# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T17:12:38Z", "synthesisSha256": "05feb8b96ef4e2379351e879675c2535ae2e230b9c4587eed5ce4fa87f39f80c", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-014", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-014", "name": "Rights / Entitlements", "version": "0.1.0-reviewable.20261006", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "relationship", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL" ], "tags": [ "rights", "entitlements", "soc.pol" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-014-rights-entitlements/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-014", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-014", "model_id": "WM-POL-014", "name": "Rights / Entitlements", "entry_kind": "relationship", "purpose": "Describe a qualified assertion that a party holds or may exercise a right or entitlement concerning a referenced subject.", "scope_statement": "One identifiable rights relationship assertion, with holder, right kind, subject, basis, scope and evidence. The subject can be an object, service, benefit or legally defined interest. Instances can record contested, customary, collective or unregistered claims. Recording a relationship does not create, prove, grant or extinguish the underlying right. Host models may attach references to these relationships; this is not a universal ownership registry or a runtime permission engine.", "in_scope": [ "Assertion identity and normative basis; holder and subject references; rights-specific scope and conditions", "Co-holding, stewardship, delegation and supported exercise with evidence-qualified authority", "Effective periods, transfer and succession references, disputes, provenance, disclosure and record continuity" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Party, organization, object and benefit-program master lifecycles; legislation and policy authoring", "Access evaluation, consent processing, enforcement, audit-trail execution and payment or service delivery", "Adjudicating legal capacity, title, eligibility or competing claims; executing conveyances or succession", "Universal taxonomy of all rights, legal advice, jurisdiction-independent ownership or constitutional authority" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-PER-001", "distinction": "Holder, representative and supporter identities remain in Person; no disability-based incapacity inference.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ORG-001", "distinction": "Organization and collective-agent master records stay external; informal groups require a profile-qualified reference rather than forced incorporation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-002", "distinction": "Access Contract / Consent owns access and consent records. A title assertion is only possible evidence of authority, not a required or sufficient basis for every access grant.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-003", "distinction": "Projection / Disclosure Policy owns view definitions; only rights-record sensitivity and recipient requirements are carried here.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-038", "distinction": "Policy Evaluation owns runtime evaluation; local completeness checks cannot return an authoritative access or eligibility decision.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-009" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-004", "distinction": "Access Audit owns audit evidence and event execution; this model stores correlation references only.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-009", "distinction": "Court / Arbitration Case owns dispute proceedings. A case reference or appeal filing is not a final title determination.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-KNW-012", "distinction": "Policy / Rule owns versioned normative rule definitions; this relationship binds applicable rules without rewriting them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-013", "distinction": "Registry Mandate owns registrar competence; administrative custody cannot bootstrap legal power from the existence of this record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-REC-001", "distinction": "Document / Record owns instruments and evidence masters; local artifacts are identified views or references.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-035", "distinction": "Retention / Disposition provides policy and process bindings for lawful record disposal; deleting local data cannot extinguish an underlying right.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "ODRL Information Model 2.2", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-odrl-model-20180215/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation, 2018-02-15", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Sections 2.1-2.6 and 3 support parties, assets, actions, constraints and profile-qualified expression. Conceptual alignment only; no assertion of legal validity or ODRL conformance." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security", "organization": "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations", "url": "https://www.fao.org/4/i2801e/i2801e.pdf", "version_or_date": "2012, endorsed 2012-05-11", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Sections 3.1, 9, 11, 17 and 21: unrecorded and collective tenure, transactions, records and disputes. Voluntary sector guidance, not universal property law." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12", "organization": "United Nations", "url": "https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-12-equal-recognition-before-the-law.html", "version_or_date": "Convention adopted 2006-12-13; selected official indexed excerpts accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Legal capacity, support and safeguards, including will and preferences. Full browser fetch failed; selected official excerpts only, with treaty applicability and domestic implementation unverified." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "General comment No. 1 (Article 12: Equal recognition before the law)", "organization": "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights", "url": "https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/general-comment-no-1-article-12-equal-recognition-law-EN", "version_or_date": "Official overview dated 2021-06-24; describes General Comment No. 1 (2014)", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Official overview supports the shift from substitute to supported decision-making. Only the overview was reviewed; no full commentary or country-specific compliance claim." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Guide to Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) Definition and Considerations", "organization": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/162/upd2/final", "version_or_date": "SP 800-162, January 2014; update 2019-08-02", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Official abstract distinguishes attributes and policy evaluation for logical access. Supports an enforcement boundary, not a legal entitlement decision or a full ABAC implementation." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation, 2013-04-30", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Entity attribution, derivation, revision, invalidation and qualified delegation support evidence links. Provenance relations do not certify truth, legal authority or ownership." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)", "organization": "European Parliament and Council of the European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679", "version_or_date": "2016-04-27 act; selected official indexed text only, current consolidation unverified", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Article 5 storage limitation supports qualified retention questions. Full browser retrieval returned a challenge; no complete current-text review or automatic erasure entitlement is claimed." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", "organization": "United Nations", "url": "https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights", "version_or_date": "1948-12-10, resolution 217 A (III); selected official indexed excerpts", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Articles 2, 17 and 22 motivate non-discrimination, property and social-security context. Declaration-level reference, not a directly executable grant; full browser fetch was forbidden." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202)", "organization": "International Labour Organization", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB%3A12100%3A0%3A%3ANO%3A%3AP12100_ILO_CODE%3AR202", "version_or_date": "Adopted 2012-06-14", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T17:11:04Z", "relevance": "Official indexed paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 support nationally defined guarantees, conditions, levels and complaint routes. Direct browser open had a redirect loop. Recommendation, not an award or a universal benefit calculator." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-basis", "name": "Identity and basis", "description": "Identify what is asserted and distinguish its basis from the fact of recording it.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-assertion", "name": "Qualified rights assertion context", "description": "Proposed assertion identity separates a claimed relationship from its evidence and from the subject's existence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-assertion", "name": "Qualified rights assertion", "description": "Proposed assertion identity separates a claimed relationship from its evidence and from the subject's existence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "assertion-q1", "text": "Which master identifies this rights assertion and which evidence distinguishes it from a duplicate or rival claim?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "assertion ID", "master reference", "duplicate or rival references" ] }, { "id": "assertion-q2", "text": "What right kind is asserted, and is its recognition confirmed, contested, provisional or unknown under the named profile?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "right kind code", "recognition state", "profile and vocabulary version" ] }, { "id": "assertion-q3", "text": "What effect, if any, does registration have under the cited basis rather than under a local software convention?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "registration basis reference", "asserted legal effect", "reviewer and uncertainty" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "assertion-identity", "name": "Assertion identity", "description": "Identifier in the administering master, independent of object ID.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "assertion-classification", "name": "Right classification", "description": "Typed predicate, vocabulary version and recognition state; explicit unknowns allowed.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "assertion-artifact", "name": "Rights assertion summary", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for qualified rights assertion; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-basis", "name": "Normative and jurisdictional basis context", "description": "Link the actual authority or instrument. Declaration, recommendation, customary claim, contract and binding determination are not interchangeable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-basis", "name": "Normative and jurisdictional basis", "description": "Link the actual authority or instrument. Declaration, recommendation, customary claim, contract and binding determination are not interchangeable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "basis-q1", "text": "Which provision, instrument or customary basis supports this assertion and what authority does that source actually have?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "basis references", "source type", "authority qualification" ] }, { "id": "basis-q2", "text": "Which jurisdiction, community, sector and time-specific profile govern recognition of this entitlement?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "jurisdiction references", "community scope", "profile revision" ] }, { "id": "basis-q3", "text": "Who reviewed applicability and which conflicting or missing basis prevents a definitive recognition claim?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "applicability review", "conflicting basis", "unresolved limitations" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "basis-basis-ref", "name": "Basis references", "description": "Cited clauses or instruments and their assessed applicability; no automatic legal effect.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "basis-profile", "name": "Applicable profile", "description": "Jurisdiction and sector profile with version and unresolved applicability.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "basis-artifact", "name": "Basis and applicability note", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for normative and jurisdictional basis; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-parties", "name": "Holders and subjects", "description": "Keep parties, the subject and co-holding semantics explicit without owning their masters.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-parties", "name": "Holder and role bindings context", "description": "Separate the beneficiary or right holder from issuer, custodian, duty bearer and representative. A right need not have a discretionary grantor.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-parties", "name": "Holder and role bindings", "description": "Separate the beneficiary or right holder from issuer, custodian, duty bearer and representative. A right need not have a discretionary grantor.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "parties-q1", "text": "Which person, organization or collective is asserted to hold the right, and how is that party reference resolved?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "holder references", "master bindings", "collective representation basis" ] }, { "id": "parties-q2", "text": "Which other parties are grantor, duty bearer, registrar or custodian, and which roles are unknown or inapplicable?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "role bindings", "unknown roles", "custody distinction" ] }, { "id": "parties-q3", "text": "Which object, service, benefit or protected interest is the subject, and how are partial or multiple subjects delimited?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "subject references", "subject kind", "scope selectors" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "parties-holders", "name": "Holder bindings", "description": "One or more holder references with asserted roles, including unresolved external identifiers.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "parties-subjects", "name": "Subject bindings", "description": "References or profile-defined descriptions of the interest, asset or benefit, not copies of its lifecycle.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "parties-other-roles", "name": "Other roles", "description": "Separate role bindings; absent grantor does not invalidate a non-granted right.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "parties-artifact", "name": "Party and subject map", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for holder and role bindings; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-shares", "name": "Collective and fractional holding context", "description": "Proposed co-holding qualifiers preserve indivisible and customary holdings without forcing all rights into numeric ownership shares.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-shares", "name": "Collective and fractional holding", "description": "Proposed co-holding qualifiers preserve indivisible and customary holdings without forcing all rights into numeric ownership shares.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "shares-q1", "text": "Is the holding individual, joint, fractional, collective or another profile-defined form?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "holding form", "classification basis" ] }, { "id": "shares-q2", "text": "If shares are meaningful, what quantity, denominator and completeness rule apply without treating unknown shares as zero?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "share values", "denominator", "unknown portions", "completeness rule" ] }, { "id": "shares-q3", "text": "Which consent or representation rule governs exercise by a co-holder and which affected holders have unresolved objections?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "exercise rule reference", "affected holders", "objection references" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "shares-form", "name": "Holding form", "description": "Profile-defined joint or collective semantics; fractional arithmetic is conditional.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "shares-shares", "name": "Share assertions", "description": "Optional exact fractions or quantities with units, evidence and unknown markers.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "shares-artifact", "name": "Co-holding schedule", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for collective and fractional holding; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-exercise", "name": "Scope and conditions", "description": "Express what the relationship concerns and what evidence of qualification is needed.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-scope", "name": "Exercise scope and limitations context", "description": "Rights-specific selectors and referenced constraints describe an assertion. Evaluation and enforcement remain external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-scope", "name": "Exercise scope and limitations", "description": "Rights-specific selectors and referenced constraints describe an assertion. Evaluation and enforcement remain external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "scope-q1", "text": "Which acts, uses or benefits are within the asserted scope and which are explicitly excluded?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "scope terms", "excluded acts", "vocabulary reference" ] }, { "id": "scope-q2", "text": "What temporal, territorial, purpose or quantity constraints limit the assertion and which values remain unknown?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "constraint references", "parameter values", "unknown inputs" ] }, { "id": "scope-q3", "text": "Which external evaluation or access contract must be consulted before a requested operation can proceed?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "evaluator binding", "access contract reference", "required context" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "scope-scope", "name": "Scope declaration", "description": "Referenced actions or benefits with specific selectors; no runtime permit result.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "scope-constraints", "name": "Constraint bindings", "description": "Profile-owned conditions and rights-specific parameters.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "scope-artifact", "name": "Exercise scope statement", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for exercise scope and limitations; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-conditions", "name": "Qualification and obligation evidence context", "description": "Retain program conditions and obligation evidence without equating eligibility, award, payment and receipt.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-conditions", "name": "Qualification and obligation evidence", "description": "Retain program conditions and obligation evidence without equating eligibility, award, payment and receipt.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "conditions-q1", "text": "Which qualifying conditions and benefit level are prescribed by the applicable program and version?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "program reference", "qualifying rule references", "level expression" ] }, { "id": "conditions-q2", "text": "What evidence supports each qualification or duty and is its status fulfilled, unmet, disputed or unknown?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "condition-evidence links", "assessment references", "uncertainty" ] }, { "id": "conditions-q3", "text": "Does the record describe potential eligibility, an award, an exercise or fulfilled delivery, and which external record supports that distinction?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "entitlement stage", "award reference", "delivery reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "conditions-conditions", "name": "Qualification bindings", "description": "Versioned program and condition references, not a locally invented eligibility rule.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "conditions-assessments", "name": "Assessment links", "description": "External assessment, obligation or award evidence and distinct observed stage.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "conditions-artifact", "name": "Qualification evidence matrix", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for qualification and obligation evidence; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-representation", "name": "Delegation and supported exercise", "description": "Distinguish another party's activity from ownership and preserve the holder's own rights.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-delegation", "name": "Delegation and stewardship context", "description": "Proposed mandate qualifiers reference evidence of permitted representation; provenance alone is insufficient to establish legal authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-delegation", "name": "Delegation and stewardship", "description": "Proposed mandate qualifiers reference evidence of permitted representation; provenance alone is insufficient to establish legal authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "delegation-q1", "text": "What instrument authorizes the delegate or steward, for which holder and for which specific activities?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "mandate reference", "principal and delegate", "authorized scope" ] }, { "id": "delegation-q2", "text": "What limits, expiry and subdelegation rules apply, and can every link in the asserted chain be evidenced?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "chain references", "scope limits", "expiry", "subdelegation basis" ] }, { "id": "delegation-q3", "text": "What review or withdrawal evidence changes the mandate assertion without transferring the holder's underlying right?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "review reference", "withdrawal evidence", "affected mandate scope" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "delegation-mandates", "name": "Mandate bindings", "description": "Evidence-qualified principal, representative and power scope; stewardship is not beneficial ownership.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "delegation-chain", "name": "Delegation chain", "description": "Parent mandate and scope comparisons; missing links block authority claims.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "delegation-artifact", "name": "Mandate scope ledger", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for delegation and stewardship; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-support", "name": "Supported exercise and safeguards context", "description": "Record support and representation as distinct relationships. Never infer lack of legal capacity from disability or make a supporter the beneficial holder.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-support", "name": "Supported exercise and safeguards", "description": "Record support and representation as distinct relationships. Never infer lack of legal capacity from disability or make a supporter the beneficial holder.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "support-q1", "text": "What support or representation is requested or recorded, and what evidence preserves the person's own will and preferences?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "support arrangement reference", "will and preference evidence", "representation distinction" ] }, { "id": "support-q2", "text": "Which safeguards address conflict of interest, undue influence, proportionality and review of the arrangement?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "safeguard references", "review authority", "review time" ] }, { "id": "support-q3", "text": "How can the person contest or change the arrangement and access the relevant information in an accessible form?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "challenge route", "communication requirements", "unresolved objections" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "support-support", "name": "Support arrangement", "description": "Qualified reference distinguishing support, representation and a contested substitute arrangement.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "support-safeguards", "name": "Safeguard evidence", "description": "Minimal necessary evidence of preferences, independent review and challenge route.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "support-artifact", "name": "Supported exercise note", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for supported exercise and safeguards; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-continuity", "name": "Time and changes", "description": "Separate effective relationships, observed assertions and references to legally relevant changes.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-time", "name": "Effective and recorded state context", "description": "Proposed bitemporal assertions preserve corrections and uncertainty; local revision time does not establish the effective date of a right.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-time", "name": "Effective and recorded state", "description": "Proposed bitemporal assertions preserve corrections and uncertainty; local revision time does not establish the effective date of a right.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "time-q1", "text": "What effective interval and precision are supported for this assertion, including unknown or open bounds?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "effective interval", "time precision", "basis evidence" ] }, { "id": "time-q2", "text": "When was the assertion observed and recorded, and what earlier version did this observation correct?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "observation time", "record time", "revision reference" ] }, { "id": "time-q3", "text": "What evidence supports expiry, suspension or revival, and does it affect the right, its exercise or only the local record?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "state-change evidence", "affected level", "effective-time qualification" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "time-time", "name": "Temporal qualification", "description": "Separate effective, observed and recorded time with uncertainty and date precision.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "time-state", "name": "State evidence", "description": "Evidence-qualified state; no universal automatic transition rules.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "time-artifact", "name": "Temporal assertion history", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for effective and recorded state; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-transfer", "name": "Transfer and succession references context", "description": "Proposed change links preserve the predecessor assertion and distinguish a reported transaction from recognized effect. Inalienable rights are not transferable by default.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-transfer", "name": "Transfer and succession references", "description": "Proposed change links preserve the predecessor assertion and distinguish a reported transaction from recognized effect. Inalienable rights are not transferable by default.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "transfer-q1", "text": "Does the applicable right permit transfer or succession, and what rule or instrument establishes that possibility?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "transferability basis", "succession rule reference", "prohibition or uncertainty" ] }, { "id": "transfer-q2", "text": "Which predecessor and successor assertions are linked, and what scope, share or conditions are affected?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "predecessor and successor IDs", "affected scope", "condition references" ] }, { "id": "transfer-q3", "text": "What external execution, registration or determination evidence establishes the claimed change rather than merely its proposal?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "instrument reference", "completion evidence", "effective change assessment" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "transfer-changes", "name": "Change links", "description": "Transfer or succession instruments and linked assertions; no rewrite of historical holders.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "transfer-effect", "name": "Change qualification", "description": "Proposed, reported or recognized effect and its authority; death alone does not prove a successor.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "transfer-artifact", "name": "Continuity and succession map", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for transfer and succession references; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-assurance", "name": "Evidence and contest", "description": "Keep the origin of each claim and unresolved contradictions available for qualified review.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-evidence", "name": "Evidence and recognition quality context", "description": "Evidence attribution, integrity and freshness are different from legal truth. Both supporting and contrary material can qualify an assertion.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-evidence", "name": "Evidence and recognition quality", "description": "Evidence attribution, integrity and freshness are different from legal truth. Both supporting and contrary material can qualify an assertion.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-q1", "text": "Which instrument, testimony or record supports each material assertion and who supplied it?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "claim-evidence links", "source actor", "source form" ] }, { "id": "evidence-q2", "text": "What authenticity, integrity, completeness and freshness checks were performed and what did they not establish?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "check results", "digest if available", "limitations", "observation time" ] }, { "id": "evidence-q3", "text": "Which contradictions or missing records prevent a verified recognition status and who is assigned to review them?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "contrary evidence", "missing evidence", "review assignment" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "evidence-evidence", "name": "Evidence index", "description": "Master record references, source attribution and claim coverage including contrary evidence.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "evidence-quality", "name": "Quality assessments", "description": "Qualified checks with limits; document hash is not proof of title.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "evidence-artifact", "name": "Rights evidence index", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for evidence and recognition quality; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-contest", "name": "Disputes and remedy references context", "description": "Preserve disputed assertions and external remedy links without choosing a winner or treating every appeal as suspensive.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-contest", "name": "Disputes and remedy references", "description": "Preserve disputed assertions and external remedy links without choosing a winner or treating every appeal as suspensive.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "contest-q1", "text": "Which aspect of the assertion is disputed, by whom and on what recorded basis?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "disputed scope", "party reference", "challenge basis" ] }, { "id": "contest-q2", "text": "Which complaint, review or court route is applicable and what external case or deadline reference is available?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "remedy route", "case reference", "deadline source" ] }, { "id": "contest-q3", "text": "What authority-qualified outcome or interim measure affects this assertion and is its finality or suspensive effect still unresolved?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "outcome reference", "affected scope", "finality", "interim-effect qualification" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "contest-contests", "name": "Contest links", "description": "Disputed parts and complaint or case masters; no local adjudication.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "contest-outcomes", "name": "Outcome qualification", "description": "External decision effects linked to revisions, with finality and uncertainty retained.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "contest-artifact", "name": "Contest and remedy register", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for disputes and remedy references; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-exchange", "name": "Disclosure and interoperability", "description": "Protect evidence and preserve meaning when exchanging or retiring records.", "rationale": "Proposed grouping of rights-specific questions; cited sources motivate the concern but do not prescribe this hierarchy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and record continuity context", "description": "Adopting profiles must reconcile evidence needs with purpose-limited access and retention. Rights records are not public merely because a registry stores them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure and record continuity", "description": "Adopting profiles must reconcile evidence needs with purpose-limited access and retention. Rights records are not public merely because a registry stores them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "disclosure-q1", "text": "Which recipient and purpose justify each view of holder, support, financial or dispute information?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "recipient scope", "purpose", "disclosure-policy binding" ] }, { "id": "disclosure-q2", "text": "Which retention rule or hold applies to each payload, and who decides lawful disposal when evidence and privacy interests conflict?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "retention schedule", "hold basis", "disposition authority" ] }, { "id": "disclosure-q3", "text": "What minimal correction or disposal marker may remain without implying that erasure revoked the underlying right?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "correction reference", "lawful tombstone fields", "effect disclaimer" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "disclosure-disclosure", "name": "Disclosure binding", "description": "Sensitivity and recipient constraints bound to external disclosure policy.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "disclosure-retention", "name": "Retention binding", "description": "Payload-specific purpose, retention and hold references; no perpetual-history default.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "disclosure-artifact", "name": "Disclosure and continuity plan", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for disclosure and record continuity; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-mapping", "name": "Profile mappings and uncertainty context", "description": "Profiles must expose unsupported meanings, version drift and mapping loss. Exporting a rights assertion does not authorize its exercise.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-mapping", "name": "Profile mappings and uncertainty", "description": "Profiles must expose unsupported meanings, version drift and mapping loss. Exporting a rights assertion does not authorize its exercise.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "mapping-q1", "text": "Which pinned vocabulary and schema mappings preserve holder, scope, basis and evidence in the receiving profile?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "source and target profiles", "mapping version", "field correspondences" ] }, { "id": "mapping-q2", "text": "Which meanings such as collective holding or supported exercise cannot be faithfully projected and how are they marked?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "unmapped semantics", "loss markers", "rejection conditions" ] }, { "id": "mapping-q3", "text": "What test evidence distinguishes structural interchange from proven conformance, legal recognition and runtime enforceability?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "fixture references", "conformance scope", "unproven claims" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "mapping-mappings", "name": "Mapping declarations", "description": "Conceptual profile correspondence; require explicit review before deployment.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "mapping-losses", "name": "Mapping limitations", "description": "Unsupported terms, unknown values and prohibited silent defaults.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "mapping-artifact", "name": "Interoperability assessment", "description": "Proposed versioned evidence view for profile mappings and uncertainty; not an executed legal instrument or certificate.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "human-readable view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier first; governed IRI next; otherwise local UUID or ULID. Bind relationship ID, artifact revision and evidence references; a timestamp is not identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "function-record", "name": "Record a qualified assertion", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Prepare a provenance-linked rights relationship without claiming that recording creates the right.", "inputs": [ "Holder and subject bindings", "Right kind, basis and evidence" ], "outputs": [ "Draft assertion and evidence index", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "Master identity resolved or explicitly provisional", "Required unknowns marked, not silently defaulted" ], "effects": [ "Create a local draft with observed and recorded times", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-check", "name": "Check assertion completeness", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Check structure and reference availability, not legal truth or authorization.", "inputs": [ "Assertion revision", "Profile field rules" ], "outputs": [ "Completeness and unresolved-reference report", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "No fallback from missing basis to permit" ], "effects": [ "Attach a scoped local validation report", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "function-representation", "name": "Link representation evidence", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Record distinct support, stewardship or delegation references.", "inputs": [ "Holder and representative references", "Mandate or support evidence" ], "outputs": [ "Qualified representation links", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "Sensitive evidence minimized", "Chain gaps and conflicting preferences flagged for review" ], "effects": [ "Append evidence-qualified links without replacing the holder", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-change", "name": "Record an evidenced change", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an external transfer, correction or succession determination to a successor assertion.", "inputs": [ "Predecessor and proposed successor", "Change instrument and effective-time evidence" ], "outputs": [ "Change link and versioned assertion", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "Transferability and effect qualification supplied", "Concurrency checked; previous version retained subject to retention rules" ], "effects": [ "Append local continuity evidence; no conveyance executed", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "function-contest", "name": "Register a contest reference", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Attach disputed scope and a remedy route while leaving the substantive claim unresolved.", "inputs": [ "Assertion and disputed scope", "Challenge evidence and case reference" ], "outputs": [ "Contest annotation", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "Separate allegation from determination", "No inference of automatic suspension or finality" ], "effects": [ "Record a qualified contest state and review assignment", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "function-project", "name": "Prepare a scoped rights view", "description": "Proposed local operation, not implemented. Produce an evidence-qualified projection with mapping and redaction warnings.", "inputs": [ "Assertion revision", "Recipient purpose and approved disclosure profile", "Target mapping" ], "outputs": [ "Scoped local view and loss report", "Refusal or unresolved report with reasons" ], "preconditions": [ "Authenticated role and documented local write authority", "Pinned profile and expected record revision", "External access decision reference available and current for purpose", "Unsupported semantics cause explicit refusal or loss markers" ], "effects": [ "Generate a local view with revision and provenance; send nothing externally", "No legal grant, transfer, eligibility decision, enforcement or external-system mutation" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-PER-001", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Holder, representative and supporter identities remain in Person; no disability-based incapacity inference.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "WM-ORG-001", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Organization and collective-agent master records stay external; informal groups require a profile-qualified reference rather than forced incorporation.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-002", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Access Contract / Consent owns access and consent records. A title assertion is only possible evidence of authority, not a required or sufficient basis for every access grant.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-003", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Projection / Disclosure Policy owns view definitions; only rights-record sensitivity and recipient requirements are carried here.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-038", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Policy Evaluation owns runtime evaluation; local completeness checks cannot return an authoritative access or eligibility decision.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-004", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Access Audit owns audit evidence and event execution; this model stores correlation references only.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Court / Arbitration Case owns dispute proceedings. A case reference or appeal filing is not a final title determination.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "WM-KNW-012", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Policy / Rule owns versioned normative rule definitions; this relationship binds applicable rules without rewriting them.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-013", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Registry Mandate owns registrar competence; administrative custody cannot bootstrap legal power from the existence of this record.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "WM-REC-001", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Document / Record owns instruments and evidence masters; local artifacts are identified views or references.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-035", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Retention / Disposition provides policy and process bindings for lawful record disposal; deleting local data cannot extinguish an underlying right.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-odrl-model-20180215/", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual mapping to ODRL parties, targets and rule references only; implementation, profiles and legal-effect mappings remain untested.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual provenance and qualified delegation mapping only; provenance delegation does not prove a legally valid mandate.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "An accountable record steward and a separately evidenced authority profile; neither is presumed to own the subject's rights", "Named master systems for assertions, parties, subjects, instruments and dispute records", "Jurisdiction and sector profile, versioned vocabulary, retention rules and escalation roles", "All owners and roles use functional archetypes; no product or company is assigned ownership" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use wm-pol-014 for specification identifiers. Instance IRIs belong to the adopting Dimension; preserve external master IDs and distinguish assertion, subject and artifact revision.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-014", "WM-PER-001", "WM-ORG-001", "WM-XCT-002", "WM-XCT-038" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Keep this specification reviewable-draft and noncanonical while research holds remain", "Never canonicalize a contested assertion into established ownership through deduplication or last-write-wins", "Distinguish absence, unknown, not-applicable and negative evidence" ], "patch_rules": [ "Require revision preconditions, authorized role, rationale and evidence for each patch", "Material changes to holder, subject, right kind or basis require explicit identity-continuity review; use a new linked assertion where the relation changes", "Separate effective corrections from ingestion corrections and retain contrary evidence only under lawful retention" ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Pin vocabulary and neighboring model versions; no silent broadening of scope or authority", "Preserve unknowns and loss annotations; a representation change does not change legal effect" ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier", "Governed global identifier or IRI", "UUID or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension" ], "timestamp_rule": "Use RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit offset or Z for actual timestamps. Distinguish event/effective time from observation and ingestion time. Preserve date-only or uncertain legal dates with explicit precision; do not invent midnight.", "serial_naming_rule": "Name serial evidence views by stable assertion ID, artifact kind and revision; dates are metadata, not identity.", "integrity_rule": "Keep origin, content digest where available and source revision. Hash equality proves byte equality only; changes, redactions and mappings require lineage. Integrity rules do not mandate unlawful indefinite storage." }, "policies": [ "Rights and entitlements are evidence-qualified relationships, not a universal property claim over persons or data", "No autonomous legal-capacity, entitlement, conveyance or enforcement decision", "Unknown, disputed or expired authority blocks local claims of verified authority, not recognition that a person may still have a right", "Non-discrimination, supported exercise, collective claims and unregistered claims require explicit profile handling", "Dangerous or controlled subjects remain at policy, restriction and authority-reference level", "Independent external review, live source/version checks, legal profiles and executable conformance remain open" ], "crud": { "read": [ "Resolve recipient purpose and approved disclosure policy before reading payloads; hide restricted evidence and cross-holder portfolios", "Return evidence, revision and unresolved-state qualifications with any current-holder view" ], "create": [ "Require asserted holder, subject, predicate, basis and origin; provisional identifiers must remain visibly provisional", "Record claims as claims; do not demand formal registration for their existence" ], "update": [ "Use optimistic concurrency and evidence-linked revisions; no silent winner selection between rivals", "Record external recognition or withdrawal evidence separately from local review workflow" ], "delete": [ "Apply adopting-Dimension retention and lawful holds to local payloads; the bound retention/disposition process owns disposal execution", "Erase or redact permitted personal payloads and retain only a lawfully justified minimal tombstone; record deletion cannot revoke rights or erase external instruments" ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Record steward", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain local identity, quality and evidence links without assuming substantive ownership" ] }, { "name": "Authority reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Review basis and jurisdiction qualification; refer legal determinations to competent external authority" ] }, { "name": "Holder or authorized representative", "responsibilities": [ "Supply or contest scoped assertions through a profile-approved process" ] }, { "name": "Privacy and records custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Approve purpose-limited views, retention and disposition bindings" ] }, { "name": "Independent reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Review conflicts and assurance limits without modifying original evidence" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny local record access unless a purpose-appropriate external policy decision permits it; this software rule does not deny an underlying legal right.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Statutory disclosure, holder access or emergency exceptions require specific authority, scope and review; title alone is insufficient" ], "audit_requirements": [ "Reference external audit evidence for actor, purpose, scope, revision and policy decision without copying secret payloads", "Record failed or refused access through the bound audit system" ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md", "spec.yaml and visible research holds", "Adopting Dimension authority, privacy and retention policies", "Pinned party, subject, policy, record and evaluator references" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed rights relationship structure, reconciled with the registered ownership/stewardship predecessor. Selected international, technical and EU material motivates the questions without establishing universal legal rules. A separate local no-tools self-audit found no critical conflicts. Independent review, source verification, qualified legal profiles and executable conformance remain holds; this is a noncanonical reviewable draft.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Assertion identity is distinct from holder, subject and evidence identity." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Local corrections and externally evidenced legal changes remain distinct." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Holder, subject, representative, basis and neighboring masters are referenced." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Effective and observation time, precision and uncertain bounds are explicit." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Supporting and contrary evidence, origin and revision are linked." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Holding, custody, stewardship, collective shares and delegation are distinct." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research structure validates; nested instance schemas and legal applicability remain untested." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Record access delegates evaluation and disclosure; a rights claim is not an access token." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Local records follow qualified retention and holds; deletion does not extinguish rights." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "ODRL and PROV conceptual mappings need executable fixtures and loss tests." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Right kind, subject scope, effective interval, state and conditional shares are nonphysical properties." }, { "dimension": "physical measurements", "status": "not-applicable", "notes": "An abstract relationship has no mass or dimensions; subject measurements belong to referenced masters." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Recognized, contested and unknown assertions preserve authority and evidence limits." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and behavior", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local functions specify inputs, preconditions, refusal and bounded effects." }, { "dimension": "supported and collective exercise", "status": "covered", "notes": "Representation does not replace the holder; communal and indivisible holdings need profile semantics." }, { "dimension": "source verification", "status": "gap", "notes": "Selected browser or indexed official evidence only; direct HTTP not run and current applicability unresolved." }, { "dimension": "independent review", "status": "gap", "notes": "Claude and Grok skipped by owner; local self-audit cannot substitute for external review." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Nested machine-executable field schemas, cardinality refinements, status vocabularies and cross-reference constraints", "Detailed country-specific property, family, succession, benefit and customary-law profiles", "Treaty ratification, reservations, domestic effect, current consolidations and licensing review", "Complete taxonomy of rights including non-property rights; domain-specific remedies and calculation", "External provider review and coordinator-run direct source HTTP checks", "Executable ODRL/PROV mappings, retention process bindings and adversarial instance fixtures" ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "FAO guidance concerns tenure in land, fisheries and forests; extension to other subjects is a proposed modeling analogy only", "ILO R202 is guidance on nationally defined social-protection floors, not an individual award", "GDPR evidence is an EU retention example with incomplete retrieval; no universal retention period is asserted", "CRPD material and its official interpretive overview challenge legacy substitute-control assumptions; domestic implementation still requires review" ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Reject registration as a universal prerequisite for rights and reject default control by a root registrar", "Do not treat a supporter or delegate as owner or derive legal incapacity from disability", "Do not equate valid syntax, possession of evidence, legal title and runtime permission", "Do not divide collective or inalienable rights into transferable numeric shares by default", "A missing evidence link produces unresolved review, not denial or cancellation of a substantive right", "An appeal, signature, death event or local deletion has no universally inferred legal effect" ] }, "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": "relationship", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "The root is an identifiable, qualified assertion relating holder, right kind and subject under a cited basis. It can have several host references, rival assertions and revisions independently of its subjects. A host mixin is an attachment projection, not the root semantics. The registry standalone-mm tag is a record-plane label. The legacy universal ownership-register boundary is not retained." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Rights relationship boundary", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Holder, predicate, subject and basis form a qualified relationship with separate assertion identity. The 14 findings add context to this relation without owning party or object lifecycles." }, { "concept": "Registry suggestion of mixin plus reference", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Host attachment through references is compatible with the proposal. An independently evidenced relation can be contested and revised, so the root does not have to be a host-owned mixin." }, { "concept": "Legacy registration-created control", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "The proposal asks for the actual registration effect and allows unregistered claims. No local record or registrar role universally creates title or constitutional authority." }, { "concept": "Beyond property ownership", "disposition": "accepted with scope limits", "rationale": "The named model covers benefit and other legally defined interests as well as ownership-derived claims. References and profile questions avoid claiming a complete taxonomy or implementing benefit eligibility and delivery." }, { "concept": "Collective holding and shares", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Collective and indivisible interests are representable without arithmetic shares. Numeric completeness rules depend on a named profile; unknown portions are not treated as zero." }, { "concept": "Support and legacy substitute holding", "disposition": "legacy universal rule rejected", "rationale": "The supported-exercise finding keeps the person as holder, records will and preferences and asks about safeguards and challenge routes. Documenting a contested arrangement does not validate it or infer incapacity from disability." }, { "concept": "Delegation and stewardship", "disposition": "accepted as evidence context", "rationale": "The result distinguishes stewardship from beneficial ownership and requires evidence of scoped authority. A provenance delegation edge or policy inheritance is insufficient to establish a valid legal mandate." }, { "concept": "Time, transfer and succession", "disposition": "accepted with effect qualification", "rationale": "Effective and observation times remain separate. Transferability, completion and successor identity require evidence; a proposed transaction, death event or local revision does not automatically change rights." }, { "concept": "Disputes and recognition", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The evidence and contest findings preserve rival claims, contradictory material and external remedy references. They neither select a winner nor infer that an appeal is suspensive or a decision final." }, { "concept": "Composition and optional neighbor bindings", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "No existing relation-ledger row binds this model. Proposed neighbor references remain optional at specification level because applicability varies; this does not relax operation preconditions requiring actual authority, evidence and access bindings where used." }, { "concept": "Six local operations", "disposition": "accepted as proposals only", "rationale": "All functions state inputs, outputs, role and revision preconditions, refusal and bounded local effects. None grants or extinguishes a right, decides legal eligibility, executes a transfer, sends a view externally or enforces access." }, { "concept": "Privacy, retention and historical evidence", "disposition": "accepted with policy dependency", "rationale": "Local version history is qualified by lawful retention, payload erasure and minimal justified tombstones. Preservation requirements cannot be read as indefinite storage of personal information or as cancellation of rights by deletion." }, { "concept": "Source coverage and currentness", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Nine primary sources include five browser-accessible pages or documents and four sources limited to official indexed excerpts. Overview readings and selected clauses support bounded concerns; no full current-law or HTTP verification claim is permitted." }, { "concept": "Data schemas, mappings and conformance", "disposition": "deferred", "rationale": "The candidate field groups and 42 questions are substantive but do not implement nested instance schemas, status vocabularies, legal-effect rules or executable ODRL/PROV mappings. Proposed cases are not executed tests." }, { "concept": "Independent review", "disposition": "waived and held", "rationale": "This audit is a distinct no-tools semantic phase by Codex after evidence freeze. Claude and Grok were explicitly skipped, so no external provider agreement or independent second-provider review is claimed." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not an independent second-provider review.", "Source and version verification is incomplete. Direct HTTP was not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block: zero attempts and zero measured HTTP 200 responses. Five browser-accessible sources include two overview pages; four legal or public-authority sources were limited to official indexed excerpts. The coordinator checker is prepared; full-text, current-version and substantive claim checks remain open.", "Qualified jurisdiction and sector review is required for legal applicability, treaty implementation, customary or collective rights, supported exercise, representation, transferability, succession, benefit rules, remedies, privacy and retention. Translation and licensing checks remain open. No universal legal rule or legal-compliance certification is claimed.", "Nested instance schemas, explicit status vocabularies, pinned neighbor bindings, executable ODRL/PROV mappings and adversarial fixtures remain incomplete. Proposed local operations are unimplemented; structural research validation is not runtime, conformance or legal-effect validation.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Run the prepared HTTP checker outside the sandbox, inspect full primary texts and confirm current versions, licenses and claim support without equating HTTP success with legal verification.", "Develop qualified country and sector profiles, including unregistered collective interests, inalienable rights, supported exercise and non-property entitlements.", "Build nested schemas and meaningful fixtures for rival claims, unknown shares, missing delegation evidence, retroactive correction, disputed succession, lossy projections and lawful payload disposal.", "Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 9, "bundles": 7, "layers": 14, "findings": 14, "questions": 42, "artifacts": 14, "functions": 6 } }