# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T17:05:10Z", "synthesisSha256": "d3d5e475f2042579980e9f61fc3ee3b9b0dbd542db62f82b1b1f1594b58192f3", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-013", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-013", "name": "Registry Mandate", "version": "0.3.0-reviewable", "previousVersions": [ { "version": "0.2.0-legacy", "url": "https://ver.cy/models/world-a12-state-registry-mandate/" } ], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.RGY" ], "tags": [ "registry", "mandate", "soc.pol.rgy" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-013-registry-mandate/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-013", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-013", "model_id": "WM-POL-013", "name": "Registry Mandate", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Describe the evidenced public-law obligation or authority to maintain a defined register and the limits governing its registrar.", "scope_statement": "One persistent registry mandate record, qualified by jurisdiction, legal basis and effective scope. It records register definition, registrar designation, powers and governing rule references. It neither constitutes the operative register nor enacts or executes law. The catalogue of many mandates is a projection.", "in_scope": [ "Mandate identity, legal-source citations, asserted authority and uncertainty", "Territorial, subject and temporal applicability of the mandate", "Defined register purpose, data classes and identity rules as obligations", "Registrar designation, delegated powers and accountability requirements", "Qualified reliance, correction, disclosure, retention and transition rule references" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Register entries, registration transactions, database and registry runtime operations belong to the register master and WM-XCT-013", "Lawmaking, public-office and organization lifecycles remain external", "Correction applications, appeals, court decisions and enforcement execution remain separate cases", "Private voluntary lists without a public-law mandate are outside this model; no claim that all registries need a statutory mandate", "Operational identity resolution, synchronization, disclosure enforcement and disposal execution", "Weapons, detention and controlled-item registers beyond their abstract mandate and policy references" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-013 Registry Pattern", "distinction": "The frozen incoming REFERENCE leaves mandate issuance authority, jurisdiction and lifecycle here. The register master owns entries and operations. A register may cite multiple mandates; this record may bind multiple implementation references without owning them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-002 Lawmaking Process", "distinction": "Carry provision and instrument references; do not reproduce enactment workflow. A local assertion of effective status does not enact, repeal or interpret legislation authoritatively.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ORG-009 Public Office and WM-ORG-001 Organization", "distinction": "Store evidenced registrar assignment scope and intervals; reference the office or body master rather than owning appointments, staff or institutional lifecycle.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-017 Administrative Procedure / Case", "distinction": "Store correction and review pathways as governing requirements. Individual disputes, applications and decisions remain external case records.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "Legacy A12 and unreviewed supplement", "distinction": "Retain the mandate-versus-register distinction; reject universal statutory anchoring, blanket openness, date-only identity, unrestricted append-only personal data and inherited conformance claims.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Key Principles of a Business Registry", "organization": "United Nations Commission on International Trade Law", "url": "https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/msmes/legislativeguides/business_registry", "version_or_date": "2018 guide; official overview inspected through indexed content on 2026-10-06", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Official overview supports scoped register functions, identifiers, access exceptions and fees as legislative design questions. Nonbinding guidance; full guide retrieval failed." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Land Registration Act 2002", "organization": "UK Parliament", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/contents", "version_or_date": "2002 c.9; indexed revised contents observed on 2026-10-06; consolidated provisions not verified", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Selected official contents and indexed excerpts identify register scope, legal effect, inspection, correction and transition as separate concerns. No current provision-level rule is asserted." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Guidelines on the Legislative Framework for Civil Registration, Vital Statistics and Identity Management Systems", "organization": "United Nations Statistics Division", "url": "https://desapublications.un.org/file/1154/download", "version_or_date": "2023; ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/123", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Selected sections III.D, III.H, IV.C and IV.G support delegation, correction authority, confidentiality and sector-specific preservation questions. Guidance does not establish local law." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "General Data Protection Regulation", "organization": "European Parliament and Council of the European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679", "version_or_date": "Regulation (EU) 2016/679; selected indexed Articles 5, 23 and 86; current full text not verified", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Purpose limitation, legislated restrictions and reconciliation of public document access with personal-data protection. EU applicability and exceptions require an adoption profile." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Council conclusions on the European Legislation Identifier", "organization": "Council of the European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017XG1222(02)", "version_or_date": "6 November 2017; 2017/C 441/05", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Indexed official conclusions support voluntary URI and metadata alignment for legal sources, not mandatory identifiers or substantive legal validity." }, { "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": "W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Sections 3.1-3.3 distinguish entities, activities, attribution, delegation and revisions. Conceptual provenance alignment only; not legal authentication." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0. Part 1: XML Vocabulary", "organization": "OASIS", "url": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/os/part1-vocabulary/akn-core-v1.0-os-part1-vocabulary.html", "version_or_date": "OASIS Standard, 29 August 2018", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:02:56Z", "relevance": "Legal document structure and metadata alignment for linked mandate instruments. No implemented XML binding or legal-effect inference is claimed." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-authority", "name": "Mandate authority", "description": "Proposed mandate context for mandate authority.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-identity", "name": "Mandate identity", "description": "Give the obligation a stable identity distinct from its instruments, versions and implemented registers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-identity", "name": "Mandate identity", "description": "Give the obligation a stable identity distinct from its instruments, versions and implemented registers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-identity-1", "text": "Which authoritative identifier distinguishes this mandate from other obligations in the same legal instrument?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "mandate identifier", "issuing namespace", "provision locator", "reconciliation status" ] }, { "id": "question-identity-2", "text": "Is this an obligation, a permitted power or a proposed mandate awaiting legal authority?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "mandate class", "assessment status", "supporting provision" ] }, { "id": "question-identity-3", "text": "What evidence establishes that this record describes a mandate rather than a voluntary list?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "source reference", "version", "cited passage locator", "reviewer", "uncertainty" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-identity", "name": "Mandate identity profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: mandate ID, namespace, class, provision references and evidence status. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-identity", "name": "Identity assertion", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for mandate ID, namespace, class, provision references and evidence status. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-basis", "name": "Legal basis chain", "description": "Link the basis and implementing instruments without assuming every mandate originates directly in a constitution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-basis", "name": "Legal basis chain", "description": "Link the basis and implementing instruments without assuming every mandate originates directly in a constitution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-basis-1", "text": "Which competent issuer and provision authorize the duty to maintain this register?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "issuer reference", "enabling provision", "instrument type", "authority assessment" ] }, { "id": "question-basis-2", "text": "Which implementing rules depend on the enabling provision and what limits constrain them?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "instrument references", "dependency links", "delegated scope", "unresolved conflict" ] }, { "id": "question-basis-3", "text": "Which source version and interpretation support the asserted mandate wording?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "official text locator", "language", "version", "interpretation reference", "confidence" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-basis", "name": "Legal basis chain profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: instrument references, provision locators, hierarchy claims and review status. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-basis", "name": "Basis map", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for instrument references, provision locators, hierarchy claims and review status. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-applicability", "name": "Mandate applicability", "description": "Proposed mandate context for mandate applicability.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-jurisdiction", "name": "Jurisdiction and subject limits", "description": "Represent legal reach independently of the location of registry infrastructure.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-jurisdiction", "name": "Jurisdiction and subject limits", "description": "Represent legal reach independently of the location of registry infrastructure.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-jurisdiction-1", "text": "Which jurisdiction and territorial exceptions delimit this mandate?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "included territory", "excluded territory", "basis" ] }, { "id": "question-jurisdiction-2", "text": "Which subject categories fall within the mandate and which are expressly excluded?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "included classes", "exclusions", "legal definitions", "uncertainty" ] }, { "id": "question-jurisdiction-3", "text": "How are overlapping or contested mandates represented pending competent resolution?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "competing mandate references", "affected scope", "conflict status", "referral authority" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-jurisdiction", "name": "Jurisdiction and subject limits profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: territorial and subject scope, exclusions and unresolved overlap. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-jurisdiction", "name": "Applicability profile", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for territorial and subject scope, exclusions and unresolved overlap. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-time", "name": "Effective scope and change", "description": "Keep legal-effect assertions separate from recording time and operational availability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-time", "name": "Effective scope and change", "description": "Keep legal-effect assertions separate from recording time and operational availability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-time-1", "text": "When does each part of the mandate take effect and what commencement evidence supports that date?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "effective interval", "precision", "commencement reference", "conditions" ] }, { "id": "question-time-2", "text": "What is the evidenced current status, including partial suspension or unresolved applicability?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "asserted state", "affected scope", "as-of time", "evidence", "review status" ] }, { "id": "question-time-3", "text": "Which amendment, repeal or saving provision changes this mandate without erasing prior applicability?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "change instrument", "predecessor", "successor", "saved scope", "effective interval" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-time", "name": "Effective scope and change profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: effective intervals, source revisions, status assertions and supersession links. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-time", "name": "Mandate version record", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for effective intervals, source revisions, status assertions and supersession links. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-definition", "name": "Required register definition", "description": "Proposed mandate context for required register definition.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-purpose", "name": "Register purpose and boundaries", "description": "Describe the required register as a defined obligation, with optional links to operational instances.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-purpose", "name": "Register purpose and boundaries", "description": "Describe the required register as a defined obligation, with optional links to operational instances.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-purpose-1", "text": "What public purpose does the mandate assign to the register?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "purpose statement", "statutory task", "source locator" ] }, { "id": "question-purpose-2", "text": "Which register implementations discharge which parts of the mandate?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "register master references", "scope allocation", "binding version", "unknown implementation" ] }, { "id": "question-purpose-3", "text": "What distinguishes a required register from a mirror, index or derived publication?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "master role", "authoritative scope", "derived-from references", "recognition evidence" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-purpose", "name": "Register purpose and boundaries profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: defined register scope and implementation bindings without entry payloads. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-purpose", "name": "Register obligation map", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for defined register scope and implementation bindings without entry payloads. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-data", "name": "Mandated information and identifiers", "description": "Capture data and uniqueness requirements as constraints; entry validation and matching remain external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-data", "name": "Mandated information and identifiers", "description": "Capture data and uniqueness requirements as constraints; entry validation and matching remain external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-data-1", "text": "Which information classes are required, permitted or prohibited for the stated purpose?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "class reference", "requirement status", "purpose", "provision", "minimization rationale" ] }, { "id": "question-data-2", "text": "Which identifier and uniqueness rules are required within the register scope?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identifier scheme", "key domain", "uniqueness scope", "exceptions", "source" ] }, { "id": "question-data-3", "text": "Which collection or reuse proposals exceed the evidenced data scope?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "proposed purpose", "affected classes", "missing authority", "review disposition" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-data", "name": "Mandated information and identifiers profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: class constraints, purpose bindings and identifier requirements. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-data", "name": "Data-scope schedule", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for class constraints, purpose bindings and identifier requirements. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-stewardship", "name": "Registrar stewardship", "description": "Proposed mandate context for registrar stewardship.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-assignment", "name": "Registrar designation", "description": "Record the accountable role and designation evidence independently of infrastructure custody.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-assignment", "name": "Registrar designation", "description": "Record the accountable role and designation evidence independently of infrastructure custody.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-assignment-1", "text": "Which office or body is accountable for each mandated register scope?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "office or body reference", "responsibility scope", "designation source" ] }, { "id": "question-assignment-2", "text": "Which designation interval applies when a registrar changes or an acting arrangement begins?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "assignment identifier", "effective interval", "successor", "acting basis" ] }, { "id": "question-assignment-3", "text": "What proves the designation and how is an unresolved vacancy recorded?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "designation reference", "review status", "vacancy scope", "escalation route" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-assignment", "name": "Registrar designation profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: registrar references, effective assignments and vacancy assertions. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-assignment", "name": "Designation record", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for registrar references, effective assignments and vacancy assertions. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-powers", "name": "Delegation and reserved powers", "description": "Distinguish designated responsibilities from delegated or reserved powers; no system role creates legal competence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-powers", "name": "Delegation and reserved powers", "description": "Distinguish designated responsibilities from delegated or reserved powers; no system role creates legal competence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-powers-1", "text": "Which powers may the registrar exercise, delegate or only refer to another authority?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "power class", "actor role", "delegation limit", "reserved authority", "basis" ] }, { "id": "question-powers-2", "text": "What territorial, temporal or subject limits constrain a delegated power?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "delegation reference", "scope", "interval", "restriction", "supervisory role" ] }, { "id": "question-powers-3", "text": "What oversight evidence is required to assess delegated performance?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "report requirement", "assessor role", "evidence reference", "cadence basis", "finding status" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-powers", "name": "Delegation and reserved powers profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: power scopes, delegation references, limits and supervision requirements. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-powers", "name": "Power allocation record", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for power scopes, delegation references, limits and supervision requirements. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-trust", "name": "Legal effects and remedies", "description": "Proposed mandate context for legal effects and remedies.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-effect", "name": "Qualified reliance rules", "description": "Treat reliance and legal effect as evidenced rules for specified entry classes, never as a consequence of database presence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-effect", "name": "Qualified reliance rules", "description": "Treat reliance and legal effect as evidenced rules for specified entry classes, never as a consequence of database presence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-effect-1", "text": "Which legal effects or evidential presumptions attach to each entry class?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "entry class", "effect type", "provision", "applicability conditions", "unknown state" ] }, { "id": "question-effect-2", "text": "Which defects or exceptions limit reliance on an entry?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "exception class", "qualifying conditions", "source", "unresolved interpretation" ] }, { "id": "question-effect-3", "text": "What information must accompany a copy or extract to avoid overstating its legal effect?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "copy class", "issuer reference", "source version", "effect qualifier", "loss warning" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-effect", "name": "Qualified reliance rules profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: qualified legal-effect assertions and copy or extract constraints. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-effect", "name": "Reliance rule profile", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for qualified legal-effect assertions and copy or extract constraints. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-remedy", "name": "Correction and review requirements", "description": "Reference correction and challenge rules while keeping adjudication and entry mutation outside the mandate record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-remedy", "name": "Correction and review requirements", "description": "Reference correction and challenge rules while keeping adjudication and entry mutation outside the mandate record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-remedy-1", "text": "Which authority and procedure can correct each category of register error?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "error category", "competent authority", "procedure reference", "required evidence" ] }, { "id": "question-remedy-2", "text": "Who may request correction or review and under what standing requirements?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "applicant class", "representation basis", "standing conditions", "procedure reference" ] }, { "id": "question-remedy-3", "text": "Which time limits, review routes and interim effects apply to a challenge?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "trigger", "deadline rule reference", "review body", "interim effect", "unresolved rule" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-remedy", "name": "Correction and review requirements profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: correction authority, standing, procedure and challenge rule references. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-remedy", "name": "Remedy route profile", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for correction authority, standing, procedure and challenge rule references. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and exchange", "description": "Proposed mandate context for disclosure and exchange.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-access", "name": "Access and protected information", "description": "Separate public mandate metadata, register inspection, certified extracts and restricted personal data.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-access", "name": "Access and protected information", "description": "Separate public mandate metadata, register inspection, certified extracts and restricted personal data.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-access-1", "text": "Which audiences may access which information and in which form?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "recipient class", "field or view scope", "access basis", "output form" ] }, { "id": "question-access-2", "text": "What restrictions and redactions apply even when a register has a public purpose?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "protected class", "purpose", "exception basis", "redaction rule reference" ] }, { "id": "question-access-3", "text": "How are disclosure exceptions and refusals justified and reviewed?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "decision authority", "legal basis", "scope", "review route", "protected reason handling" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-access", "name": "Access and protected information profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: recipient-specific disclosure rules and exception references. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-access", "name": "Access regime profile", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for recipient-specific disclosure rules and exception references. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-exchange", "name": "Exchange and service obligations", "description": "Represent authorized exchanges, service conditions and fees as obligations rather than executable integrations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-exchange", "name": "Exchange and service obligations", "description": "Represent authorized exchanges, service conditions and fees as obligations rather than executable integrations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-exchange-1", "text": "Which recipient registers or agencies may receive data for which stated purposes?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "recipient master reference", "purpose", "data classes", "legal basis", "agreement reference" ] }, { "id": "question-exchange-2", "text": "Which accessibility, fee and service conditions apply to obtaining registry information?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "service class", "fee rule reference", "exemption", "access channel obligation", "qualification" ] }, { "id": "question-exchange-3", "text": "Which safeguards constrain cross-register transfer and onward use?", "kind": "security", "answer_data": [ "safeguard references", "recipient duty", "onward-use limit", "oversight evidence" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-exchange", "name": "Exchange and service obligations profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: permitted flows, service conditions and safeguard references. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-exchange", "name": "Exchange obligation profile", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for permitted flows, service conditions and safeguard references. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-continuity", "name": "Continuity and assurance", "description": "Proposed mandate context for continuity and assurance.", "rationale": "Group related legal requirements and their evidence without assuming a universal jurisdiction profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-retention", "name": "Preservation and transition", "description": "Keep mandate history and register preservation duties distinct; closure does not decide record disposal.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-retention", "name": "Preservation and transition", "description": "Keep mandate history and register preservation duties distinct; closure does not decide record disposal.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-retention-1", "text": "Which schedules govern mandate evidence and which separately govern registry records?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "record class", "schedule reference", "retention basis", "hold state", "responsible custodian" ] }, { "id": "question-retention-2", "text": "What continuity and transfer duties apply when the mandate or registrar is replaced?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "successor reference", "transfer authority", "pending obligations", "saved rights", "acceptance evidence" ] }, { "id": "question-retention-3", "text": "What permits disposal or continued preservation after the register closes?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "disposition authority", "archival duty", "hold", "privacy restriction", "unresolved conflict" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-retention", "name": "Preservation and transition profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: separate schedule bindings, succession requirements and disposition constraints. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-retention", "name": "Continuity obligation record", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for separate schedule bindings, succession requirements and disposition constraints. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-assurance", "name": "Evidence and alignment assurance", "description": "Make coverage, source limitations and mapping loss explicit; structure validation does not certify legality.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-assurance", "name": "Evidence and alignment assurance", "description": "Make coverage, source limitations and mapping loss explicit; structure validation does not certify legality.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "question-assurance-1", "text": "Which observations support an assertion that a register complies with its mandate?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "claim scope", "source", "observer", "observation time", "contrary evidence", "confidence" ] }, { "id": "question-assurance-2", "text": "Which obligations remain unassessed or disputed in the latest review?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "obligation identifier", "assessment state", "evidence gap", "reviewer", "next review condition" ] }, { "id": "question-assurance-3", "text": "Which legal-document and provenance mappings preserve meaning and where is information lost?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "mapping version", "source locator", "target binding", "loss report", "validation evidence" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-assurance", "name": "Evidence and alignment assurance profile", "description": "Candidate structured group: scoped evidence assessments, unresolved obligations and mapping loss reports. Profile schemas must define types, required subfields and unknown handling before use.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-assurance", "name": "Assurance assessment", "description": "Versioned local evidence view for scoped evidence assessments, unresolved obligations and mapping loss reports. It is not the authoritative legal instrument or an operational registry entry.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Human-readable evidence view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier and revision first; governed IRI next; local UUID with reconciliation state last. Link to mandate identity and keep sequence separate from event dates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "function-record-basis", "name": "Record mandate basis", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Prepare a local mandate identity and basis assertion.", "inputs": [ "Namespace and mandate key", "Instrument references and scope", "Source and uncertainty" ], "outputs": [ "New local evidence record or unresolved-basis report", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "Creates no legal mandate and no registry.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "function-revise-scope", "name": "Record evidenced scope revision", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append a local version describing an evidenced legal change.", "inputs": [ "Expected revision", "Change instrument and affected scope", "Effective interval and saving provisions" ], "outputs": [ "New scoped revision or conflict report", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "Does not enact, repeal, suspend or resolve contested law.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-link-registrar", "name": "Link registrar designation", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record an externally evidenced designation or delegation assertion.", "inputs": [ "Office or body master reference", "Designation basis and interval", "Power scope and supervisory limits" ], "outputs": [ "Versioned designation link or incomplete-authority report", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "Does not appoint anyone or grant legal or technical privileges.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-assess-coverage", "name": "Assess evidence coverage", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Compare supplied evidence with the recorded obligation list using a qualified profile.", "inputs": [ "Obligation list", "Evidence references and observation dates", "Approved assessment criteria" ], "outputs": [ "Covered, unassessed, disputed and stale assertion report", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "Reports research coverage only; no legal compliance certification or enforcement.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-prepare-view", "name": "Prepare authorized mandate view", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Construct a local preview of mandate metadata under an approved access profile.", "inputs": [ "Recipient role and purpose", "Approved disclosure rules", "Requested fields and current revision" ], "outputs": [ "Redacted preview and withheld-field reasons or refusal", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "No external disclosure or registry data export occurs.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "function-record-transition", "name": "Record continuity requirements", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append a local succession or retirement proposal linked to governing evidence.", "inputs": [ "Successor mandate or custodian reference", "Saving and retention rule references", "Open disputes and transfer requirements" ], "outputs": [ "Continuity proposal or unresolved-disposition report", "Refusal with missing authority, stale revision or unresolved scope reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated actor has a purpose-bound local editing or reading role", "Pinned source and applicable profile are supplied; missing legal authority remains unknown", "Expected revision matches; local writes use an idempotency key", "Required human assessment of disputed legal meaning is recorded before promoting an assertion" ], "effects": [ "Does not close a registry, transfer custody or dispose of records.", "Any local mutation appends actor, purpose, source and revision provenance; correction supersedes rather than silently overwrites. No irreversible external effect." ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-XCT-013", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Reciprocal instance binding for the frozen incoming registry-to-mandate REFERENCE. Register operations and entries stay in the target; do not infer mandatory runtime dependencies. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-002", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate binding to lawmaking and enactment records; local mandate assertions retain legal-source references only. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-ORG-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate public-office master binding for accountable registrar role; appointments and office lifecycle remain external. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-ORG-001", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate organization master binding when the registrar is a body; no institutional lifecycle copied. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-017", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate case reference for correction or review proceedings; no adjudication workflow owned here. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-035", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate retention/disposition rule binding; disposal execution belongs to the authorized records service. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-004", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate access-audit evidence link; audit event and log lifecycle stay external. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "European Legislation Identifier", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Optional legal-instrument URI and metadata mapping; the mandate ID is not automatically the act URI. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "Akoma Ntoso 1.0", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Optional provision and document metadata mapping, without wildcard imports or conformance claims. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Optional provenance mapping for assertion source, agent and revision; attribution does not establish legal authority. Pin and validate the binding before operational integration.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Identify the competent public authority and mandate evidence custodian by role and stable reference", "Declare jurisdiction, source-version policy, legal-review responsibility and unknown handling", "Declare namespace, access profile, record-class retention rules and incident escalation" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use authority-qualified opaque mandate identifiers. Preserve act and provision references separately; dates, titles and registrar names alone are not keys.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-013", "WM-XCT-013 reference bindings require version and scope review" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Normalize only evidence-supported aliases within a declared namespace; preserve conflicting assertions separately", "Distinguish authoritative legal text, local interpretation and operational compliance evidence; do not infer legal truth from a digest" ], "patch_rules": [ "Require actor, reason, source locator, expected revision and idempotency key for local writes", "Record scoped supersession and distinguish legal-effect time from recording time; redact or erase personal payload when lawfully required" ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version legal profiles and mappings; report dropped exceptions, source qualifiers and effective intervals as material loss", "A compatibility claim cannot convert a legacy conformance label into demonstrated conformance" ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier with namespace and revision", "Governed stable IRI with version and provenance", "Local opaque UUID or ULID with reconciliation state" ], "timestamp_rule": "Observation and event instants use RFC 3339 with seconds and an explicit offset or Z. Keep asserted legal-effect time, publication time and ingestion time separate. Preserve date-only legal values and precision without inventing midnight instants.", "serial_naming_rule": "Use mandate key, artifact class and immutable revision or sequence; no personal identifiers in names.", "integrity_rule": "Record digest algorithm, source locator and transformation history where available. Byte integrity does not establish authenticity, applicability, legal effect or correctness." }, "policies": [ "Reviewable draft under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver; no independent external review exists", "Use only qualified jurisdiction and sector profiles; selected EU, land and civil-registration examples are not universal law", "Apply purpose-limited views and minimum personal data. A public mandate does not make all register data public", "Dangerous-domain references remain at policy level. No local function authorizes controlled operations or enforcement", "A local metadata write cannot enact a mandate, appoint a registrar, correct an entry or determine a legal remedy" ], "crud": { "read": [ "Authorize recipient, purpose and scope; show source versions, uncertainty and relevant holds with each view" ], "create": [ "Require local mandate identity, custodian and source references or explicit pending-evidence state; never advertise pending authority as established" ], "update": [ "Append evidenced revisions under concurrency control; retain supersession and dispute links without indefinite personal payload retention" ], "delete": [ "Local evidence retention schedules, legal holds and lawful erasure duties must be resolved per record class before disposal", "Retire and retain a minimal non-identifying tombstone where lawful. Authorized adopting-Dimension records services execute deletion; this model stores governing references and results", "Deleting local evidence does not repeal a mandate or authorize deletion of register entries. Permanent archival rules are sector-specific, not a default for all payloads" ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Competent issuing authority", "responsibilities": [ "Establish mandate and amendment authority outside the local record system" ] }, { "name": "Mandate evidence custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain stable local identity, source references and version continuity" ] }, { "name": "Registrar", "responsibilities": [ "Supply designation and scoped accountability evidence without expanding powers" ] }, { "name": "Legal reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Assess applicable legal instruments, conflicts, exceptions and remedies" ] }, { "name": "Access and records officer", "responsibilities": [ "Approve views, schedule bindings, lawful holds and disposition evidence" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny unapproved disclosure of evidence payloads. Publish mandate metadata only under an explicit authorized view; system ownership conveys no legal competence.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Statutory or emergency exceptions require specific basis, actor, limited scope and review; no generic bypass", "Separate public inspection, subject access and oversight views; protect sensitive reasons and linked case records" ], "audit_requirements": [ "Record actor, purpose, scope, source version and outcome for reads, exports and changes; apply minimal-data retention", "Reference external audit records rather than replicating audit-trail semantics" ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md and adopting authority policies", "spec.yaml and publication holds", "Applicable legal-source versions, approved profile and role-specific evidence view" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Proposed evidence-grounded structure for one public-law registry mandate, with bounded land, business and civil-registration examples. Separate frozen local no-tools self-audit completed. This remains a noncanonical reviewable draft with independent-review, source/version, legal-profile and executable-conformance holds.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Stable mandate key distinct from act, provision and implemented register." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Scoped commencement, amendment, succession, suspension and repeal assertions." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Frozen registry-to-mandate boundary honored; other masters referenced." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Legal applicability and observation times separated; partial effects and saving rules elicited." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Source, actor, version, locator, disputes and confidence retained." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competent authority, custodian and registrar have distinct responsibilities." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research structure is validated; nested instance schema and legal-profile conformance are unimplemented." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Mandate metadata and register payload disclosure use separate authorized views." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Mandate evidence schedules differ from register duties; closure and repeal do not imply disposal." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "ELI, Akoma Ntoso and PROV-O conceptual mappings need pinned bindings and loss tests." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Jurisdiction, subject, mandate class, intervals and status are nonphysical properties." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Evidence distinguishes mandate, instrument, register, mirror and voluntary list." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and hazards", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local operations expose preconditions and refusal; no legally effective action." }, { "dimension": "physical measurements", "status": "not-applicable", "notes": "An abstract legal mandate has no mass or dimensions; territorial reach is a legal reference, not physical extent measurement." }, { "dimension": "context and evidence", "status": "covered", "notes": "Sector and jurisdiction qualifications constrain every legal-effect assertion." }, { "dimension": "independent review and sources", "status": "gap", "notes": "Provider waiver and incomplete direct HTTP/current-version verification remain explicit holds." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent external provider review is absent; local no-tools self-audit is not independent review", "Current consolidated legal versions, full inaccessible texts, language and licensing checks remain incomplete", "Nested instance schemas, profile-specific required fields, legal-effect evaluation and executable conformance fixtures are not supplied", "Country-specific constitutional hierarchy, fee rules, appeal periods, archival schedules and cross-border recognition need qualified research", "Sensitive-sector, customary-law and non-European mandate profiles are not validated" ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "UK land legislation is used as a bounded structural example, not a current-law opinion or a rule for other registers", "UN business and civil-registration guidance is nonbinding and sector-specific", "GDPR examples are EU-specific; applicability, exemptions and local access regimes must be independently reviewed" ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Do not infer that every registry is statutory or that absent mandate evidence proves illegality", "Do not infer registrar authority from a technical administrator account", "Do not infer public faith or guaranteed correctness from entry presence or a source digest", "Do not collapse mandate repeal, register closure, deletion and saved legal effects", "Do not interpret a no-tools Codex self-audit as waived-provider agreement" ] }, "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 mandate retains identity across registrar, legal-source and implementation changes. A directory of mandates is a projection. The registry standalone-mm value describes the record plane rather than subject kind. The incoming WM-XCT-013 reference leaves mandate authority, jurisdiction and lifecycle here while register operations stay external." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Persistent mandate root", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The mandate key is distinct from act, provision, version, registrar and implemented register. Several duties in one instrument need not collapse into one record." }, { "concept": "Registry ownership boundary", "disposition": "accepted with optional bindings", "rationale": "All questions and functions describe mandate requirements or local evidence. Entries, matching, registry runtime, operational correction and disclosure execution remain external; reciprocal bindings do not amend the shared ledger." }, { "concept": "Universal statutory anchoring", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "The subject is a public-law mandate, but the model does not claim all registries are statutory. Duty, permission, proposal and unknown authority are distinguished. Missing evidence does not establish illegality." }, { "concept": "Legal basis and temporal effect", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Constitutional, enabling and implementing sources are elicited without assuming a universal hierarchy. Effective dates, partial changes and saving provisions remain evidence-qualified rather than executable legal decisions." }, { "concept": "Registrar authority and delegation", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Designation and power scope are separate from infrastructure custody. Office and organization lifecycles remain referenced; local operations neither appoint a registrar nor grant privileges." }, { "concept": "Reliance and public faith", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Entry classes, conditions and exceptions determine asserted effects. Database presence, metadata, attribution and digests cannot establish correctness or universal reliance rights." }, { "concept": "Correction and challenge", "disposition": "accepted as governing references", "rationale": "The mandate carries authority, standing and procedure requirements. Individual applications and adjudication stay in separate case masters, with no numeric deadline or automatic interim effect asserted." }, { "concept": "Public access and exchange", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Authorized mandate metadata is distinct from register payloads and case evidence. Purpose, recipient, protected fields and exception bases constrain proposed views and exchanges." }, { "concept": "Continuity and disposal", "disposition": "accepted with profile dependency", "rationale": "Record-class schedules reconcile sector-specific preservation, lawful erasure and holds. Repeal or closure does not itself authorize disposal, and local deletion cannot repeal a mandate." }, { "concept": "Local operations and artifacts", "disposition": "accepted as proposed only", "rationale": "Six unimplemented operations expose preconditions, refusal and local effects. Fourteen versioned evidence artifacts preserve master identity without claiming to be operative instruments or registry entries." }, { "concept": "Legacy conformance and granted-right link", "disposition": "not inherited", "rationale": "The legacy labels and wildcard imports lack demonstrated conformance. A granted right is not treated as a register or as an owned mandate child merely because the legacy text linked it." }, { "concept": "Source assurance", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Readable selected documents and indexed official excerpts support bounded questions. Retrieval barriers, unverified consolidated law and zero direct HTTP attempts remain explicit; institutional families are not independent reviewers." }, { "concept": "Instance schema and standards mappings", "disposition": "deferred", "rationale": "Optional candidate object groups and conceptual ELI, Akoma Ntoso and PROV-O alignments do not establish required nested fields, round-trip fidelity, runtime behavior or legal compliance." }, { "concept": "Independent review", "disposition": "waived and held", "rationale": "Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts under the explicit owner override. A separate local Codex no-tools self-audit cannot be represented as an independent second-provider review." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts; the local Codex no-tools self-audit is not independent review.", "Source and version verification remains incomplete. Direct HTTP was not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox restriction, so no status was measured. Three admitted documents were readable through the browser tool; four rely on selected indexed official evidence. Full inaccessible texts, consolidated versions, licensing and applicability require verification; run check_sources.py outside the sandbox and complete claim-level review.", "Qualified jurisdiction and sector review is required for legal hierarchy, authority, entry effects, standing, access, fees, deadlines, preservation, saving provisions and cross-border recognition. No operational legal guidance or universal mandate rule is certified.", "Nested instance schemas, profile-specific mandatory fields, pinned neighbor bindings, ELI/Akoma Ntoso/PROV-O mappings and executable adversarial fixtures remain incomplete. Structural research validity is not runtime conformance.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Verify inaccessible full texts, current consolidated versions, legal applicability, source licensing and claim-level support before any canonical promotion.", "Develop qualified jurisdiction and sector profiles, including contested authority, partial repeal, public-data exceptions and archival continuity.", "Implement and test nested schemas, pinned bindings and mappings with the proposed negative fixtures.", "Restore independent external review before promotion beyond reviewable-draft." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 7, "bundles": 7, "layers": 14, "findings": 14, "questions": 42, "artifacts": 14, "functions": 6 } }