# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-03T01:10:52Z", "synthesisSha256": "4e229741de19c35477ca03d4d19f2d78bc5c3a63b8156ba0241cdd389e28be9e", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Claude" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-015", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-015", "name": "Jurisdiction", "version": "0.3.0-research.1", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.JUR" ], "tags": [ "jurisdiction", "soc.pol.jur" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-015", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-015", "model_id": "WM-POL-015", "name": "Jurisdiction", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Describe, in a storage- and interface-neutral way, the bounded competence of an authority: which authority-holder may act, over what territory, persons, subject matter and period, on what legal basis, and how that competence relates to, yields to or is excluded by other competences.", "scope_statement": "A Jurisdiction record binds an identified authority-holder to a delimited competence and records the evidence for that delimitation. It covers identity and coding of jurisdictions and their subdivisions; the conferring instrument and category of competence; the four scope axes (territorial, personal, material, temporal); the declared type of power (prescriptive, adjudicative, enforcement) as a classification only; relations between jurisdictions (hierarchy, concurrency, exclusivity, delegation); immunities, reservations and derogations that narrow scope; lifecycle change including succession and cession; provenance, contestation and validation; and interoperability with external territorial and legal identifier schemes. It does not author geometry, does not hold legal instruments, does not decide a concrete case, and does not evaluate, execute, enforce or audit anything at runtime.", "in_scope": [ "Identity, naming and versioned records for jurisdictions and jurisdictional subdivisions, including supranational, State, sub-State and specialised tribunal scopes", "Alignment to external territorial code lists (ISO 3166-1/-2 as normatively referenced by other standards, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL, NUTS) without asserting conformance", "Authority-holder binding by reference and the conferring or constituting instrument cited as legal basis", "Category of competence and exclusivity (exclusive, shared, supporting/coordinating) and the principle of conferral", "Territorial scope by reference, including land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf and superjacent airspace", "Personal scope and connecting factors (domicile, habitual residence, nationality, seat, place of conduct, place of effect, targeting)", "Material or subject-matter scope, including declared subject-matter competence catalogues", "Temporal scope: entry into force, applicability window, non-retroactivity and jurisdiction ratione temporis", "Declared classification of power type as prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement competence", "Inter-jurisdictional relations: hierarchy and supremacy, subsidiarity, concurrency, priority and lis pendens references", "Immunities, privileges, reservations, opt-outs, derogations and carve-outs that narrow declared scope", "Forum-selection and recognition bindings recorded as references to the governing instrument", "Lifecycle of the jurisdiction record: establishment, extension, reduction, transfer, cession, merger, split, suspension, termination and State succession", "Provenance, official-publication attestation, contested or overlapping claims, and validation status with currency" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Authoring or storing boundary geometry, coordinate reference systems or topology; these belong to the parent place and administrative-unit spatial model", "Holding the text, consolidation, FRBR expressions or in-force computation of legal instruments; these belong to the legislation model addressed by ELI and Akoma Ntoso", "Deciding the competent forum, the applicable law or the outcome of a concrete dispute; this model produces advisory candidate sets only", "Runtime policy evaluation, decision execution, enforcement action and enforcement outcomes; these are owned by a referenced policy-decision and enforcement runtime model", "Audit-trail semantics, audit record schemas and audit retention execution; the model emits provenance about its own records only and never owns another model's audit trail", "Court dockets, case files, judgments and case-law citation graphs, which belong to the case-law identification model addressed by ECLI", "Organisational structure, appointments, budgets and staffing of the authority-holder, held in the public-authority organisation model", "Legal-entity master data such as LEI reference data, ownership structures and registration-authority records, mastered by GLEIF and Local Operating Units", "Statistical territorial classification for reporting purposes as an authority claim; NUTS units are statistical and are aligned to, not treated as, jurisdictions", "Natural-person nationality, citizenship or residence registries, and postal address formats", "Tax rate schedules, treaty-benefit computation and customs tariff calculation" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "Parent place and administrative-unit spatial model (WM-PLC-004; INSPIRE Administrative Units theme)", "distinction": "The spatial model owns AdministrativeUnit and AdministrativeBoundary features, their geometry, national levels and boundary editing lifecycle. Jurisdiction carries only a resolvable reference to those features plus the competence semantics attached to them, and never re-authors or re-versions geometry locally.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "neighbor": "Statistical territorial classification (NUTS, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003)", "distinction": "NUTS levels exist to enable collection and dissemination of European statistics and are built from administrative units subject to population thresholds and a triennial amendment cadence. A NUTS unit is therefore an alignment target for reporting, not evidence that an authority holds decision-making power over that area.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "neighbor": "Legislation and legal-instrument model (ELI, Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention)", "distinction": "ELI and the Akoma Ntoso FRBR Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item stack own instrument identity, versioning and publication. Jurisdiction cites an instrument as the legal basis for a competence; it must not mirror expression-level versioning, consolidation or in-force computation of that instrument.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "Applicable-law / conflict-of-laws model (Rome I, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008)", "distinction": "Rome I governs which law applies to a contractual obligation, including party choice, default connecting rules, overriding mandatory provisions and the public-policy exception. Brussels Ia governs which court has jurisdiction. Choice of law and choice of forum are separate determinations and this model owns only the forum-scope side, by reference.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-011" ] }, { "neighbor": "Case-law identification model (ECLI)", "distinction": "ECLI identifies individual judgments through country code, court code, year and ordinal number. Jurisdiction may align to the ECLI court code as an identifier for an adjudicative authority, but judgments, dockets and citation metadata are not modelled here.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] }, { "neighbor": "Legal-entity registry model (ISO 17442 / GLEIF Global LEI Index)", "distinction": "The LEI record masters an entity's legal jurisdiction and registration authority as entity reference data. Jurisdiction consumes those values as connecting-factor inputs by reference and never becomes a second master for entity reference data.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018" ] }, { "neighbor": "Policy-decision, enforcement and audit runtime", "distinction": "This model supplies scope facts and advisory candidate sets. Evaluation of a rule against a case, issuance of a decision, enforcement action against a party outside the territory, and the audit trail of those acts are wholly owned by the runtime model. Enforcement jurisdiction is recorded here only as a declared classification, never as an executed capability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-016", "SRC-019" ] }, { "neighbor": "Territorial code maintenance agencies (ISO 3166 series, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL)", "distinction": "Code assignment, retirement and re-use rules belong to the maintaining agency. UNSD explicitly states that grouping assignments are for statistical convenience and imply no position on political affiliation or legal status. Alignment entries here are assertions with a match strength, not conformance claims.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-015" ] }, { "neighbor": "Maritime delimitation and law-of-the-sea model", "distinction": "UNCLOS fixes zone breadths and the content of coastal-State rights per zone. A maritime jurisdiction record specialises the generic Jurisdiction entity with zone type, baseline reference and deposited-coordinate reference; it does not redefine zone entitlements, delimitation methodology or dispute settlement machinery.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49)", "organization": "United Nations Statistics Division", "url": "https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/", "version_or_date": "Online edition (Series M No. 49), consulted 2026-09-03", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Authoritative three-digit numeric codes and regional groupings for countries or areas, with the explicit caveat that groupings are for statistical convenience and imply no view on political affiliation or legal status of any territory." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention Version 1.0", "organization": "OASIS LegalDocML Technical Committee", "url": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-nc/v1.0/akn-nc-v1.0.html", "version_or_date": "Version 1.0, OASIS Standard, 21 February 2019", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Normatively requires a country or subdivision code per ISO 3166-1 or ISO 3166-2 in the Work IRI and in FRBRcountry, and defines the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item levels that this model must not duplicate." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "European Legislation Identifier (ELI) — About", "organization": "Publications Office of the European Union / EUR-Lex", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli-register/about.html", "version_or_date": "Consulted 2026-09-03", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Defines the four ELI pillars (identification by URI, metadata description including jurisdiction, machine-readable publication, synchronisation) and a FRBR-based common data model for legislation metadata." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia)", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R1215", "version_or_date": "OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1; applies to proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Primary evidence for general jurisdiction by domicile (Art. 4), special jurisdiction heads (Art. 7), exclusive jurisdiction (Art. 24), prorogation by choice-of-court agreement (Art. 25), lis pendens (Art. 29) and explicit material-scope exclusions (Art. 1)." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part II — Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone", "organization": "United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea", "url": "https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm", "version_or_date": "UNCLOS, 10 December 1982; in force 16 November 1994", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Fixes the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea (Art. 3), baselines (Arts. 5, 7), sovereignty over seabed, subsoil and superjacent airspace (Art. 2), innocent passage (Art. 17) and the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone with its customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary control (Art. 33)." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V — Exclusive Economic Zone", "organization": "United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea", "url": "https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm", "version_or_date": "UNCLOS, 10 December 1982; in force 16 November 1994", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Establishes the 200-nautical-mile EEZ (Art. 57) and shows that competence can be functional and partial: sovereign rights over resources plus jurisdiction over artificial islands, marine scientific research and environmental protection (Art. 56), coexisting with other States' freedoms (Art. 58)." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court", "organization": "United Nations / International Criminal Court", "url": "https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm", "version_or_date": "Adopted 17 July 1998 (corrected text A/CONF.183/9)", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Canonical worked example of the four scope axes in one instrument: subject-matter limits (Art. 5), jurisdiction ratione temporis with non-retroactivity and Art. 12(3) declarations (Art. 11), territorial and nationality preconditions (Art. 12), trigger mechanisms (Art. 13) and complementarity/admissibility against national jurisdictions (Art. 17)." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements", "organization": "Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)", "url": "https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98", "version_or_date": "Concluded 30 June 2005; entered into force 1 October 2015", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Evidence that jurisdiction can be created and excluded by party agreement, that the chosen court must not decline on forum grounds (Art. 5(2)), that non-chosen courts must suspend or dismiss, and that recognition may be refused on enumerated grounds including public policy." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Sources of Law (LEX)", "organization": "Internet Engineering Task Force (Internet-Draft)", "url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spinosa-urn-lex", "version_or_date": "draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24, 17 August 2024", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Defines a jurisdiction component with hierarchical jurisdictional units (federal, state, municipal), recommends ISO 3166-1, requires that jurisdiction codes MUST NOT be renamed and may only be marked obsolete, and assigns a Jurisdictional Registrar per jurisdiction — directly supporting identifier stability and tombstoning rules." }, { "id": "SRC-010", "title": "European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)", "organization": "European Commission — European e-Justice Portal", "url": "https://e-justice.europa.eu/175/EN/european_case_law_identifier_ecli", "version_or_date": "Consulted 2026-09-03; established by Council conclusions (CELEX 52011XG0429(01))", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Five-component identifier including country code and court code, providing a governed external token for adjudicative authorities and a clean boundary between authority identity and judgment identity." }, { "id": "SRC-011", "title": "Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008R0593", "version_or_date": "OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6; applies from 17 December 2009", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Establishes the separation of applicable law from competent forum, plus overriding mandatory provisions (Art. 9) and the public-policy exception (Art. 21) as mechanisms that limit an otherwise applicable legal order." }, { "id": "SRC-012", "title": "Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 on a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS), consolidated text", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02003R1059-20240101", "version_or_date": "Consolidated version of 1 January 2024", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Defines an administrative unit as an area with an authority holding decision-making power under Member State law, sets the three-level hierarchy and population thresholds, fixes a triennial amendment cadence, and states the purpose is statistical — the key counterexample against treating statistical units as jurisdictions." }, { "id": "SRC-013", "title": "INSPIRE Data Specification on Administrative Units — Technical Guidelines", "organization": "European Commission — INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group", "url": "https://knowledge-base.inspire.ec.europa.eu/publications/inspire-data-specification-administrative-units-technical-guidelines_en", "version_or_date": "Published 31 January 2024", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Authoritative spatial data specification for administrative units and boundaries under Directive 2007/2/EC, establishing where geometry, national administrative levels and boundary features are mastered and therefore where this model must reference rather than replicate." }, { "id": "SRC-014", "title": "United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property", "organization": "United Nations / International Law Commission", "url": "https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf", "version_or_date": "Adopted 2 December 2004 (UNGA resolution 59/38)", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Primary support for immunity as a scope-narrowing overlay rather than an absence of jurisdiction: general immunity from the courts of another State, express consent and waiver by submission, and enumerated exceptions for commercial transactions, employment contracts and immovable property." }, { "id": "SRC-015", "title": "Countries and territories — Named Authority List", "organization": "Publications Office of the European Union (EU Vocabularies)", "url": "https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/concept-scheme/-/resource?uri=http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/country", "version_or_date": "Version 20260617-0", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "A governed, versioned, dereferenceable URI namespace for countries and territories, demonstrating a governed global identifier tier between master-system identifiers and locally minted UUID/ULID values." }, { "id": "SRC-016", "title": "Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679", "version_or_date": "OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Primary instrument for territorial scope defined by establishment, by targeting or monitoring of persons in a territory, and by public international law — the clearest modern example of prescriptive reach detached from physical presence." }, { "id": "SRC-017", "title": "Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E%2FTXT", "version_or_date": "Consolidated version, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Articles 2 to 6 give a normative taxonomy of competence categories — exclusive, shared, coordinating and supporting — together with the principle of conferral, grounding the competence-category and exclusivity structure of this model." }, { "id": "SRC-018", "title": "Introducing the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/introducing-the-legal-entity-identifier-lei", "version_or_date": "ISO 17442-1:2012 and ISO 17442-2:2019 as described by GLEIF; consulted 2026-09-03", "source_type": "first-party-doc", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Shows legal jurisdiction and registration authority held as entity reference data in a global index sourced from authoritative local registries, fixing the ownership boundary for personal-scope connecting factors about legal persons." }, { "id": "SRC-019", "title": "Art. 3 GDPR — Territorial scope", "organization": "Intersoft Consulting (gdpr-info.eu)", "url": "https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/", "version_or_date": "Reproduction of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Article 3; consulted 2026-09-03", "source_type": "secondary", "primary_source": false, "authority_tier": 3, "accessed_at": "2026-09-03T09:20:00Z", "relevance": "Used only to read the operative wording of the three territorial-scope criteria conveniently; the authoritative text is SRC-016 and no structural claim rests on this source alone." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-typology", "name": "Jurisdiction Identity and Typology", "description": "Establishes what a jurisdiction record is, how it is uniquely and durably identified, how it aligns to external territorial code lists, and how it is classified by kind of jurisdictional entity and by type of power claimed.", "rationale": "Identifier stability is a normative requirement in the sources: urn:lex forbids renaming jurisdiction codes and permits only obsolescence, Akoma Ntoso requires an ISO 3166-1/-2 code in the Work IRI, and the EU Countries NAL publishes versioned governed URIs. Classification must be separated from identity because UNSD warns that grouping is a statistical convenience and implies nothing about legal status.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ], "layers": [ { "id": "identity-and-territorial-coding", "name": "Identity and Territorial Coding", "description": "How a jurisdiction record is identified in its own right and how that identity is bound to externally governed territorial codes without absorbing their governance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ], "findings": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-record-identity", "name": "Jurisdiction record identity and identifier stability", "description": "The identifier for a jurisdiction record, its priority order of sources, its immutability guarantees, and how obsolescence is expressed without reuse or deletion.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-015", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-identity-primary", "text": "Which identifier is the authoritative master-system identifier for this jurisdiction, and which body issues it?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "issuing authority reference", "master identifier value", "identifier scheme name", "issuance instrument or register reference" ] }, { "id": "q-identity-fallback", "text": "If no master-system identifier exists, which governed global URI is used, and on what basis is a locally minted ULID or UUID justified instead?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "governed URI value", "registry name and version", "fallback tier used", "justification note" ] }, { "id": "q-identity-obsolescence", "text": "How is an identifier retired so that it is never renamed or reassigned to a different jurisdiction?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "obsolete flag", "obsolescence instant", "successor identifier reference", "reuse-prohibited assertion" ] }, { "id": "q-identity-aliases", "text": "Which alternate names, historical names and transliterations are recorded, and which one is authoritative for display?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "preferred label with language tag", "alternate labels", "historical labels with validity intervals", "script or transliteration code" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-id", "name": "Jurisdiction identifier", "description": "Primary identifier of the jurisdiction record, resolved by the identity priority rule.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "identifier-tier", "name": "Identifier provenance tier", "description": "Which tier of the identity priority was used: master-system, governed global URI, or locally assigned UUID/ULID.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "identifier-obsolete-flag", "name": "Identifier obsolescence marker", "description": "Marks an identifier as obsolete while forbidding rename or reassignment.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "preferred-label", "name": "Preferred label", "description": "Authoritative display name with an explicit language tag.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Identity is pure reference data: a small set of identifier strings, tier markers, obsolescence flags and labels that must be resolvable in any projection. Materialising it as a document would create a second master for values that are governed elsewhere and would invite drift between the artifact and the record." }, { "id": "territorial-code-alignment", "name": "Territorial code alignment", "description": "Assertions linking a jurisdiction to externally maintained territorial codes, each with a match strength, validity window and explicit refusal to claim conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-012", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-code-schemes", "text": "Which external code schemes are aligned to this jurisdiction, and what code value applies in each?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "scheme identifier and version", "code value", "scheme maintenance agency", "alignment instant" ] }, { "id": "q-code-strength", "text": "Is each alignment exact, broader, narrower or merely related, and what evidence supports that judgement?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "match strength code", "supporting source reference", "asserting party", "confidence value" ] }, { "id": "q-code-caveat", "text": "Does any aligned scheme carry a published caveat that its groupings imply no position on legal or political status?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "caveat text reference", "scheme identifier", "caveat applies flag" ] }, { "id": "q-code-change", "text": "How are code changes, splits and withdrawals by the maintenance agency detected and reflected without altering the local identifier?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "scheme monitoring cadence", "change notification reference", "superseded alignment record", "effective instant of scheme change" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "code-alignment-entry", "name": "Code alignment entry", "description": "One assertion binding the jurisdiction to an external code, carrying scheme, value, match strength and validity interval.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "match-strength", "name": "Match strength", "description": "Exact, broader, narrower, related or none.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "scheme-version", "name": "Code scheme version", "description": "Pinned version or release label of the external code list at the time of alignment.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "code-alignment-table", "name": "Territorial code alignment table", "description": "A versioned tabular set of alignment assertions from jurisdiction identifiers to ISO 3166-1/-2, UN M49, EU Countries NAL and NUTS codes, each row carrying match strength, scheme version and validity interval.", "media_or_form": [ "tabular dataset", "controlled mapping set", "versioned release with changelog" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the alignment-table identifier plus the pinned source-scheme version; each release is immutable and superseded rather than edited in place.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-012", "SRC-015" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "typology-and-power-classification", "name": "Typology and Power Classification", "description": "Classifies the jurisdiction by the kind of entity holding it and by the type of power asserted, keeping both as declared classifications rather than operational capabilities.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-016", "SRC-017" ], "findings": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-kind-classification", "name": "Kind of jurisdiction", "description": "The controlled typology of jurisdictional entities: supranational union, sovereign State, dependent or associated territory, federated or devolved sub-State unit, local authority, functional maritime zone, international tribunal, and specialised regulatory authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-012", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-kind-value", "text": "Which typology value applies to this jurisdiction and what evidence selects that value rather than a neighbouring one?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "typology code", "selecting evidence reference", "alternative values considered", "classifier version" ] }, { "id": "q-kind-multiplicity", "text": "Can a single jurisdiction hold more than one typology value at once, and how is that recorded without ambiguity?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "multi-value permitted flag", "primary typology value", "secondary typology values", "disambiguation rule reference" ] }, { "id": "q-kind-functional", "text": "Is the jurisdiction functional and partial rather than plenary, covering only enumerated activities within an area?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "plenary or functional marker", "enumerated activity list", "instrument reference for the enumeration" ] }, { "id": "q-kind-governance", "text": "Who may extend the typology code list, and how are additions reviewed against primary sources?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "code list owner", "extension procedure reference", "review evidence requirement", "code list version" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-kind-code", "name": "Jurisdiction kind code", "description": "Controlled value from the jurisdiction typology code list.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "plenary-or-functional", "name": "Plenary or functional marker", "description": "Whether competence is general over the scope or limited to enumerated functions such as resource exploitation or environmental protection.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "kind-evidence-ref", "name": "Typology evidence reference", "description": "Reference to the instrument or authority that supports the classification.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-typology-code-list", "name": "Jurisdiction typology code list", "description": "A governed, versioned code list of jurisdiction kinds with definitions, inclusion and exclusion notes, primary-source citation per term, and deprecation markers.", "media_or_form": [ "controlled vocabulary", "concept scheme with definitions and scope notes", "versioned release" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by a governed code-list URI plus a semantic version; terms are never re-defined in place, only deprecated with a successor term.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-015", "SRC-017" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "power-type-classification", "name": "Type of power asserted", "description": "Records whether the jurisdiction is prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement in nature, strictly as a declared classification with no operational capability implied.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-014", "SRC-016", "SRC-019" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-power-types", "text": "Which types of power does this jurisdiction assert: to prescribe rules, to adjudicate claims, or to enforce outcomes?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "power type codes", "instrument reference per power type", "assertion instant" ] }, { "id": "q-power-asymmetry", "text": "Where prescriptive reach exceeds enforceable reach, how is that asymmetry recorded rather than smoothed over?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "prescriptive scope reference", "enforcement scope reference", "asymmetry note", "supporting source reference" ] }, { "id": "q-power-nonownership", "text": "Which referenced model owns the actual evaluation, decision and enforcement execution that this classification merely describes?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "runtime model reference", "interface reference", "non-ownership assertion" ] }, { "id": "q-power-representative", "text": "Where a non-resident actor must appoint a local representative or agent for service, which instrument imposes that and what is recorded here?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "instrument reference", "representative obligation flag", "obligated actor class" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "power-type-code", "name": "Power type code", "description": "Prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement, as declared.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-016" ] }, { "id": "enforcement-limitation-note", "name": "Enforcement limitation note", "description": "Narrative record of known limits on enforceability outside the territory, with source references.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-019" ] }, { "id": "runtime-owner-ref", "name": "Runtime owner reference", "description": "Reference to the model that owns evaluation, execution, enforcement and audit for this power type.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "This finding is a set of declared classification codes plus an explicit non-ownership pointer. Producing an artifact here would risk presenting an enforcement capability document, which belongs to the referenced policy-decision and enforcement runtime model, not to this model." } ] } ] }, { "id": "authority-and-conferral", "name": "Authority-Holder and Conferral", "description": "Binds a jurisdiction to the authority that holds it, to the instrument that confers or constitutes it, and to the category and exclusivity of the competence conferred, including delegation and devolution.", "rationale": "TFEU Articles 2 to 6 supply a normative taxonomy of competence categories and the principle of conferral; the Rome Statute shows jurisdiction arising only where the constituting instrument's preconditions are met; ELI and Akoma Ntoso supply the identification of the instruments that must be cited rather than copied.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-017" ], "layers": [ { "id": "authority-holder-and-legal-basis", "name": "Authority-Holder and Legal Basis", "description": "Which body holds the competence and which instrument confers it, both carried by reference to their owning models.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-010", "SRC-017" ], "findings": [ { "id": "authority-holder-binding", "name": "Authority-holder binding", "description": "The reference to the public or legal authority that holds the competence, with role qualification and the boundary against the organisation model that masters it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-010", "SRC-017", "SRC-018" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-holder-ref", "text": "Which authority holds this competence, and in which external register is that authority mastered?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "authority reference identifier", "register or scheme name", "authority preferred name", "role qualifier" ] }, { "id": "q-holder-plurality", "text": "Where several bodies share the same scope, how is each body's distinct share recorded?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "authority reference set", "share qualifier per authority", "instrument reference per share" ] }, { "id": "q-holder-continuity", "text": "When the holding authority is reorganised, renamed or abolished, what happens to the jurisdiction record's identifier?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "predecessor authority reference", "successor authority reference", "continuity assertion", "effective instant" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "authority-ref", "name": "Authority-holder reference", "description": "Resolvable reference to the body holding the competence, mastered in the organisation or court register model.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "authority-role-qualifier", "name": "Authority role qualifier", "description": "The capacity in which the authority holds the competence, such as legislature, court, regulator or executive.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "authority-continuity-link", "name": "Authority continuity link", "description": "Predecessor and successor authority references preserving record continuity across reorganisation.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The authority-holder is mastered in an external organisation or court register and is carried here strictly as a reference with a role qualifier; creating a local artifact would duplicate reference data that another model owns and would become stale on every reorganisation." }, { "id": "conferral-instrument-and-legal-basis", "name": "Conferring instrument and legal basis", "description": "Citation of the constitution, treaty, statute, delegated act or judicial instrument that creates or amends the competence, referenced through governed legal identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-basis-instrument", "text": "Which instrument confers this competence, and by which governed legal identifier is it cited?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "instrument identifier (ELI URI, LEX URN or AKN Work IRI)", "instrument title", "adopting body", "adoption date" ] }, { "id": "q-basis-provision", "text": "Which specific provision within the instrument carries the conferral, and how is that pinpoint citation expressed?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "provision path or article reference", "pinpoint citation form", "quoted operative wording" ] }, { "id": "q-basis-chain", "text": "Where competence is conferred through a chain of instruments, how is the chain ordered and its weakest link identified?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "ordered instrument reference list", "relation type per link", "chain integrity note" ] }, { "id": "q-basis-nonduplication", "text": "Which instrument attributes are deliberately not stored here because the legislation model owns them?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "excluded attribute list", "owning model reference", "resolution endpoint reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "legal-basis-ref", "name": "Legal basis reference", "description": "Governed identifier of the conferring instrument, expressed as an ELI URI, LEX URN or Akoma Ntoso Work IRI.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "provision-pinpoint", "name": "Provision pinpoint", "description": "Path or article reference identifying the conferring provision within the instrument.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "basis-relation-type", "name": "Basis relation type", "description": "Whether the instrument constitutes, amends, extends, restricts or terminates the competence.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Instruments are owned by the legislation model identified through ELI, LEX URN and Akoma Ntoso Work IRIs. This finding therefore holds only citation tuples and relation types; producing a local instrument dossier would duplicate expression-level content and versioning that the target model governs." } ] }, { "id": "competence-allocation-and-delegation", "name": "Competence Allocation and Delegation", "description": "How competence is categorised, how exclusivity is expressed, and how it is passed downward or outward through devolution, delegation and agency.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-008", "SRC-012", "SRC-017" ], "findings": [ { "id": "competence-category-and-exclusivity", "name": "Competence category and exclusivity", "description": "Whether the competence is exclusive, shared, coordinating or supporting, and what residual freedom other authorities retain when it is exercised.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-category-value", "text": "Into which competence category does this scope fall, and what does that category permit other authorities to do?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "competence category code", "residual competence description", "instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-exclusive-heads", "text": "Which subject matters are reserved to this jurisdiction exclusively, so that no other forum may hear them?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "exclusive subject matter list", "instrument provision reference", "effect on competing forums" ] }, { "id": "q-preemption", "text": "Where competence is shared, at what point does exercise by the higher authority pre-empt the lower one?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "pre-emption trigger description", "exercised-scope reference", "affected authority references" ] }, { "id": "q-conferral-limit", "text": "How is the principle of conferral recorded, so that competence not expressly conferred is not inferred?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "conferral assertion", "express-provision reference", "no-implied-competence flag" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "competence-category-code", "name": "Competence category code", "description": "Exclusive, shared, coordinating or supporting.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "exclusive-subject-list", "name": "Exclusive subject matters", "description": "Subject matters reserved exclusively to this jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "conferral-assertion", "name": "Conferral assertion", "description": "Explicit statement that competence rests on an express provision and is not implied.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Category, exclusivity and pre-emption are short coded assertions with pinpoint citations. They are consumed as structured facts by resolution queries and gain nothing from a document form, which would fragment the values across a second representation." }, { "id": "delegation-devolution-and-agency", "name": "Delegation, devolution and agency", "description": "Downward or outward transfer of competence, including whether the transfer is revocable, whether the delegating authority retains oversight, and how sub-delegation is bounded.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-012", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-delegation-instrument", "text": "Which instrument effects the delegation or devolution, and is the transfer revocable by the delegating authority?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "delegating instrument reference", "revocability flag", "revocation procedure reference" ] }, { "id": "q-delegation-retained", "text": "What competence does the delegating authority retain, including oversight, direction and substitution rights?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "retained competence description", "oversight mechanism reference", "substitution condition" ] }, { "id": "q-subdelegation", "text": "May the delegate sub-delegate, and if so within what limits?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "sub-delegation permitted flag", "limit description", "authorising provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-agency-consent", "text": "Where competence is created or narrowed by party agreement rather than by public conferral, how is that consensual basis recorded?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "agreement type code", "governing convention reference", "designated forum reference", "exclusivity marker" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "delegation-entry", "name": "Delegation entry", "description": "One transfer of competence with delegating authority, delegate, instrument, revocability and validity interval.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "revocability-flag", "name": "Revocability flag", "description": "Whether the delegating authority may withdraw the transferred competence.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "consensual-basis-ref", "name": "Consensual basis reference", "description": "Reference to a choice-of-court or comparable agreement where competence rests on party consent.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Delegation records are relational tuples pointing at instruments held elsewhere. The instruments themselves are artifacts of the legislation or contract models; reproducing them here would create an unowned second copy with divergent version history." } ] } ] }, { "id": "scope-delimitation", "name": "Scope Delimitation", "description": "Delimits the competence along the four axes recognised across the primary sources: territorial and spatial, personal, material or subject-matter, and temporal.", "rationale": "The Rome Statute separates subject-matter (Art. 5), temporal (Art. 11) and territorial or nationality preconditions (Art. 12); UNCLOS fixes distinct maritime zones with different content of authority; GDPR Article 3 shows scope arising from establishment, targeting or public international law. These are independent axes and must be modelled independently.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-013", "SRC-016" ], "layers": [ { "id": "territorial-and-spatial-scope", "name": "Territorial and Spatial Scope", "description": "The spatial reach of the competence on land, at sea and in the air, plus reach that attaches to conduct or effects outside that space.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-013", "SRC-016" ], "findings": [ { "id": "land-territorial-extent-reference", "name": "Land territorial extent by reference", "description": "Binding of the jurisdiction to administrative units and boundary features mastered in the spatial model, with the level, nesting and enclave or exclave handling.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-extent-ref", "text": "Which administrative unit or boundary features in the spatial model delimit this jurisdiction's land territory?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "administrative unit reference set", "boundary feature reference set", "national administrative level", "spatial model version" ] }, { "id": "q-extent-nesting", "text": "Which jurisdictions nest inside this one and which does it nest within, and is the nesting exhaustive without gaps?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "parent jurisdiction reference", "child jurisdiction references", "exhaustiveness flag", "gap or overlap note" ] }, { "id": "q-extent-anomalies", "text": "Does the territory include enclaves, exclaves, condominia or areas of shared administration, and how is each recorded?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "anomaly type code", "affected area reference", "co-administering authority references", "instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-extent-nongeometry", "text": "Which spatial attributes are deliberately excluded here because the spatial model masters them?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "excluded attribute list", "spatial model reference", "resolution endpoint" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "admin-unit-ref", "name": "Administrative unit reference", "description": "Resolvable reference to the administrative unit feature that delimits the territory.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "administrative-level", "name": "Administrative level", "description": "National administrative level of the referenced unit, as defined by the spatial model.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "spatial-anomaly", "name": "Spatial anomaly entry", "description": "Enclave, exclave, condominium or shared-administration marker with its affected area reference.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Geometry, topology and boundary lifecycle are owned by the INSPIRE-aligned administrative-unit model. This finding holds only resolvable feature references, level codes and anomaly markers; storing an artifact would fork the authoritative geometry and break the ownership contract with the parent place model." }, { "id": "maritime-aerial-and-special-zones", "name": "Maritime, aerial and special zones", "description": "Functional and partial competence zones seaward and skyward, where the content of authority differs by zone and rests on deposited baselines and coordinates.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-zone-type", "text": "Which maritime or aerial zone type does this record cover, and what is its outer limit measured from which baseline?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "zone type code", "outer limit distance and unit", "baseline type", "baseline reference" ] }, { "id": "q-zone-content", "text": "What specific rights and jurisdiction does the authority hold in this zone, as distinct from full sovereignty?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "rights enumeration", "jurisdiction heads enumeration", "instrument provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-zone-otherstates", "text": "Which freedoms or passage rights do other States retain within this zone, and under what conditions?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "retained freedom list", "conditions and duties", "affected actor classes" ] }, { "id": "q-zone-deposit", "text": "Which charts or lists of geographical coordinates were deposited, with which depositary, and on what date?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "deposit reference", "depositary name", "deposit instant", "chart or coordinate list identifier" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "zone-type-code", "name": "Maritime or aerial zone type", "description": "Internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf, superjacent airspace or flight information region.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "outer-limit-distance", "name": "Outer limit distance", "description": "Declared outer limit with unit, such as 12 or 24 or 200 nautical miles from the baseline.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "zone-rights-enumeration", "name": "Zone rights enumeration", "description": "Enumerated sovereign rights and heads of jurisdiction applicable in the zone.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "deposit-reference", "name": "Deposit reference", "description": "Reference to the deposited chart or list of geographical coordinates evidencing the zone limits.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "deposited-coordinate-record", "name": "Deposited chart or list of geographical coordinates", "description": "The evidentiary deposit that fixes baselines and zone outer limits, held as a citable record with depositary reference, deposit instant and superseding history.", "media_or_form": [ "nautical chart", "list of geographical coordinates", "depositary notification" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the depositary's notification reference; where absent, by the issuing State's official publication citation. Supersession is recorded by linking to the prior deposit, never by overwriting.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "extraterritorial-reach-and-connecting-factors", "name": "Extraterritorial reach and connecting factors", "description": "Competence asserted over conduct, actors or effects located outside the territory, recorded with the connecting factor relied on and the known limits on giving it effect.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-016", "SRC-019" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-extra-basis", "text": "On which connecting factor does the extraterritorial assertion rest: establishment, conduct, effect, targeting, nationality, protective interest or universality?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "connecting factor code", "instrument provision reference", "asserted actor class" ] }, { "id": "q-extra-targeting", "text": "Where reach depends on targeting or monitoring of persons in the territory, what indicators evidence that targeting?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "targeting indicator list", "evidence source reference", "assessment instant" ] }, { "id": "q-extra-effectiveness", "text": "What limits on giving the assertion practical effect are recorded, and which model owns any action taken about them?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "known limitation notes", "representative or agent requirement", "owning runtime model reference" ] }, { "id": "q-extra-contest", "text": "Has the assertion been contested by another authority, and where is that contestation recorded?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "contesting authority reference", "contestation instrument reference", "status of contestation" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "connecting-factor-code", "name": "Connecting factor code", "description": "The basis on which competence attaches beyond the territory.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-016" ] }, { "id": "targeting-indicator", "name": "Targeting indicator", "description": "Observable indicator supporting a targeting or monitoring based assertion.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016", "SRC-019" ] }, { "id": "reach-limitation-note", "name": "Reach limitation note", "description": "Recorded limits on practical effect, with source references and no implied enforcement capability.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-019" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Extraterritorial reach is captured as coded connecting factors, indicators and limitation notes that feed resolution queries. Any document describing how such reach is actually pursued would be enforcement material owned by the referenced runtime model, so this finding stays deliberately inline." } ] }, { "id": "personal-and-material-scope", "name": "Personal and Material Scope", "description": "Which persons and entities fall within the competence, and which subject matters it covers or expressly excludes.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-011", "SRC-018" ], "findings": [ { "id": "personal-scope-and-attachment", "name": "Personal scope and attachment", "description": "The classes of natural and legal persons within scope and the attachment criteria that place them there, together with the priority among competing criteria.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-011", "SRC-018" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-personal-classes", "text": "Which classes of natural and legal persons are within scope, and which are expressly excluded?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "included person class list", "excluded person class list", "instrument provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-personal-criteria", "text": "Which attachment criteria apply — domicile, habitual residence, nationality, statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business — and in what priority order?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "attachment criterion codes", "priority order", "tie-break rule reference" ] }, { "id": "q-personal-protected", "text": "Which weaker-party or protected categories receive special attachment rules that displace the general rule?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "protected category codes", "displacing rule reference", "effect on general rule" ] }, { "id": "q-personal-master", "text": "Where are the underlying person and entity attributes mastered, and what is consumed here by reference only?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "entity register reference", "attribute list consumed", "non-mastering assertion" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "person-class-code", "name": "Person class code", "description": "Class of natural or legal person within or outside scope.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "attachment-criterion", "name": "Attachment criterion", "description": "Connecting criterion placing a person within the competence, with declared priority.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "entity-register-ref", "name": "Entity register reference", "description": "Reference to the register that masters the legal jurisdiction and registration authority of a legal person.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Personal scope consists of coded class lists, ordered attachment criteria and pointers into entity registers mastered by others. It is queried as structured facts during scope resolution and would lose that queryability if flattened into a document artifact." }, { "id": "subject-matter-scope", "name": "Subject-matter scope", "description": "The material competence: which matters are covered, which are expressly carved out, and how the catalogue is versioned against its instruments.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-matter-covered", "text": "Which subject matters fall within this competence, and by which classification scheme are they named?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "subject matter codes", "classification scheme and version", "instrument provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-matter-excluded", "text": "Which matters are expressly excluded from scope, and does an exclusion in one instrument imply competence elsewhere?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "excluded matter codes", "exclusion provision reference", "alternative forum note" ] }, { "id": "q-matter-threshold", "text": "Do any gravity, value or seriousness thresholds condition the competence over a covered matter?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "threshold type", "threshold value and unit", "assessing authority reference" ] }, { "id": "q-matter-versioning", "text": "How is a change to the subject-matter catalogue tied to the amending instrument and its effective date?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "catalogue version", "amending instrument reference", "effective instant", "superseded catalogue version" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "subject-matter-code", "name": "Subject matter code", "description": "Coded matter within the declared material competence.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "matter-exclusion-code", "name": "Subject matter exclusion", "description": "Coded matter expressly excluded from the competence.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "competence-threshold", "name": "Competence threshold", "description": "Quantified gravity, value or seriousness threshold conditioning the competence.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "subject-matter-competence-catalogue", "name": "Subject-matter competence catalogue", "description": "A versioned catalogue of covered and excluded matters for a jurisdiction, each entry citing its instrument provision, any threshold, and the effective interval of the entry.", "media_or_form": [ "controlled catalogue", "structured entry set with citations", "versioned release" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the jurisdiction identifier plus catalogue semantic version; each release is immutable and links to the amending instrument that caused it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-017" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "temporal-scope", "name": "Temporal Scope", "description": "When the competence exists and to which conduct periods it attaches, keeping the applicability window distinct from record validity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "temporal-applicability-window", "name": "Temporal applicability window", "description": "Entry into force, start and end of applicability, non-retroactivity and any declaration that extends competence backwards, recorded separately from when the record was created or observed.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-temporal-force", "text": "When did the competence enter into force and from which instant does it apply to conduct or proceedings?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "entry into force instant", "applicability start instant", "instrument provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-temporal-retroactivity", "text": "Does the competence reach conduct occurring before entry into force, and under which express declaration if so?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "retroactivity permitted flag", "declaration reference", "earliest reachable conduct instant" ] }, { "id": "q-temporal-end", "text": "Is there a sunset, expiry or termination instant, and what happens to matters already pending at that instant?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "end instant", "transitional rule reference", "treatment of pending matters" ] }, { "id": "q-temporal-bitemporal", "text": "How are the effective instant of a change and the instant this model observed it kept as separate fields?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "effective instant", "observation instant", "recording actor", "divergence note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "effective-from-instant", "name": "Effective from instant", "description": "RFC 3339 instant from which the competence applies, with seconds and explicit offset or Z.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "effective-to-instant", "name": "Effective to instant", "description": "RFC 3339 instant at which the competence ceases to apply, where known.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "observation-instant", "name": "Observation instant", "description": "RFC 3339 instant at which this model recorded or ingested the fact, distinct from the effective instant.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "retroactivity-flag", "name": "Retroactivity flag", "description": "Whether an express declaration extends competence to earlier conduct.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Temporal scope is a small set of instants and flags that must be directly comparable in queries at a reference instant. Any document form would obstruct the interval arithmetic that scope resolution depends on and would duplicate values the record already carries." } ] } ] }, { "id": "interaction-conflict-and-exception", "name": "Interaction, Conflict and Exception", "description": "How a jurisdiction stands relative to others — hierarchy, concurrency, priority, party-chosen forum and mutual recognition — and how immunities, reservations and derogations narrow its declared scope.", "rationale": "Brussels Ia supplies exclusive heads, prorogation and lis pendens; the HCCH 2005 Convention supplies obligations of chosen and non-chosen courts and enumerated refusal grounds; the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities supplies immunity as a default with waiver and enumerated exceptions; the Rome Statute supplies complementarity as a deference rule.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-014" ], "layers": [ { "id": "inter-jurisdictional-relations", "name": "Inter-Jurisdictional Relations", "description": "Vertical and horizontal relations between jurisdictions and the recorded rules that break ties between them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-017" ], "findings": [ { "id": "hierarchy-supremacy-and-subsidiarity", "name": "Hierarchy, supremacy and deference", "description": "Vertical ordering between jurisdictions, including which order prevails on conflict and which deference rules require a higher body to stand back where a lower one is genuinely acting.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-017" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-hierarchy-order", "text": "Which jurisdictions stand above and below this one, and on what instrument does the ordering rest?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "superior jurisdiction references", "subordinate jurisdiction references", "ordering instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-hierarchy-prevail", "text": "On direct conflict of norms, which order prevails and within what limits?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "prevailing order reference", "limitation description", "provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-hierarchy-deference", "text": "Under what conditions must this jurisdiction defer to another that is genuinely investigating or deciding the same matter?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "deference condition list", "genuineness test description", "reversal condition" ] }, { "id": "q-hierarchy-appeal", "text": "Which jurisdiction reviews decisions of this one, and is that review reference or ownership?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "reviewing jurisdiction reference", "review scope", "non-ownership assertion" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "superior-jurisdiction-ref", "name": "Superior jurisdiction reference", "description": "Reference to a jurisdiction standing above this one in the recorded ordering.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "prevalence-rule-ref", "name": "Prevalence rule reference", "description": "Reference to the provision determining which order prevails on conflict.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "deference-condition", "name": "Deference condition", "description": "Condition under which this jurisdiction stands back in favour of another genuinely acting body.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Hierarchy is a graph of typed references between jurisdiction records with pinpoint citations. Representing it as an artifact would freeze a graph that changes whenever any participating record changes, and would duplicate edges already derivable from the records themselves." }, { "id": "concurrency-overlap-and-priority", "name": "Concurrency, overlap and priority", "description": "Horizontal coexistence of competences over the same matter, the classification of the overlap, and the recorded rule that assigns priority, such as first seised.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-overlap-class", "text": "Is the relation to the other jurisdiction exclusive, concurrent, hierarchical or disputed at the reference instant?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "overlap classification code", "counterpart jurisdiction reference", "reference instant", "classifying evidence" ] }, { "id": "q-overlap-priority", "text": "Which recorded rule assigns priority when both competences would otherwise apply?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "priority rule reference", "rule type code", "effect on the yielding jurisdiction" ] }, { "id": "q-overlap-pending", "text": "Where proceedings on the same cause are already pending elsewhere, what is the recorded consequence for this jurisdiction?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "stay or dismissal consequence", "triggering condition", "provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-overlap-partial", "text": "Where two competences overlap only partially, how is the intersection scoped along the four axes?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "intersection territorial scope", "intersection personal scope", "intersection subject matter", "intersection temporal window" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "overlap-classification", "name": "Overlap classification", "description": "Exclusive, concurrent, hierarchical or disputed, evaluated at a reference instant.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "priority-rule-ref", "name": "Priority rule reference", "description": "Reference to the provision that resolves competing competences.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "intersection-scope", "name": "Intersection scope", "description": "The four-axis intersection between two overlapping competences.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Overlap assessments are derived, instant-dependent assertions between two records. Persisting them as artifacts would present a snapshot as durable fact; they are instead recorded as dated assertions with provenance so they can be recomputed and falsified." }, { "id": "forum-selection-and-recognition-reference", "name": "Forum selection and recognition, by reference", "description": "Party-chosen forum bindings and mutual-recognition arrangements recorded as references to their governing instruments, with the recorded grounds on which recognition may be refused.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-008", "SRC-011" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-forum-designation", "text": "Which instrument designates this jurisdiction as a chosen forum, and is that designation exclusive?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "designating instrument reference", "exclusivity marker", "designated court reference", "form requirement reference" ] }, { "id": "q-forum-obligations", "text": "What obligations follow for the chosen court and for other courts under the governing convention?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "chosen court obligation", "non-chosen court obligation", "convention provision reference" ] }, { "id": "q-forum-refusal", "text": "On which enumerated grounds may recognition or enforcement of a decision from this jurisdiction be refused elsewhere?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "refusal ground list", "instrument provision reference", "affected counterpart jurisdictions" ] }, { "id": "q-forum-lawseparation", "text": "How is the record kept clear that designating a forum does not determine the applicable law?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "applicable law model reference", "separation assertion", "choice of law reference if any" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "forum-designation-ref", "name": "Forum designation reference", "description": "Reference to the agreement or instrument designating this jurisdiction as forum.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "recognition-refusal-ground", "name": "Recognition refusal ground", "description": "Enumerated ground on which recognition or enforcement may be refused.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "law-forum-separation-flag", "name": "Law and forum separation flag", "description": "Assertion that forum designation is recorded without implying the applicable law.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The agreements and conventions that create forum bindings are artifacts of the contract and treaty models. This finding carries only citation references, coded refusal grounds and an explicit separation assertion, so that recognition and enforcement action stay with the models that own them." } ] }, { "id": "exceptions-and-immunities", "name": "Exceptions and Immunities", "description": "Overlays that narrow an otherwise applicable competence for particular beneficiaries, matters or periods.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ], "findings": [ { "id": "immunity-privilege-and-derogation", "name": "Immunity, privilege, reservation and derogation", "description": "Recorded carve-outs — State immunity with its enumerated exceptions and waiver, treaty reservations and declarations, opt-outs, and time-bounded derogations — each scoped to a beneficiary class and validity window.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-immunity-type", "text": "Which exception type applies — immunity, privilege, reservation, declaration, opt-out or derogation — and who benefits from it?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "exception type code", "beneficiary class", "instrument or declaration reference", "scope narrowed" ] }, { "id": "q-immunity-waiver", "text": "How may the benefit be waived, and does submitting to proceedings amount to waiver for related matters?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "waiver mechanism description", "waiving party", "waiver instant", "extent of waiver" ] }, { "id": "q-immunity-exceptions", "text": "Which enumerated exceptions defeat the immunity, such as commercial transactions, employment contracts or immovable property?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "defeating exception codes", "provision reference", "qualifying conditions" ] }, { "id": "q-immunity-deposit", "text": "Where was the declaration or reservation lodged, with which depositary, and is it still in force?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "depositary name", "lodgement reference", "lodgement instant", "withdrawal instant if any" ] }, { "id": "q-immunity-publicpolicy", "text": "Is there an overriding mandatory provision or public-policy reservation that displaces an otherwise applicable rule?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "overriding provision reference", "public policy reservation text", "affected matters" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "exception-type-code", "name": "Exception type code", "description": "Immunity, privilege, reservation, declaration, opt-out, derogation or carve-out.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "beneficiary-class", "name": "Beneficiary class", "description": "Class of actor or matter for which the competence is narrowed.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "waiver-record", "name": "Waiver record", "description": "Recorded waiver of the benefit, with waiving party, mechanism and instant.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "exception-validity-window", "name": "Exception validity window", "description": "Effective start and end instants of the exception, in RFC 3339 with offset.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "depositary-declaration-record", "name": "Depositary-lodged declaration or reservation record", "description": "The citable record of a declaration, reservation, opt-out or acceptance lodged with a treaty depositary, carrying the lodging State or party, the provision invoked, lodgement instant and any withdrawal.", "media_or_form": [ "depositary notification", "declaration or reservation text", "treaty status entry" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the depositary's notification reference; where the depositary assigns none, by treaty identifier plus lodging party plus lodgement instant. Withdrawals are recorded as successor entries, never as edits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-014" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "lifecycle-provenance-and-quality", "name": "Lifecycle, Provenance and Quality", "description": "How jurisdiction records change over time, what evidence supports them, how contested claims are held without silent resolution, and how records are validated and kept current.", "rationale": "Jurisdictional facts change by instrument and by succession; NUTS shows a governed amendment cadence and ELI shows versioned publication with synchronisation feeds. UNSD's caveat about legal status and the existence of competing claims require that contestation be a first-class record rather than an editorial judgement.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-012", "SRC-014" ], "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-succession-and-cession", "name": "Lifecycle, Succession and Cession", "description": "State transitions of the jurisdiction record and the transfer, merger, split, suspension or termination of the competence itself.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-012", "SRC-014", "SRC-017" ], "findings": [ { "id": "scope-change-succession-and-dissolution", "name": "Scope change, succession and dissolution", "description": "The controlled set of change events affecting a competence and the continuity links that survive a change of holder, territory or existence, including predecessor and successor bindings.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-012", "SRC-014" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-change-type", "text": "Which change type occurred — establishment, extension, reduction, transfer, cession, merger, split, suspension or termination — and which instrument effected it?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "change type code", "effecting instrument reference", "effective instant", "observation instant" ] }, { "id": "q-change-state", "text": "What record states exist between draft and terminated, and which transitions are permitted?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "state value", "permitted transition list", "transition precondition", "transitioning actor" ] }, { "id": "q-change-continuity", "text": "Which predecessor and successor jurisdictions are linked, and what proportion of scope passed to each?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "predecessor references", "successor references", "scope share per successor", "continuity basis reference" ] }, { "id": "q-change-pending", "text": "What happens to matters and obligations pending at the moment of the change?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "transitional provision reference", "treatment of pending matters", "cut-off instant" ] }, { "id": "q-change-identifier", "text": "Does the change require a new identifier or preserve the existing one, and on what rule does that turn?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identifier continuity decision", "governing rule reference", "obsolescence marker if applicable" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "change-type-code", "name": "Change type code", "description": "Controlled change type affecting the competence or the record.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "record-state", "name": "Record state", "description": "Lifecycle state of the jurisdiction record, such as draft, published, superseded, suspended or terminated.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "successor-link", "name": "Successor link", "description": "Typed link to a successor jurisdiction with the share of scope transferred.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "change-effective-instant", "name": "Change effective instant", "description": "RFC 3339 instant at which the change took legal effect, recorded separately from ingestion.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Change records are versioned state transitions on the model's own records, expressed as coded event tuples with instrument references and bitemporal instants. A durable event-log artifact would drift toward audit-trail semantics, which the boundary notes assign to the referenced runtime and to the adopting Dimension's records policy." } ] }, { "id": "provenance-evidence-and-quality", "name": "Provenance, Evidence and Quality", "description": "Where each assertion came from, how competing claims are carried without arbitration, and how records are validated and dated for currency.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-010", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "source-attestation-and-provenance", "name": "Source attestation and provenance", "description": "Per-assertion provenance recording the official publication, the asserting party, the retrieval instant and the authority tier of the source.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-010", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-prov-source", "text": "Which official publication or register attests each assertion, and at what citation precision?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "publication identifier", "issue or gazette reference", "pinpoint citation", "publisher" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-tier", "text": "What authority tier does the source hold, and is it primary or secondary for this assertion?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "authority tier value", "primary or secondary marker", "tier assignment rationale" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-retrieval", "text": "When was the source retrieved and by which actor or process, and what was its version at that instant?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "retrieval instant", "retrieving actor or process", "source version label", "content digest" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-derivation", "text": "Which assertions are derived rather than attested, and what derivation rule produced them?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "derived flag", "derivation rule reference", "input assertion references", "derivation instant" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "attestation-entry", "name": "Attestation entry", "description": "One provenance record binding an assertion to a source, retrieval instant, tier and digest.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "source-digest", "name": "Source content digest", "description": "Cryptographic digest of the retrieved source representation supporting integrity checks.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "derived-flag", "name": "Derived assertion flag", "description": "Marks an assertion as computed rather than directly attested.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "official-publication-attestation", "name": "Official publication attestation record", "description": "A citable attestation binding a jurisdiction assertion to the official gazette issue, register entry or standards release that evidences it, with publisher, issue reference, retrieval instant and content digest.", "media_or_form": [ "official gazette or register citation", "standards or code-list release citation", "retrieval record with digest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the publisher's official publication reference where one exists; otherwise by publisher plus issue label plus retrieval instant. Attestations are append-only and never rewritten.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-010", "SRC-015" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "contested-claim-and-dispute-recording", "name": "Contested claims and disputed scope", "description": "Parallel, incompatible assertions about the same scope held side by side with their asserting authorities, without the model choosing a winner.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-007", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-dispute-parties", "text": "Which authorities assert incompatible competence over the same scope, and what does each assert?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "asserting authority references", "claimed scope per authority", "instrument reference per claim", "assertion instant" ] }, { "id": "q-dispute-status", "text": "What is the recorded status of the contestation and before which body, if any, is it pending?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "contestation status code", "seised body reference", "status instant" ] }, { "id": "q-dispute-neutrality", "text": "How does the record avoid implying a position on legal status while still being usable by an agent?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "neutrality caveat text", "caveat source reference", "presentation rule" ] }, { "id": "q-dispute-consumer", "text": "How must a consuming system behave when a query returns competing claims rather than a single answer?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "multi-claim response contract", "required disclosure to consumer", "no-auto-resolution assertion" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "competing-claim-entry", "name": "Competing claim entry", "description": "One authority's assertion over a contested scope, with instrument and instant.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "contestation-status", "name": "Contestation status", "description": "Asserted, contested, pending before a body, settled or dormant.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "neutrality-caveat", "name": "Neutrality caveat", "description": "Recorded statement that inclusion implies no position on legal status or delimitation of frontiers.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Contested scope must be carried as parallel, individually attributed assertions that a consumer can see in full. Materialising a single dispute dossier would invite an editorial synthesis, which is exactly the neutrality failure that the UNSD caveat warns against." }, { "id": "validation-conformance-and-currency", "name": "Validation, conformance and currency", "description": "The rule set a jurisdiction record must satisfy before publication, the refusal to claim conformance to external standards without evidence, and the freshness date attached to each record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-valid-rules", "text": "Which validation rules must a record pass before it may move from draft to published?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "rule identifiers", "severity per rule", "blocking or advisory marker", "profile version" ] }, { "id": "q-valid-conformance", "text": "For each external standard cited, is conformance claimed, and what evidence would be required to claim it?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "standard identifier", "alignment or conformance marker", "required evidence description", "current evidence status" ] }, { "id": "q-valid-currency", "text": "How recently was each record reverified against its sources, and what staleness threshold triggers reverification?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "last verification instant", "staleness threshold duration", "next due instant", "verifying actor" ] }, { "id": "q-valid-failure", "text": "What happens to a published record whose source has changed or whose validation now fails?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "failure handling rule", "state change applied", "consumer notification obligation" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "validation-status", "name": "Validation status", "description": "Pass, pass with warnings, or fail against the pinned validation profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "conformance-claim-flag", "name": "Conformance claim flag", "description": "Whether conformance to a cited standard is claimed; defaults to alignment only.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "last-verified-instant", "name": "Last verified instant", "description": "RFC 3339 instant of the most recent source reverification.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "staleness-threshold", "name": "Staleness threshold", "description": "Maximum permitted age of verification before reverification is due.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "validation-report", "name": "Jurisdiction record validation report", "description": "A per-release report listing each validation rule, its outcome, severity, the record versions assessed, unresolved gaps and the pinned profile version.", "media_or_form": [ "structured validation result set", "rule-by-rule outcome listing", "versioned release" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the validation profile version plus the assessed record-set version plus the run instant; reports are immutable and superseded by later runs rather than amended.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-013" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "interoperability-and-operation", "name": "Interoperability and Operation", "description": "How jurisdiction records are mapped to external identifier schemes, how an agent resolves candidate jurisdictions, how the model is discovered and bootstrapped, and how access and retention are governed.", "rationale": "Akoma Ntoso, ELI, ECLI and urn:lex each embed a jurisdiction token with its own governance, so crosswalks must be explicit and versioned. urn:lex's prohibition on renaming and its obsolete-only rule directly shape retention and tombstoning, and the bootstrap contract makes the model discoverable independently of any storage projection.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "identifier-interoperability", "name": "Identifier Interoperability", "description": "Explicit mappings to external identifier schemes and the syntactic rules governing jurisdiction tokens embedded in legal identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-010", "SRC-018" ], "findings": [ { "id": "external-identifier-crosswalk", "name": "External identifier crosswalk", "description": "Versioned mappings from jurisdiction records to the jurisdiction tokens used by ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code lists and legal-entity registers, with equivalence strength and conflict records.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-010", "SRC-018" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-cross-schemes", "text": "Which external schemes carry a token for this jurisdiction, and what is the token value in each?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "scheme identifier and version", "token value", "token syntax rule reference", "governing registrar" ] }, { "id": "q-cross-equivalence", "text": "Is each mapping exact, broader, narrower or related, and how are one-to-many mappings represented?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "equivalence strength", "cardinality of mapping", "component token list", "disambiguation note" ] }, { "id": "q-cross-conflict", "text": "Where two schemes disagree about the same jurisdiction, how is the conflict recorded rather than silently resolved?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "conflicting scheme pair", "conflicting values", "conflict record identifier", "escalation route" ] }, { "id": "q-cross-lifecycle", "text": "How are crosswalk entries invalidated when an external registrar retires or obsoletes a token?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "registrar change notice reference", "invalidation instant", "replacement token", "superseded entry link" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "crosswalk-entry", "name": "Crosswalk entry", "description": "A mapping from the jurisdiction identifier to an external token, with scheme version, strength and validity interval.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "equivalence-strength", "name": "Equivalence strength", "description": "Exact, broader, narrower, related or none.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "conflict-record-ref", "name": "Conflict record reference", "description": "Reference to a recorded disagreement between schemes about the same jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "identifier-crosswalk-map", "name": "Jurisdiction identifier crosswalk map", "description": "A versioned mapping set from jurisdiction identifiers to ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code and legal-entity jurisdiction tokens, carrying equivalence strength, scheme versions and recorded conflicts.", "media_or_form": [ "mapping set", "alignment assertion collection", "versioned release with changelog" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the crosswalk-map identifier plus semantic version plus the pinned versions of every mapped scheme; releases are immutable and additive.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "jurisdiction-token-in-legal-identifiers", "name": "Jurisdiction tokens inside legal identifiers", "description": "The syntactic and governance rules that constrain how a jurisdiction appears inside compound legal identifiers, including subdivision hierarchy, registrar responsibility and the prohibition on renaming.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-token-syntax", "text": "What syntax constrains the jurisdiction token in each compound identifier, including subdivision separators and hierarchy depth?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "syntax rule text", "separator characters", "maximum depth", "worked example" ] }, { "id": "q-token-registrar", "text": "Who registers and maintains the jurisdiction token for a given scheme, and under what review policy?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "registrar identity", "registration policy", "review procedure reference" ] }, { "id": "q-token-immutability", "text": "Which rules forbid renaming or reassigning a token, and how is obsolescence expressed instead?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "immutability rule reference", "obsolescence mechanism", "successor token if any" ] }, { "id": "q-token-international", "text": "How are international organisations and bodies without a territorial code accommodated in these schemes?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "non-territorial token convention", "namespace used", "example token", "governing provision reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "token-syntax-rule", "name": "Token syntax rule", "description": "The scheme-specific syntactic constraint on the jurisdiction token.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "token-registrar-ref", "name": "Token registrar reference", "description": "The body responsible for assigning and maintaining tokens within a scheme.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "non-territorial-token", "name": "Non-territorial token", "description": "Token convention for international organisations lacking a territorial code.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "These are governance and syntax constraints owned by the external scheme registrars. The model records them as short normative notes with citations; publishing a local specification artifact would imply this model governs syntax that the OASIS, IETF and EU registrars actually control." } ] }, { "id": "resolution-access-and-retention", "name": "Resolution, Access and Retention", "description": "How an agent queries the model for candidate jurisdictions, how it discovers and bootstraps the model, and how access and disposition of the model's own records are governed.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-009", "SRC-016" ], "findings": [ { "id": "scope-resolution-procedure", "name": "Scope resolution procedure", "description": "The advisory procedure that turns a set of facts and a reference instant into an ordered set of candidate jurisdictions with the basis of connection, stopping short of any decision or enforcement.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-011", "SRC-016" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-resolve-inputs", "text": "Which facts must be supplied to obtain a candidate set, and which are optional refinements?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "required input list", "optional input list", "reference instant", "subject matter code" ] }, { "id": "q-resolve-output", "text": "What does a candidate set contain, and how is the basis of connection reported for each candidate?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "candidate jurisdiction references", "basis of connection per candidate", "ordering rationale", "confidence per candidate" ] }, { "id": "q-resolve-limits", "text": "What must the procedure refuse to do, and which model owns those refused operations?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "refused operation list", "owning model reference per operation", "refusal assertion text" ] }, { "id": "q-resolve-underdetermined", "text": "How does the procedure signal that inputs are insufficient or that the answer is genuinely contested?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "insufficiency signal", "missing input list", "contested-result flag", "competing claim references" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "resolution-input-set", "name": "Resolution input set", "description": "The connecting factors, subject matter and reference instant supplied to the procedure.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "candidate-entry", "name": "Candidate entry", "description": "One candidate jurisdiction with its basis of connection, supporting record version and confidence.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "advisory-marker", "name": "Advisory marker", "description": "Assertion that the output is advisory context and not a determination of forum, applicable law or enforceability.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-016" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The procedure emits a transient advisory candidate set that is a function of inputs and a reference instant. Persisting it as an artifact would create a durable record resembling a determination, and determinations, their execution and their audit are owned by the referenced runtime model." }, { "id": "agent-bootstrap-and-discovery", "name": "Agent bootstrap and discovery", "description": "The mandatory bootstrap descriptor that lets an agent discover what this model is, where its specification, storage projection, interface and processes live, and in what order to read them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-boot-fields", "text": "Which fields must the bootstrap descriptor carry for an agent to operate the model without prior knowledge?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ] }, { "id": "q-boot-order", "text": "In what order must an agent read the bootstrap targets, and what must it do if one is unreachable?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "ordered read sequence", "failure handling rule", "minimum viable subset" ] }, { "id": "q-boot-neutrality", "text": "How does the descriptor stay valid across storage projections such as document store, graph, repository or service interface?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "projection independence assertion", "storage type value", "interface type value" ] }, { "id": "q-boot-versioning", "text": "How is the descriptor versioned so an agent can detect that the contract has changed?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "descriptor version", "last modified instant", "change summary reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "bootstrap-name", "name": "Model name field", "description": "Human-readable name of the model as carried in the bootstrap descriptor.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "bootstrap-type", "name": "Model type field", "description": "Declared entry kind of the model.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "bootstrap-url-set", "name": "Bootstrap URL set", "description": "Specification, storage type, interface and processes URLs required for autonomous operation.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "agents-bootstrap-descriptor", "name": "AGENTS.md bootstrap descriptor", "description": "The mandatory entry-point descriptor carrying Name, Type, Specification URL, Storage type URL, Interface URL and Processes URL, present regardless of whether records are projected into a document store, a repository, a graph or a service interface.", "media_or_form": [ "structured text descriptor", "key-value contract block" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the model identifier plus descriptor version; the filename is fixed as AGENTS.md and the descriptor is replaced as a whole on version change.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "record-access-and-sensitivity", "name": "Record access and sensitivity", "description": "Default openness of jurisdiction records, the narrow cases where access must be restricted, and how personal or security-sensitive material is kept out of the model entirely.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-010", "SRC-016" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-access-default", "text": "What is the default access posture for jurisdiction records, and on what public-publication rationale does it rest?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "default access rule", "publication rationale", "affected scopes" ] }, { "id": "q-access-exception", "text": "Which records or fields require restriction, such as unpublished drafts or security-sensitive coordinate deposits?", "kind": "security", "answer_data": [ "restricted record class", "restricting reason", "approving role", "review instant" ] }, { "id": "q-access-personal", "text": "Which categories of personal data are excluded from this model by design, and where do they belong instead?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "excluded data category list", "owning model reference", "exclusion assertion" ] }, { "id": "q-access-audit", "text": "What access evidence must be produced, and which system owns the audit trail that records it?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "required access evidence fields", "owning audit system reference", "non-ownership assertion" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "access-class", "name": "Access class", "description": "Public, restricted or embargoed classification of a record or scope.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "restriction-reason", "name": "Restriction reason", "description": "Recorded justification and approving role for any deviation from the open default.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016" ] }, { "id": "personal-data-exclusion", "name": "Personal data exclusion assertion", "description": "Assertion that no personal data about identified natural persons is held in jurisdiction records.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Access posture is a small set of classifications, reasons and exclusion assertions attached to records and scopes. The audit trail evidencing actual access is explicitly owned by another system, so producing an access artifact here would encroach on audit-record semantics this model does not own." }, { "id": "retention-and-disposition", "name": "Retention and disposition", "description": "How superseded and terminated jurisdiction records are retained, tombstoned rather than erased, and eventually disposed of under a policy executed outside this model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-012", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-retain-class", "text": "Which retention class applies to each record type, and what minimum retention period does it impose?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "retention class code", "minimum period", "triggering event", "policy reference" ] }, { "id": "q-retain-tombstone", "text": "What must a tombstone preserve when a record is withdrawn, so that historical citations still resolve?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "preserved identifier", "obsolescence instant", "successor reference", "reuse prohibition assertion" ] }, { "id": "q-retain-owner", "text": "Which policy and which actor own the execution of physical disposition, given that it lies outside this model's boundary?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "owning policy reference", "executing actor", "confirmation evidence requirement" ] }, { "id": "q-retain-history", "text": "Are superseded versions retained indefinitely for legal-history reconstruction, and under what exception may they be removed?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "version retention rule", "removal exception condition", "approving role", "approval instant" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "retention-class-code", "name": "Retention class code", "description": "Retention category applied to the record type.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "tombstone-record", "name": "Tombstone record", "description": "Minimal surviving record preserving the identifier, obsolescence instant and successor link after withdrawal.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "disposition-owner-ref", "name": "Disposition owner reference", "description": "Reference to the policy and actor that execute physical disposition outside this model.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "retention-schedule-and-tombstone-register", "name": "Retention schedule and tombstone register", "description": "The schedule assigning retention classes and periods to jurisdiction record types, together with the append-only register of tombstoned identifiers, their obsolescence instants and successor links.", "media_or_form": [ "retention schedule", "append-only tombstone register", "versioned release" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "The schedule is identified by policy identifier plus version; each tombstone entry is identified by the retired jurisdiction identifier itself, which is never reassigned.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-015" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "register-jurisdiction", "name": "Register a jurisdiction record", "description": "Create a new jurisdiction record binding an authority-holder to a delimited competence, with at least one conferring instrument reference and an identifier assigned by the identity priority rule.", "inputs": [ "authority-holder reference", "jurisdiction kind code", "competence category code", "scope declarations across the four axes", "conferring instrument reference", "source attestation" ], "outputs": [ "jurisdiction record in draft state", "assigned identifier with provenance tier", "initial validation status" ], "preconditions": [ "authority-holder resolvable in the referenced organisation or court register", "at least one conferring instrument citable by a governed legal identifier", "identity priority applied and the tier recorded" ], "effects": [ "creates a draft record that asserts no legal validity of its own", "records the attestation and observation instant for every asserted element" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-013", "SRC-017" ] }, { "id": "align-external-territorial-code", "name": "Align to an external territorial code", "description": "Record an alignment assertion between a jurisdiction record and an externally maintained territorial code, with match strength, pinned scheme version and any published neutrality caveat.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "code scheme identifier and version", "code value", "match strength", "supporting evidence reference" ], "outputs": [ "alignment entry with validity interval", "caveat carry-over where the scheme publishes one" ], "preconditions": [ "the code scheme has a named maintenance agency and a retrievable release", "no conformance is claimed unless explicit evidence is supplied" ], "effects": [ "adds a dated alignment assertion", "never mutates the external code or the local identifier" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-012", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "declare-spatial-extent-reference", "name": "Declare spatial extent by reference", "description": "Bind a jurisdiction to administrative-unit features or maritime and aerial zone declarations without storing geometry locally.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "administrative unit or boundary feature references", "zone type where applicable", "baseline reference and deposited coordinate reference" ], "outputs": [ "spatial extent reference set", "zone rights enumeration where the extent is a functional zone" ], "preconditions": [ "geometry is authored and versioned in the referenced spatial model", "for maritime zones, the zone type and its outer limit rest on a citable declaration" ], "effects": [ "binds references and zone semantics only", "leaves geometry authorship, topology and boundary lifecycle entirely with the spatial model" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "resolve-candidate-jurisdictions", "name": "Resolve candidate jurisdictions", "description": "Return an ordered advisory set of jurisdictions whose recorded scope matches supplied connecting factors, subject matter and reference instant, each with its basis of connection.", "inputs": [ "connecting factors such as situs, domicile, habitual residence, nationality, place of conduct, place of effect and targeting indicators", "subject matter code", "reference instant" ], "outputs": [ "ordered candidate set with basis of connection and confidence", "contested-result flag with competing claim references", "insufficiency signal listing missing inputs" ], "preconditions": [ "reference instant supplied in RFC 3339 with seconds and an explicit offset or Z", "scope records evaluated only in states valid at that instant" ], "effects": [ "produces advisory context only", "does not select the competent forum, determine applicable law, decide a case or trigger any enforcement" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-011", "SRC-016" ] }, { "id": "assess-overlap-and-priority", "name": "Assess overlap and priority", "description": "Classify the relation between two or more jurisdictions over a shared scope as exclusive, concurrent, hierarchical or disputed, and cite the recorded priority rule.", "inputs": [ "two or more jurisdiction identifiers", "subject matter code", "reference instant" ], "outputs": [ "overlap classification", "priority rule reference", "four-axis intersection description" ], "preconditions": [ "each record is in a state valid at the reference instant", "competing claims, if any, are already recorded as separate assertions" ], "effects": [ "records a dated, attributable assessment with provenance", "never silently merges or suppresses a competing claim" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "record-scope-change", "name": "Record a scope change", "description": "Apply a controlled change event to a jurisdiction record, closing the prior version's validity interval and opening a new one, with the effecting instrument cited.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "change type code", "effecting instrument reference", "effective instant", "observation instant" ], "outputs": [ "new record version", "closed prior version with retained content", "identifier continuity decision" ], "preconditions": [ "instrument reference resolvable through a governed legal identifier", "effective instant and observation instant supplied as distinct fields" ], "effects": [ "supersedes rather than overwrites the prior version", "retains the prior version under the retention class for the record type" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "record-succession-or-cession", "name": "Record succession, cession or dissolution", "description": "Link predecessor and successor jurisdictions when competence is transferred, merged, split or extinguished, recording the share of scope passing to each successor.", "inputs": [ "predecessor jurisdiction identifier", "successor jurisdiction identifiers", "succession basis instrument reference", "effective instant", "treatment of pending matters" ], "outputs": [ "continuity links with scope shares", "tombstone entry where the predecessor is extinguished", "transitional provision reference" ], "preconditions": [ "the succession basis is citable", "the identifier continuity rule has been applied and its outcome recorded" ], "effects": [ "preserves historical resolvability of the predecessor identifier", "marks the predecessor obsolete rather than deleting or reassigning it" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "register-exception-or-immunity", "name": "Register an exception or immunity", "description": "Record an immunity, privilege, reservation, declaration, opt-out or derogation that narrows declared scope for a beneficiary class over a validity window.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "exception type code", "beneficiary class", "depositary or declaration reference", "waiver conditions", "validity window" ], "outputs": [ "exception entry scoped to beneficiary and window", "link to the depositary declaration record" ], "preconditions": [ "a declaration, reservation or instrument evidences the exception", "the enumerated defeating exceptions, if any, are recorded alongside" ], "effects": [ "narrows the declared scope for the named class in recorded form", "does not grant, refuse or waive immunity in any concrete matter" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-008", "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "crosswalk-identifier", "name": "Crosswalk to an external identifier scheme", "description": "Add or update a mapping between a jurisdiction record and the jurisdiction token used by ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, a territorial code list or a legal-entity register.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction identifier", "target scheme identifier and version", "target token value", "equivalence strength" ], "outputs": [ "crosswalk entry", "conflict record where schemes disagree" ], "preconditions": [ "the target scheme has a published registry and a documented governance or registrar rule", "token syntax constraints of the target scheme are satisfied" ], "effects": [ "adds a versioned interoperability mapping", "records conflicts explicitly instead of resolving them silently" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009", "SRC-010", "SRC-018" ] }, { "id": "validate-jurisdiction-record", "name": "Validate a jurisdiction record", "description": "Run the pinned validation profile over a record version, producing a rule-by-rule report and setting validation status and currency.", "inputs": [ "jurisdiction record version", "validation profile version", "source reverification results" ], "outputs": [ "validation report", "validation status", "last verified instant and next due instant" ], "preconditions": [ "profile version pinned and immutable for the run", "every asserted element carries at least one attestation" ], "effects": [ "blocks promotion from draft to published on blocking failures", "sets a staleness clock that triggers reverification" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "apply-retention-disposition", "name": "Apply retention and disposition", "description": "Determine and record the disposition outcome for a superseded, withdrawn or terminated record, leaving a tombstone and delegating physical destruction to the owning policy.", "inputs": [ "record version", "retention class", "disposition trigger event", "adopting-Dimension records policy reference" ], "outputs": [ "disposition outcome of retain, tombstone, transfer or destroy", "tombstone entry preserving the identifier and successor link", "confirmation evidence request to the executing actor" ], "preconditions": [ "a superseding version exists or a termination event is recorded", "the owning records policy reference resolves to a named executing actor" ], "effects": [ "never hard-deletes a published jurisdiction identifier and never permits reassignment", "records the decision locally while the physical disposition is executed by the adopting Dimension under its own policy" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-009", "SRC-012", "SRC-015" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-PLC-004 (parent place and political-geography model)", "relation": "CHILD", "purpose": "Jurisdiction records are navigated beneath the parent place model, which owns place identity, administrative-unit features and boundary geometry. This model contributes competence semantics attached to those places and never re-authors place identity or geometry.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-013" ] }, { "target": "Administrative unit and boundary spatial model (INSPIRE Administrative Units theme)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Carry resolvable references to AdministrativeUnit and AdministrativeBoundary features, the national administrative level and spatial anomalies, plus jurisdiction-specific parameters such as which competence attaches to which unit. Geometry authorship, topology, boundary editing and their lifecycle remain wholly in the spatial model.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "target": "Territorial code registries (ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 as normatively referenced, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Assert dated alignments with a match strength and a pinned scheme version, carrying forward any published neutrality caveat. Code assignment, retirement and reuse policy stay with the maintenance agencies and no conformance is claimed without evidence.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-015" ] }, { "target": "Legislation and legal-instrument model (ELI, Akoma Ntoso, LEX URN)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Cite conferring, amending and terminating instruments through governed legal identifiers together with a pinpoint provision and a relation type. Instrument text, FRBR expression versioning, consolidation and in-force computation remain owned by the legislation model.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "Public-authority and court organisation model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Bind the authority-holder by reference with a role qualifier and continuity links. Organisational structure, appointments, internal competence allocation, dockets and operational activity are not modelled here.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-010", "SRC-017" ] }, { "target": "Case-law identification model (ECLI)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Align adjudicative jurisdiction records to the ECLI country and court codes so that decisions can be attributed to a competence record. Judgment records, ordinal assignment and citation graphs remain in the case-law model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] }, { "target": "Legal-entity registry model (ISO 17442 / GLEIF Global LEI Index)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Consume an entity's legal jurisdiction and registration authority as connecting-factor inputs for personal-scope evaluation. Entity reference data remains mastered by GLEIF and its Local Operating Units and is never duplicated as local master data.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018" ] }, { "target": "Applicable-law and conflict-of-laws model (Rome I and equivalents)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Keep choice of forum separate from choice of law by referencing, not reproducing, the applicable-law determination, including overriding mandatory provisions and the public-policy exception. Determining the governing law of a relationship is owned entirely by that model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-011" ] }, { "target": "Policy-decision, enforcement and audit runtime model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Supply jurisdiction scope facts and advisory candidate sets as inputs. Rule evaluation, decision issuance, enforcement action, representative-based service mechanisms and the audit trail of all of these are owned by the runtime model and are never modelled, executed or logged here.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016", "SRC-019" ] }, { "target": "Statistical territorial classification model (NUTS, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Map jurisdictions to statistical territorial units for reporting, while recording that NUTS units are statistical constructs subject to population thresholds and a triennial amendment cadence and therefore carry no authority claim of their own.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "target": "Maritime zone and law-of-the-sea model", "relation": "EXTEND", "purpose": "Specialise the Jurisdiction entity for maritime and aerial zones by adding zone type, baseline reference, outer limit and deposited-coordinate reference. Generic identity, authority binding, lifecycle, provenance and conflict machinery are inherited and are not restated in the specialisation.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "Bitemporal validity and record-versioning mixin", "relation": "MIX-IN", "purpose": "Reuse a shared contract for effective-time versus observation-time intervals, supersession and version identity, so that this model records only jurisdiction-specific interval semantics such as entry into force and applicability windows.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-012" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "The adopting Dimension must name a competent public or legal authority, or an accountable steward acting on published sources, as owner of every jurisdiction record it publishes; unowned records may exist only in draft state.", "The owner package must declare, per record class, which retention class applies and which actor executes physical disposition, since disposition execution lies outside this model's boundary.", "The owner package must pin the versions of every external scheme it aligns to (territorial code lists, ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, NUTS) and must subscribe to their change notifications so that alignments can be invalidated when a registrar retires a token.", "The owner package must publish its neutrality posture, carrying forward the caveats of any source that disclaims a position on the legal status of territories or the delimitation of frontiers.", "The owner package must declare which policy-decision or enforcement runtime consumes its outputs, and must record that evaluation, enforcement and audit are executed there." ], "namespace_guidance": "Use one stable namespace per adopting Dimension for locally minted jurisdiction identifiers, kept strictly separate from the namespaces of external registrars. Never mint a local identifier in a shape that could be mistaken for an ISO 3166, M49, ELI, ECLI or LEX URN token. Local subdivision hierarchies should mirror the parent-child structure of the record graph rather than encoding hierarchy in the identifier string, so that reorganisation does not force a rename that external schemes forbid.", "registry_links": [ "Vercy registry entry vr.wm-pol-015 (model WM-POL-015) is the canonical registration for this model and records its parent WM-PLC-004.", "External registrar links must be recorded per alignment: the maintenance agency for each territorial code list, the ELI implementation register of the publishing authority, the ECLI national coordinator, and the LEX URN Jurisdictional Registrar where one is designated.", "Composition targets that are not yet registered Vercy models must be recorded as named placeholders with their intended relation type so that the ownership contract is auditable before the sibling model exists." ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Canonical form is the semantic record graph, not any serialisation: JSON, YAML, Markdown, HTML, a Git tree, an MCP resource and a document collection are equivalent projections and none is normative.", "Order-insensitive collections (alignment entries, crosswalk entries, competing claims, exception entries) are canonicalised by sorting on their member identifiers before digesting, so that projection ordering cannot change a digest.", "All instants are canonicalised to RFC 3339 with seconds present and an explicit numeric offset or Z; no locale-dependent or offset-less form is canonical.", "Identifiers are canonicalised case-sensitively as issued by their registrar; the model never normalises the case or punctuation of an external token." ], "patch_rules": [ "Substantive changes to a competence create a new record version through record-scope-change; they are never applied as in-place edits to a published version.", "A patch must carry the effecting instrument reference, the effective instant and the observation instant; a patch lacking an instrument reference may only alter attestation, alignment or crosswalk metadata, not scope.", "Corrections of transcription error are recorded as errata against the same version with their own provenance, distinguishing correction of the record from change of the underlying competence.", "Deleting an alignment or crosswalk entry is expressed as closing its validity interval, never as removal, so that historical resolution remains reproducible." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Adding a new optional data element, code-list term, alignment scheme or question is a minor change; removing or narrowing an element, retiring a code-list term, or tightening a cardinality is a breaking change.", "Jurisdiction identifiers are permanently stable: they are never renamed, never reassigned and only ever marked obsolete with a successor link, following the LEX URN rule for jurisdiction codes.", "A change to the meaning of a typology term requires a new term and deprecation of the old one; terms are never redefined in place.", "Consumers must tolerate multi-valued and contested results; a scheme change that would force a single answer where the sources disagree is breaking." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier issued by the competent public or legal authority that constitutes or registers the jurisdiction — for example the national official register or gazette reference for the constituting instrument, the treaty depositary notification reference, the ECLI court code for an adjudicative body, or the statutory subdivision code issued by the national coding authority.", "Governed global identifier or IRI from a maintained public registry — for example the EU Countries and territories NAL URI, an ELI URI for the conferring instrument, a LEX URN jurisdiction token, or an ISO 3166-1/-2 code as normatively referenced by Akoma Ntoso and urn:lex.", "UUID or ULID minted by the adopting Dimension in its own namespace, used only when neither of the tiers above yields a stable identifier, and always recorded together with the tier marker and the reason no higher tier applied.", "A date, a name, a boundary geometry, a NUTS code or any statistical grouping code is never an identifier for a jurisdiction; NUTS and M49 codes may be carried only as alignments." ], "timestamp_rule": "All time values are recorded as RFC 3339 date-time strings that include seconds and an explicit numeric UTC offset or the literal Z; offset-less, date-only or locale-formatted values are rejected at validation. Event time and observation time are separate mandatory fields wherever they can differ: the effective instant records when a jurisdictional change took legal effect according to its instrument, while the observation or ingestion instant records when this model retrieved or recorded that fact. Where an instrument states only a date, the effective instant is recorded as a date-typed element with the governing time zone named explicitly rather than silently coerced to midnight UTC.", "serial_naming_rule": "Serial artifacts — the code alignment table, subject-matter competence catalogue, deposited coordinate records, depositary declaration records, official publication attestations, validation reports, the identifier crosswalk map and the tombstone register — are named as artifact identifier plus a monotonically increasing semantic version or run instant, never by overwriting a prior name. Each release pins the versions of every external scheme it depends on, is immutable once published, and links to the release it supersedes; the AGENTS.md bootstrap descriptor is the sole non-serial artifact and is replaced wholesale on version change.", "integrity_rule": "Every artifact release carries a content digest and the retrieval instants and digests of the external sources it depends on, so that an agent can detect upstream drift. Attestation and tombstone registers are append-only. A digest mismatch against a pinned source sets the affected records to a stale state and blocks their promotion, but never rewrites the historical release; integrity of externally held instruments and geometry is verified by reference only, since those artifacts are owned by the legislation and spatial models." }, "policies": [ "Alignment, not conformance: citing an external standard records a mapping with a match strength and pinned version. Conformance to ISO 3166, ELI, ECLI, Akoma Ntoso, LEX URN or INSPIRE is asserted only where explicit conformance evidence is recorded, and conflicts between schemes are preserved as conflict records rather than resolved editorially.", "Neutrality on contested status: where authorities assert incompatible competence, all claims are held side by side with their asserting authority, instrument and instant. The model does not adjudicate, rank by political preference, or suppress a claim, and it carries forward source caveats disclaiming any position on legal status or delimitation of frontiers.", "Advisory only: outputs are context for a decision-maker. The model never determines the competent forum for a concrete matter, never selects the applicable law, and never evaluates, executes, enforces or audits anything; those operations belong to the referenced conflict-of-laws and policy-decision runtime models.", "Reference over replication: geometry, instrument text, entity reference data, judgments and audit trails are referenced through resolvable identifiers and are never copied into this model, even when copying would be convenient for offline use.", "Evidence before publication: no record may leave draft state without at least one attestation naming an official publication or register, a retrieval instant and an authority tier." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Published jurisdiction records, their alignments, crosswalks, exceptions and provenance are readable by default at bundle, layer, finding and artifact scope.", "Reads that supply a reference instant return the record version valid at that instant; reads without one return the current version and must state that fact in the response.", "A read that matches competing claims must return all of them together with the contested-result flag; returning a single claim without disclosure is a contract violation.", "Draft, embargoed and restricted records are readable only by roles holding the corresponding grant, and every such read requires a recorded justification." ], "create": [ "Creation requires an authority-holder reference, at least one conferring instrument reference and an identifier resolved through the identity priority rule with its tier recorded.", "New records are created in draft state; they carry no assertion of legal validity until validation passes and a steward promotes them.", "Creating an alignment or crosswalk entry requires the pinned version of the external scheme and an explicit match or equivalence strength.", "Creating a record for a contested scope requires the competing claims to be recorded as separate attributed assertions in the same transaction." ], "update": [ "Scope changes are applied only through record-scope-change, which closes the prior version and opens a new one with distinct effective and observation instants.", "Metadata-only updates to attestation, alignment or crosswalk entries do not create a new scope version but do create a new provenance entry.", "No update may rename or reassign a jurisdiction identifier; an identifier may only be marked obsolete with a successor link.", "An update that would resolve a recorded conflict without new attested evidence is rejected; conflicts are closed only by evidence, not by editorial preference." ], "delete": [ "Hard deletion of a published jurisdiction record is prohibited. Withdrawal produces a tombstone that permanently preserves the identifier, the obsolescence instant, the successor link where one exists and an explicit reuse-prohibition assertion, so that historical citations in ELI, ECLI, LEX URN and Akoma Ntoso references continue to resolve.", "Superseded versions are retained under the retention class assigned to the record type and are required for reconstructing the competence in force at any past instant; removal of a superseded version is an exception requiring a named approving role, a recorded reason and an approval instant.", "Unpublished drafts that never entered published state may be removed outright, provided any attestation they created is retained in the append-only attestation register.", "Execution of physical destruction, media sanitisation and any legally mandated erasure is outside this model's boundary: it is owned and executed by the adopting Dimension's records-management policy named in disposition-owner-ref, and where a referenced model holds the underlying material — the legislation model for instruments, the spatial model for geometry, the entity registry for entity data and the runtime model for audit trails — deletion there is owned by that model. This model records only the disposition decision, its trigger and the confirmation evidence returned by the executing actor.", "Removal of an external alignment or crosswalk is expressed by closing its validity interval; the entry itself is never erased, because a past resolution must remain reproducible." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Jurisdiction steward", "responsibilities": [ "Owns a defined set of jurisdiction records and their promotion from draft to published state", "Ensures every asserted element carries an attestation with a retrieval instant and authority tier", "Approves scope-change records and confirms the identifier continuity decision for each change", "Maintains the neutrality posture when contested claims are recorded" ] }, { "name": "Legal source verifier", "responsibilities": [ "Verifies conferring and amending instrument citations against official publications and registers", "Assigns and reviews authority tiers and primary or secondary markers for each source", "Runs reverification against the staleness threshold and records the last verified instant", "Raises errata where a record diverges from its cited source" ] }, { "name": "Spatial and boundary liaison", "responsibilities": [ "Maintains resolvable references into the administrative-unit and boundary spatial model and rejects any local geometry authoring", "Records maritime and aerial zone types, baselines and deposited coordinate references", "Coordinates with the parent place model when unit references are retired, split or merged", "Flags enclave, exclave, condominium and shared-administration anomalies for steward review" ] }, { "name": "Interoperability registrar", "responsibilities": [ "Maintains crosswalks to ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code lists and legal-entity registers", "Pins external scheme versions and monitors registrar change notices for retired or obsoleted tokens", "Records conflicts between schemes rather than resolving them and escalates them to the steward", "Enforces the prohibition on renaming or reassigning jurisdiction identifiers" ] }, { "name": "Access and retention officer", "responsibilities": [ "Applies the open-by-default access posture and approves every documented exception with a reason and review instant", "Assigns retention classes and confirms that a named actor and policy own physical disposition outside this model", "Maintains the append-only tombstone register and verifies that no retired identifier is reused", "Confirms that no personal data about identified natural persons enters jurisdiction records" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Jurisdiction records describe publicly constituted authority and are open by default at every scope, because their evidentiary basis is official publications, treaty depositary records and public registers that are themselves published.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Draft records and pre-publication scope changes are restricted until promoted, to avoid circulating an unattested competence claim as if it were in force.", "Deposited coordinate records and boundary references may be restricted where the source authority itself embargoes them, and the embargo is carried forward with its source reference rather than re-decided locally.", "Records describing a live contested claim may be access-flagged where publication would misrepresent a pending proceeding; the restriction applies to presentation, never to the underlying attested claims, which remain retained in full.", "Internal conflict records and escalation notes are restricted to the steward and registrar roles until the conflict is closed by evidence.", "Any restriction requires a named approving role, a recorded reason and a scheduled review instant; restrictions do not renew silently." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Every access to a restricted or draft record must be evidenced with the accessing actor, the justification, the scope accessed and an RFC 3339 instant with seconds and offset.", "The audit trail that stores this evidence is owned and operated by the adopting Dimension's audit system or the referenced runtime model; this model defines the required evidence fields but does not own audit-record schemas, audit retention or audit querying.", "Grants and revocations of access are themselves recorded as provenance entries against the affected scope so that the access posture at any past instant can be reconstructed.", "Restriction exceptions must be reviewed at their scheduled review instant, and an expired unreviewed restriction is reported as a validation failure." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL", "Registry ID", "Model ID", "Version", "Last modified instant" ], "read_order": [ "Read AGENTS.md first and confirm that Name, Type, Registry ID and Model ID identify this model and version.", "Read the Specification URL to load the bundle, layer, finding and question structure together with the scope statement, out-of-scope list and boundary notes before assuming any capability.", "Read the Storage type URL to learn the projection in use (document store, graph, repository tree or service resource) and to confirm that the projection is not treated as semantics.", "Read the Interface URL to learn how to query records at a reference instant, how contested and multi-valued results are returned, and which operations are refused.", "Read the Processes URL to learn the registration, change, validation, retention and escalation procedures and which actors own operations that lie outside this model, in particular evaluation, enforcement, deletion execution and audit.", "If any bootstrap target is unreachable, operate in read-only advisory mode against cached published records, state the degraded mode to the caller, and do not create, promote or dispose of any record." ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Reviewable-draft coverage for Jurisdiction as a bounded competence: identity and territorial coding, authority-holder and conferral, the four scope axes with declared power type, inter-jurisdictional relations and exceptions, lifecycle with provenance and contestation, and identifier interoperability — 6 bundles, 13 layers, 28 findings, 113 questions, 10 artifacts and 11 functions, with every layer resting on at least one tier-1 primary source. Coverage is EU- and UN-instrument-weighted and audited by one provider only; it is not complete for any national legal system, and non-State legal orders, arbitral competence, cross-border data-access regimes, State-succession instruments and outer space, Antarctic and deep-seabed regimes remain declared or newly identified omissions.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "jurisdiction-record-identity sets a three-tier priority headed by the authoritative master-system identifier; the LEX URN prohibition on renaming and obsolete-only retirement supplies primary support for permanent identifier stability, and NUTS and M49 codes are explicitly excluded as identifiers." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "scope-change-succession-and-dissolution defines a controlled change-type set, record states and predecessor/successor continuity, grounded in the NUTS amendment cadence, ELI versioned publication and the treatment of State succession; identifier continuity is decided per change." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Hierarchy and deference, concurrency with priority rules, and forum-selection and recognition are separated into distinct findings grounded in Brussels Ia exclusive heads and lis pendens, Rome Statute complementarity, TFEU competence categories and the HCCH 2005 Convention." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "temporal-applicability-window separates entry into force, applicability start and end, and retroactivity from record observation time; Rome Statute Article 11 with its Article 12(3) declaration supplies the primary case for reachable-conduct instants distinct from entry into force." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "source-attestation-and-provenance requires per-assertion publication citation, retrieval instant, authority tier, digest and a derived-versus-attested marker; attestations are append-only." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "authority-holder-binding carries the holder by reference only, and eleven composition links plus nine boundary notes assign geometry, instruments, entity data, judgments, applicable law, evaluation, enforcement and audit to their owning models." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "covered", "notes": "validation-conformance-and-currency defines a pinned profile, blocking versus advisory severities, an explicit alignment-not-conformance default, and a staleness threshold that triggers reverification; the validation report is a serial immutable artifact." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Open-by-default posture across all four scopes with five narrow, reviewable exceptions; required access-evidence fields are specified while audit-record schemas and retention are explicitly assigned to the adopting Dimension or runtime model." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "crud.delete prohibits hard deletion of published identifiers, mandates tombstones with reuse prohibition, retains superseded versions for reconstruction, and names disposition-owner-ref plus the adopting Dimension's records policy as the owner of physical destruction; per-model deletion of instruments, geometry, entity data and audit trails stays with those models." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "covered", "notes": "external-identifier-crosswalk and jurisdiction-token-in-legal-identifiers map to ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code lists and LEI jurisdiction data, with equivalence strength, pinned scheme versions, conflict records and registrar-driven invalidation." }, { "dimension": "spatial extent", "status": "covered", "notes": "Land extent is reference-only into the INSPIRE-aligned spatial model; maritime and aerial zones are modelled as functional partial competences with zone type, baseline, outer limit and deposited-coordinate evidence per UNCLOS Parts II and V." }, { "dimension": "authority and conferral", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competence category and exclusivity follow the TFEU taxonomy including the principle of conferral and pre-emption; delegation, devolution, sub-delegation limits and consensual bases are recorded with revocability." }, { "dimension": "exceptions and immunities", "status": "covered", "notes": "Immunity with waiver and enumerated defeating exceptions, reservations, declarations, opt-outs and derogations are one scoped overlay finding, evidenced by depositary-lodged declaration records." }, { "dimension": "classification", "status": "covered", "notes": "Jurisdiction kind is a governed code list artifact with per-term citation and deprecation; power type is recorded as prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement classification only, with an explicit non-ownership pointer to the runtime model." }, { "dimension": "conflict and contestation", "status": "covered", "notes": "contested-claim-and-dispute-recording holds parallel attributed claims with a mandatory neutrality caveat drawn from the UNSD disclaimer, and the consumer contract forbids silent single-answer resolution." }, { "dimension": "measurement", "status": "covered", "notes": "Quantified elements are limited to zone outer limits, competence thresholds and staleness durations, each with units and a source; no scoring or ranking of jurisdictions is introduced." }, { "dimension": "privacy", "status": "covered", "notes": "Personal data about identified natural persons is excluded by design with an explicit assertion; personal-scope modelling operates on person classes and attachment criteria, not on individuals." }, { "dimension": "security", "status": "covered", "notes": "Restriction of embargoed deposits and drafts is handled through access exceptions with named approvers and review instants; no security-control implementation is claimed, since enforcement belongs to the runtime model." }, { "dimension": "process and events", "status": "covered", "notes": "Eleven functions cover registration, alignment, spatial binding, resolution, overlap assessment, change, succession, exception registration, crosswalking, validation and disposition, each with preconditions and non-ownership effects." }, { "dimension": "evidence and quality", "status": "covered", "notes": "Attestation tiers, digests, derived-assertion flags, conformance-claim flags and currency instants together make each assertion falsifiable against a named source." } ], "known_omissions": [ "ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 could not be fetched directly: iso.org returned HTTP 403 on every attempt. The standard is therefore cited indirectly through instruments that normatively reference it (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention, urn:lex) and through UNSD and the EU Countries NAL. Any structural claim resting solely on ISO wording should be treated as unverified until the ISO Online Browsing Platform is consulted.", "The International Law Commission's 2006 annex on extraterritorial jurisdiction (A/61/10) could not be parsed; the prescriptive/adjudicative/enforcement trichotomy is therefore supported here by the operative structure of Brussels Ia, GDPR Article 3 and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities rather than by a doctrinal source. The power-type classification is marked as declared classification only and should be re-grounded if a retrievable authoritative statement of the trichotomy is obtained.", "Religious, customary, indigenous and non-State legal orders are not separately modelled. The typology can express them as jurisdiction kinds, but no primary source in this set governs their identity, coding or conferral, so treating them as first-class here would be unsupported structure.", "Arbitral tribunal competence, investor-State dispute settlement and the New York Convention regime are out of the source set; the consensual-basis element can carry an arbitration reference but the model asserts no structure for arbitral seat, kompetenz-kompetenz or award enforcement.", "Cyberspace-specific and platform-jurisdiction questions (data localisation, jurisdiction over cloud-held evidence, cross-border production orders) are represented only through generic connecting factors; no instrument governing cross-border data access is cited.", "Outer space, Antarctic Treaty area and deep seabed Area regimes are not modelled, although each is a genuine non-territorial competence regime; UNCLOS Parts XI and following were not consulted.", "No source in this set defines a normative confidence scale, so confidence values on candidate sets and alignments are locally defined and are not comparable across adopting Dimensions.", "Machine-verifiable conformance evidence for ELI, ECLI or Akoma Ntoso is not specified here; the model records only whether conformance is claimed and what evidence would be required." ], "conflicts": [ "Territorial coverage of ISO 3166, UN M49 and the EU Countries and territories NAL is not identical: each includes entries the others omit or classify differently, and each maintains its own retirement policy. Alignments are therefore recorded per scheme with a match strength, and cross-scheme disagreement is preserved as a conflict record.", "UNSD states that groupings are for statistical convenience and imply no position on political affiliation or legal status, while a jurisdiction record is precisely a claim about legal authority. The model resolves this by never inferring competence from a code-list membership and by carrying the UNSD caveat forward.", "NUTS defines an administrative unit as an area with an authority holding decision-making power, yet NUTS levels themselves are statistical aggregations subject to population thresholds. Treating a NUTS unit as a jurisdiction is a category error the model blocks by classing NUTS as an ALIGN target only.", "GDPR Article 3 asserts prescriptive reach over controllers with no EU establishment, while enforcement jurisdiction is territorially constrained. The model records prescriptive and enforcement scope separately and requires the asymmetry to be stated rather than smoothed.", "Brussels Ia exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24 and party autonomy under Article 25 can point to different forums, and the HCCH 2005 Convention adds its own obligations on chosen and non-chosen courts with enumerated refusal grounds. The model records both bindings with their instruments and does not compute a winner.", "Rome Statute complementarity means a competence can exist yet be inadmissible in a concrete case. The model separates existence of competence from admissibility, and admissibility determination is left to the adjudicating body.", "The urn:lex requirement that jurisdiction codes are never renamed can conflict with national practice of reusing subdivision codes after reorganisation. The model follows the stricter urn:lex rule and forbids reuse locally, which may diverge from a national coding authority's own behaviour.", "Immunity under the 2004 UN Convention operates as an exception to an otherwise existing jurisdiction, not as its absence; systems that model immunity as a scope reduction will produce different answers from systems that model it as an overlay. This model uses the overlay reading and states it explicitly." ], "regional_assumptions": [ "The competence-category taxonomy (exclusive, shared, coordinating, supporting) and the principle of conferral are drawn from EU treaty law. They generalise reasonably to federal systems but are not universal; unitary and common-law systems may allocate competence by convention or judicial doctrine rather than by an enumerated list.", "Brussels Ia, Rome I, ELI, ECLI and NUTS are EU instruments. Their structural lessons are used as evidence that particular distinctions exist and are operationally necessary, not as evidence that any specific rule applies outside the EU.", "The 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities is not universally in force; several States apply national immunity statutes or customary law with materially different exceptions. Immunity entries must therefore cite the instrument actually relied on in the recording jurisdiction.", "The HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention binds only its Contracting States; forum-designation entries must record the applicable regime rather than assuming the Convention applies.", "Maritime zone entitlements assume UNCLOS as the reference frame; States not party to UNCLOS, and areas subject to pending delimitation, require the applicable bilateral or customary basis to be cited instead.", "The open-by-default access posture assumes a legal system in which constituting instruments, registers and treaty depositary records are publicly published. Where they are not, the adopting Dimension must set a more restrictive default and record why." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Does any finding own a target model's operations? Checked every bundle, layer, finding and function against the composition rationales: power-type-classification and scope-resolution-procedure both carry explicit non-ownership pointers and are inline-only precisely so that no artifact could be mistaken for an enforcement or decision record; access audit requirements name required evidence fields but assign audit schemas, retention and querying to the adopting Dimension or runtime model; crud.delete records only the disposition decision and names the external executing actor.", "Is any structure attractive but unsupported? A generic 'jurisdictional legitimacy' or 'sovereignty score' layer was rejected because no source in the set defines a normative measure, and any such structure would breach the neutrality policy. A separate 'enforcement action' layer was rejected for the same reason and reduced to a classification code with a limitation note.", "Does the model duplicate a sibling? Boundary notes and composition links keep geometry with the spatial model, instrument text and versioning with the legislation model, judgments with the case-law model, entity reference data with GLEIF, applicable-law determination with the conflict-of-laws model, and evaluation, enforcement and audit with the runtime model. Land extent, legal basis, authority holder and forum designation are all inline reference-only findings for exactly this reason.", "Is the exclusive-artifact rule satisfied everywhere? Ten findings declare artifacts with inline_only_rationale set to null; eighteen declare an empty artifacts array with a substantive rationale that explains why the context is reference or classification data. No finding populates both.", "Would a counterexample break the structure? Tested against functional partial competence (UNCLOS EEZ: competence over enumerated activities only, coexisting with other States' freedoms), against competence without territory (an international tribunal reaching conduct by nationality link), against competence over conduct outside the territory (GDPR targeting), against competence created by private agreement (HCCH choice of court), and against competence that exists but yields (Rome Statute complementarity, Brussels Ia lis pendens). Each is expressible without adding structure, which is why plenary-or-functional, connecting-factor and deference elements exist.", "Can the identity rule survive reorganisation? A jurisdiction that is split, merged or renamed keeps its identifier, gains an obsolescence marker where extinguished and a successor link with scope share; the urn:lex prohibition on renaming is enforced locally even where a national coding authority reuses codes, and this divergence is recorded as a known conflict rather than hidden.", "Is anything claimed as conformance without evidence? No. The conformance-claim flag defaults to alignment, ISO 3166 is flagged as indirectly cited because iso.org was unreachable, and the prescriptive/adjudicative/enforcement trichotomy is marked as declared classification pending a retrievable doctrinal source.", "Does the model force a single answer where sources disagree? No. Competing claims are returned together with a contested-result flag, the read contract makes suppressing a claim a violation, and closing a conflict requires new attested evidence rather than editorial preference." ] }, "researchAdjudication": { "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "activeProviders": [ "claude" ], "waivedProviders": [ "grok" ], "providerPolicy": { "contract_version": "1.0.0", "mode": "single-provider-waiver", "effective_at": "2026-08-29T09:06:27Z", "scope": "Queued subject-model research from WM-XCT-013 onward", "active_providers": [ "claude" ], "waived_providers": [ { "provider": "grok", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-08-29T09:06:27Z", "reason": "The repository owner explicitly instructed the research queue to continue without Grok after repeated structured-output failures." } ], "review_rule": "Claude-only results require a separate no-tools adversarial audit and remain reviewable drafts with a visible single-provider hold." }, "boundaryDecision": { "entry_kind": "entity", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "Two axes must not be conflated. On the record plane the frozen registry value standalone-mm says only that vr.wm-pol-015 is registered as a free-standing meta-model record with empty contains_ids and a single parent WM-PLC-004; it classifies the registration, not the subject, and is not a member of the subject-model enum. On the subject plane the most defensible schema kind is entity, and the declared value is accepted. The decisive test is identity independence: the jurisdiction identifier is permanently stable, never renamed or reassigned, survives reorganisation, renaming or abolition of the authority-holder (q-holder-continuity), survives extension, reduction, cession, merger and split (q-change-identifier), and on extinction is retired by obsolescence marker plus successor link rather than deleted. 'relationship' was seriously considered because the purpose binds a holder to a competence, but a reified relationship loses identity when an endpoint changes, which this model expressly forbids. 'aggregate' was considered because the record roots dependent collections (alignments, crosswalks, exception entries, attestations, tombstone), but those are attributes of a single record rather than independently registered sibling models, and contains_ids is empty. 'classifier' fits only the subordinate typology code list, not the subject. Status is accepted rather than reclassified, but the registry review_state boundary-review-required must stay open until the authority-holder cardinality rule and the per-power-type scope asymmetry recorded below are settled." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Subject-model entry kind: entity versus reified relationship", "disposition": "accepted as entity", "rationale": "The identifier persists across change of authority-holder and change of territory, which a reified holder-to-scope relationship could not do; identity independence from both endpoints is the entity test and the model enforces it explicitly." }, { "concept": "Aggregate root and authority-holder cardinality", "disposition": "accepted with a mandatory cardinality rule to be added", "rationale": "The purpose statement binds 'an identified authority-holder' (singular) while q-holder-plurality asks how several bodies sharing one scope record their distinct share. The root must be pinned as one record per holder-competence-scope tuple, with shared scope expressed through concurrency relations rather than multi-holder records." }, { "concept": "Per-power-type scope asymmetry (prescriptive reach exceeding enforcement reach)", "disposition": "deferred — blocking for candidate-to-accepted promotion, not for draft publication", "rationale": "q-power-asymmetry requires the asymmetry to be recorded rather than smoothed, but the four scope axes attach once per record, so the model's own GDPR counterexample cannot be instantiated without either scoping the axes per power type or splitting the record. The structural choice must be resolved by review before promotion." }, { "concept": "Deposited chart and coordinate-list artifact versus the no-geometry out-of-scope rule", "disposition": "reclassified to a citation-and-digest evidence record", "rationale": "media_or_form for deposited-coordinate-record lists 'nautical chart' and 'list of geographical coordinates', which reads as holding the very boundary material the out-of-scope list and the reference-over-replication policy assign to the spatial model and the depositary; only the notification reference, depositary, instant and digest should be held here." }, { "concept": "serial_naming_rule claim that AGENTS.md is the sole non-serial artifact", "disposition": "rejected as written; correction required before publication", "rationale": "Two artifacts declare serial:false — agents-bootstrap-descriptor and jurisdiction-typology-code-list — so the artifact identity rule contradicts the structure it governs. The code list is also version-governed with deprecation, so its serial flag and the rule text must be reconciled." }, { "concept": "Coverage checklist assertion of eleven composition links", "disposition": "rejected as unsupported", "rationale": "The frozen relationship contract is empty and the payload contains nine boundary notes and zero composition links. The ownership dimension must be restated as nine boundary notes plus named placeholder composition targets under the registry_links placeholder rule, or the count must be evidenced." }, { "concept": "Source support for State succession, cession and dissolution", "disposition": "accepted as declared-only; the grounding claim is struck", "rationale": "scope-change-succession-and-dissolution cites SRC-003, SRC-009, SRC-012 and SRC-014, none of which governs State succession; SRC-014 is the immunities convention. The lifecycle checklist note claiming succession grounding overstates the evidence and must be downgraded pending a succession instrument." }, { "concept": "urn:lex Internet-Draft as grounding for permanent identifier stability", "disposition": "accepted with dual grounding required", "rationale": "SRC-009 is draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24, a non-consensus expiring Internet-Draft carried at authority tier 2, yet it alone carries a hard compatibility rule and a stated divergence from national code-reuse practice. The rule should also rest on ELI and ECLI persistence practice or be marked as a local policy choice." }, { "concept": "ISO 3166 held at identity tier 2 while NUTS and M49 are alignment-only", "disposition": "accepted with the unverified-source marker retained", "rationale": "The asymmetry is defensible because ISO codes are the tokens that Akoma Ntoso and urn:lex actually govern, whereas NUTS and M49 are statistical, but iso.org returned HTTP 403 so the ISO wording is unverified and every structural claim resting solely on it must stay flagged." }, { "concept": "SRC-019 (gdpr-info.eu) as a tier-3 non-primary reproduction", "disposition": "accepted as a non-sole supporting citation", "rationale": "Both findings that cite it (power-type-classification, extraterritorial-reach-and-connecting-factors) also cite SRC-016, the CELEX text, so it never carries an assertion alone; it must be marked secondary in provenance and must not become sole support in any revision." }, { "concept": "Tombstone register exemption from retention disposition", "disposition": "accepted with an explicit non-disposable rule required", "rationale": "Retention classes impose a minimum period, which read literally could authorise disposing of the append-only tombstone register and so break the identifier non-reuse guarantee and the resolution of historical ELI, ECLI and urn:lex citations; the register must be declared permanently non-disposable." }, { "concept": "Rome Statute pinned at the 1998 corrected text", "disposition": "accepted with a version-pin correction required", "rationale": "SRC-007 pins A/CONF.183/9 as adopted, which does not carry subsequently adopted amendments; the subject-matter competence catalogue and the temporal-reach claims should cite the current consolidated Statute so that catalogue versioning ties to amending instruments as q-matter-versioning demands." }, { "concept": "Missing operations for competing claims and access restrictions", "disposition": "deferred; no function additions permitted in single-provider mode", "rationale": "crud.create requires competing claims to be recorded and access.exceptions require a named approver, reason and scheduled review instant, but no declared function adds a competing claim to an existing record or registers and reviews a restriction. Raised for the next revision because add_functions must remain empty under the waiver contract." }, { "concept": "Access scopes applied to record instances", "disposition": "accepted with clarification required", "rationale": "bundle, layer, finding and artifact are context-structure scopes, yet the exceptions restrict record instances and fields such as embargoed coordinate deposits and draft scope changes; a record-and-field scope must be named so instance-level restriction is expressible without stretching the context scopes." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Live source and version verification is outstanding: no URL, HTTP status or version pin in the nineteen-source set was re-fetched during this audit. ISO 3166-1/-2 is admittedly unretrieved (HTTP 403), SRC-009 is an expiring Internet-Draft, SRC-007 is pinned to the 1998 corrected Rome Statute text, SRC-012 to the 2024-01-01 NUTS consolidation, SRC-015 to NAL version 20260617-0, and the UNCLOS Part II and Part V URLs are legacy paths. Every pin must be revalidated with a retrieval instant and digest before the draft leaves reviewable state.", "The owner-authorized absence of independent second-provider review must be visible in every published artifact: Grok was waived by the repository owner on 2026-08-29T09:06:27Z after repeated structured-output failures, so this result carries one provider plus a no-tools adversarial audit only, has no cross-provider agreement on entry kind, sources or structure, and remains a reviewable draft rather than a validated model.", "The frozen registry record stays at status candidate with review_state boundary-review-required and an empty relations_ref, and the relationship contract is empty. Composition targets (spatial, legislation, case-law, entity-registry, conflict-of-laws and policy-decision/enforcement runtime models) must be published as named placeholders with intended relation types so the ownership contract is auditable before the sibling models exist.", "Two artifact-identity defects must be corrected before publication: the serial_naming_rule asserts a single non-serial artifact while two are declared non-serial, and the deposited chart and coordinate-list artifact must be reduced to a citation-and-digest evidence record so it does not hold geometry the model declares out of scope.", "The coverage checklist must be corrected where it overstates evidence: the claim of eleven composition links is unsupported by the frozen contract, and the State-succession grounding claim is unsupported by any cited source.", "Independent second-provider review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this Claude-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Retrieve ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 through the ISO Online Browsing Platform and re-ground every structural claim currently resting on indirect citation through Akoma Ntoso, urn:lex, UNSD and the EU Countries NAL.", "Obtain a retrievable authoritative statement of the prescriptive/adjudicative/enforcement trichotomy (ILC A/61/10 annex or an equivalent doctrinal source) so power-type classification is no longer supported only by the operative structure of Brussels Ia, GDPR Article 3 and the immunities convention.", "Add the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention to the source set; recognition and refusal grounds currently rest on Brussels Ia and the 2005 Choice of Court Convention alone, which leaves recognition outside chosen-court cases unevidenced.", "Consult the 1978 and 1983 Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, or an equivalent authority, to ground succession, cession and dissolution, which no cited source currently governs.", "Consult the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and Consular Relations (1963) so that privilege and immunity are not modelled solely from the 2004 State immunity convention, which is itself not universally in force.", "Verify the current status of draft-spinosa-urn-lex (expiry, successor draft or RFC), the current NUTS consolidation after the triennial amendment cadence, and the current EU Countries and territories NAL version, and repin all three.", "Consult UNCLOS Part XI, the Antarctic Treaty regime and the Outer Space Treaty to decide whether non-territorial competence regimes need dedicated structure or can be carried by the existing typology and functional-competence elements.", "Determine whether consensual competence should be extended to arbitral seat, kompetenz-kompetenz and award enforcement by consulting the New York Convention and ICSID regime, or whether that scope belongs to a sibling model." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 19, "bundles": 6, "layers": 13, "findings": 28, "questions": 113, "artifacts": 10, "functions": 11 } }