adopter resolves identities and authority namespaces; no inferred identity matching or authority from infrastructure ownership.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "Sanction execution authority and record binding", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional external reports only, preserving legacy correction context at policy level; operational execution is excluded.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "ICCS 1.0", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Statistical code mapping only; national legal qualification remains separate.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "ECRIS profile", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Possible future criminal-record projection only; eligibility, wire schema and legal basis unverified.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual attribution and derivation, not a legal or forensic conformance claim.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Competent public authority and accountable dossier custodian, evidenced without commercial owner attribution", "Jurisdiction and effective legal-profile references with qualified reviewer", "Master namespaces, access scopes, retention schedules and escalation routes" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use opaque authority-qualified dossier IDs. Keep person identifiers out of filenames; preserve evidenced aliases without automatic merging.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-008", "Legacy A18 is a migration alias only; neighbor bindings require pinned review" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Keep allegation, assessed fact, charge and outcome assertions distinct with source and scope.", "Do not collapse unknown, disputed, acquitted, withdrawn and no-charge statuses into one outcome." ], "patch_rules": [ "Require expected revision, actor, purpose and idempotency key; append corrections and supersession links.", "Lawful restriction or payload erasure may coexist with minimal non-identifying change evidence; do not retain all personal content forever." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version profile and mapping changes; refuse projections that lose legal-status, access or provenance qualifiers." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier with namespace and revision", "Governed global identifier or stable IRI", "Local UUID or ULID under custodian namespace with reconciliation state" ], "timestamp_rule": "Represent recording instants using RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit offset or Z. Separate event time, observation time, ingestion time and asserted legal-effect time. Preserve date-only values, uncertain intervals, timezone and precision without fabricating midnight instants.", "serial_naming_rule": "Opaque dossier key, register type and immutable sequence or revision; no personal names or timestamps as sole identifiers.", "integrity_rule": "Record available content digest and algorithm, derivation and master revision. Matching hashes prove neither original authenticity nor legal admissibility. Missing custody evidence remains an explicit gap." }, "policies": [ "Reviewable draft under a single-provider waiver; no independent external review is claimed.", "No local operation decides guilt, authorizes investigative measures, executes detention or sanctions, handles controlled items or performs operational targeting.", "Apply a qualified jurisdictional profile. The England and Wales, UK data-protection, Council of Europe and EU examples are not a universal legal procedure.", "Treat accusations and protected roles neutrally; no enforcement profiling based on protected characteristics. Restrict vulnerable-party details and sensitive material." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Resolve purpose and recipient authorization before returning the permitted view; redact sensitive values while preserving useful uncertainty." ], "create": [ "Require dossier namespace, accountable custodian and attributed initiation context; pending legal review is explicit and does not authorize operations." ], "update": [ "Append supported local assertions against a known revision; preserve disputes, corrections and separate external master references." ], "delete": [ "Record-specific schedules, holds and lawful erasure or restriction rules govern disposition; a qualified records authority decides and the adopting storage custodian executes deletion.", "Preserve only a lawful minimal tombstone and disposition evidence. Local deletion cannot erase external evidence masters, annul decisions or prove fulfillment of a sanction." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Dossier custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain identity and evidenced stewardship" ] }, { "name": "Authorized investigating officer", "responsibilities": [ "Record supported assertions within mandate; preserve contrary material" ] }, { "name": "Legal reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Review authority, safeguards, charging and outcome references without delegating decisions to this model" ] }, { "name": "Disclosure officer", "responsibilities": [ "Assess recipient scopes and restricted views" ] }, { "name": "Records and privacy officer", "responsibilities": [ "Resolve retention, correction, holds and lawful disposition" ] }, { "name": "Subject or authorized representative", "responsibilities": [ "Challenge or inspect only the permitted record scope under applicable rights" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny dossier-content access unless recipient, purpose and scope are authorized. Public model metadata grants no access to instances.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Any legally required or emergency disclosure needs recorded basis, scope and accountable actor; no blanket bypass.", "Subject, counsel, supervisor and public requests are distinct; restrictions need review routes without exposing protected reasons to unauthorized viewers." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Record access, projection, correction and disposition actor, purpose, scope, revision and result under a lawful minimal-data policy; generic audit execution remains external." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md and custodian policies", "spec.yaml and research holds", "Pinned legal profile, evidence references and authorized recipient view" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed structure for one authority-qualified investigation dossier, with allegations, safeguards, evidence links and external outcome context. Separate local no-tools self-audit completed. Selected regional examples do not establish universal procedure, operational authority or conformance; this remains a noncanonical reviewable draft with explicit holds.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Persistent authority-qualified dossier root and linked allegations." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Open, suspended, transferred, closed and reviewed assertions; no inevitable prosecution." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Separate cases, forums, evidence, decisions and sanction reports." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Event, record and legal-effect time with uncertainty." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Attribution, derivation and contrary material; truth remains evaluated separately." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competent authority and custodian, distinct from technical control." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research schema gate only; operational profile and adversarial fixtures pending." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Purpose and recipient scopes, redaction, exception review and delivery evidence." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Payload-level schedules and holds; lawful correction and disposal." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Conceptual ICCS, ECRIS and PROV alignments; no certified mapping." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Matter, jurisdiction, status and time are nonphysical properties; physical item properties belong to evidence masters." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Master references and source evidence identify dossier and record classes; no automated suspect recognition." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and hazards", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local operations; false guilt, authority inference, disclosure and silent custody repair are hazards." }, { "dimension": "context and evidence", "status": "covered", "notes": "Jurisdiction, roles and evidence qualifiers retained." }, { "dimension": "specialist profiles", "status": "gap", "notes": "Juvenile, cross-border, military and noncriminal regulatory procedures need dedicated review." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent external review absent; local no-tools self-audit is not a second provider.", "Direct HTTP checks not attempted under owner-reported sandbox restrictions; current legal versions, applicability, translations and licensing remain unverified.", "Typed nested schemas, custody standards, legal calendars, interface bindings and executable conformance fixtures are incomplete.", "Correction execution, detention operations, forensics and criminal-record exchange are outside this dossier boundary.", "Non-European and specialist procedures and a complete legal-rights catalogue require additional source research." ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "England and Wales prosecution guidance and UK Part 3 information principles are regional examples, not a Cyprus legal profile.", "Council of Europe treaty and EU exchange scope require participation, reservation, transposition and current-law review." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "A report, statistical code or charge must not establish guilt.", "An evidence digest must not erase custody gaps or establish admissibility.", "A closed dossier may have no prosecution or conviction; partial external outcomes must remain scoped.", "Anonymization cannot be inferred from removal of direct identifiers; refuse an unreviewed statistical release.", "A local snapshot must not decide enforceability or launch correction execution." ] }, "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": "A persistent investigation dossier has its own authority-qualified identity across local record revisions and linked events. Alleged acts and external cases remain separately referenced. The registry standalone-mm value describes the record plane, not the subject-kind enum; collections of links alone do not require an aggregate root." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Dossier root and alleged acts", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The result consistently treats the root as one investigation dossier and preserves multiple alleged acts and related inquiries without implying common identity or guilt." }, { "concept": "Legacy enforcement path", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Legacy offense, investigation and sanction context survives, but a linear route to charge, conviction and correction is rejected. External execution reports preserve context without owning enforcement." }, { "concept": "Legacy adjudication aliases and candidate edges", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "A19/A6 inconsistency is explicitly identified. No relationship-ledger rows were present for this model; proposed case, forum, exhibit and decision links are candidate references requiring pinned review." }, { "concept": "Statistical classification and legal qualification", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "The legal provision and optional statistical code have different versions and evidential bases. Unmapped and disputed assertions remain valid, and neither a code nor an allegation determines guilt." }, { "concept": "Mandate and participant safeguards", "disposition": "accepted with profile hold", "rationale": "Authority, role-specific protection and review questions ask for the applicable rule and evidence. Optional model bindings do not waive the functional requirement for verified authority before any operation." }, { "concept": "Balanced inquiry and sensitive material", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Contrary material, unevaluated alternatives and privacy-limited inquiry references remain visible. No question or proposed function supplies operational collection or targeting instructions." }, { "concept": "Custody and evidentiary authority", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "The dossier owns reference and assessment records only. Evidence masters, custody events and admissibility decisions remain external. PROV and disclosure guidance support traceability but cannot certify a forensic custody standard; that gap stays explicit." }, { "concept": "Disclosure and completion evidence", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "Recipient authorization, redaction, review and delivery evidence are distinct. A public hearing, inventory entry or approved projection cannot prove full disclosure or authorize general public access." }, { "concept": "Charge referral and post-decision effects", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "Recommendation, charge, filing, handoff receipt, finality, enforceability, appeal and execution are qualified assertions. No single dossier state establishes these independent effects." }, { "concept": "Local functions and authority", "disposition": "accepted as proposed only", "rationale": "All six operations are unimplemented local resolve, append, inspect or projection operations with access and evidence preconditions. They do not open real investigations, decide charges, execute detention or transmit records." }, { "concept": "Retention and corrections", "disposition": "accepted with policy dependency", "rationale": "Supersession history is reconciled with scoped lawful erasure and minimal tombstones. The adopting storage custodian executes disposition; the dossier neither erases external masters nor requires perpetual personal-data retention." }, { "concept": "Instance structure and downstream conformance", "disposition": "deferred", "rationale": "Optional nested field groups are research candidates, not executable instance schemas. Statistical privacy tests, ECRIS eligibility and wire formats, custody profiles and adversarial fixtures require separate implementation and review." }, { "concept": "Source assurance and regional scope", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Nine admitted official sources were available through the browser evidence channel, including registry and summary sources limited to their own descriptions. Direct HTTP was not attempted. Current law, specialist procedures and non-European applicability remain holds." }, { "concept": "Independent review", "disposition": "waived and held", "rationale": "Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts under the owner override. This frozen semantic pass is a local Codex self-audit and cannot be called independent external or second-provider review." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not a second provider.", "Live source and version verification remains incomplete. Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox restriction, so no HTTP status was measured. Browser readings are documented separately. Current consolidated law, authenticity, translations, licensing and applicable versions need verification; the coordinator checker is prepared.", "Qualified jurisdictional review is required for authority, rights, disclosure exceptions, deadlines, remedies, retention, finality and enforceability. England and Wales, UK, Council of Europe and EU examples do not constitute a Cyprus or universal legal profile.", "Typed instance schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, custody standards, ICCS mappings, ECRIS eligibility and wire formats, PROV mappings and adversarial executable conformance fixtures remain incomplete. No runtime or legal-compliance certification is claimed.", "Specialist juvenile, cross-border, military, noncriminal regulatory and non-European procedures require additional research. Operational detention, forensic collection and sanction execution remain outside this dossier model.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Obtain independent external review and complete current-source and legal-profile verification before canonical promotion.", "Develop typed dossier profiles and fixtures for no-charge closure, partial outcomes, disputed identity, custody gaps, withheld material, review, erasure and lossy projections.", "Review specialist procedure coverage and pin separately owned evidence, case, decision and sanction-report interfaces before operational integration." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 9, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 36, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 6 } }