# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T11:29:48Z", "synthesisSha256": "00bb959ba460039e3ea5c89259ce5106a040fd926b0abdacf80f1b0631192559", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-017", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-017", "name": "Administrative Procedure / Case", "version": "0.1.0-reviewable-draft", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.ADM" ], "tags": [ "administrative", "procedure", "case", "soc.pol.adm" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-017-administrative-procedure-case/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-017", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-017", "model_id": "WM-POL-017", "name": "Administrative Procedure / Case", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Describe one public-law administrative case with stable identity, procedural evidence and qualified outcome references.", "scope_statement": "A persistent administrative case instance maintained by a competent public authority. The proposed structure records case-specific assertions and links; it is neither an executable legal procedure nor an authorization to decide rights. It can represent an open, withdrawn or otherwise concluded case without requiring a final administrative decision.", "in_scope": [ "Authority-qualified case identity, subject matter, linked cases and applicable procedure profile", "Initiation, participants, representation, impartiality, evidence, participation and restricted file access", "Procedural progress, uncertain time limits, outcome and notification references, review and record continuity" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Procedure definitions, legislation, authority and party master records", "Court litigation as an independently mastered case; private service tickets", "Issuing or serving decisions, filing appeals, determining legal validity, executing enforcement or implementing a universal deadline engine" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-ACT-021 Service Case / Ticket", "distinction": "Registry parent is a candidate alignment, not ratified inheritance. Public-law competence and qualified procedural rights distinguish this instance from a generic service ticket.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-REC-009 Application / Request Record", "distinction": "Optional external reference. Official initiative and referrals do not require an application; the candidate COMPOSE edge cannot imply mandatory containment.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-REC-010 Decision / Approval Record", "distinction": "Optional external reference with its own identity, author and revision. An active case may have no decision and other outcomes must remain representable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "Procedure model, public service and court case", "distinction": "The root persists across procedural events. CMMN models and CPSV-AP services are definitions or descriptions; a judicial challenge retains an external identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "Case Management Model and Notation", "organization": "Object Management Group", "url": "https://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.1/PDF", "version_or_date": "1.1, December 2016, formal/2016-12-01", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 8 distinguish model, instance, logical file, roles and lifecycle. Conceptual alignment only; this draft does not implement CMMN." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "German Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG)", "organization": "Federal Ministry of Justice and Federal Office of Justice", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwvfg/BJNR012530976.html", "version_or_date": "Selected official sections and indexed text accessed 2026-10-06; consolidated amendment pin unresolved", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "German federal example only: sections 9, 13, 14, 22, 28, 29, 31, 39, 41, 43 and 51 support procedure scope, participation, exceptions, time and review. Full consolidated fetch failed; section readings and limitations are recorded separately." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour", "organization": "European Ombudsman", "url": "https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/publication/en/3510", "version_or_date": "Official page dated 2002-03-01", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Articles 2-4 and 8-24 support EU institutional scope, impartiality, correspondence, hearing, reasons, remedy information and adequate records. Article 21's historical data-protection reference is not used as current law." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "EU Charter Article 41 - Right to good administration", "organization": "European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights", "url": "https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/charter/article/41-right-good-administration", "version_or_date": "Article 41 text and explanations accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies: hearing, qualified file access, reasonable time and reasons. No claim that this article directly governs every national administrative case." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Core Public Service Vocabulary Application Profile", "organization": "European Commission SEMIC", "url": "https://semiceu.github.io/CPSV-AP/releases/3.2.0/", "version_or_date": "3.2.0, 2024-05-06", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Public Service, Evidence, Evidence Type, Requirement and Legal Resource are useful external references. Service descriptions do not replace the case instance or prove satisfaction of a legal requirement." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation 2013-04-30", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Entity, activity, agent, derivation and qualified attribution support traceable assertions. Provenance establishes neither legal competence nor evidentiary truth." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "General Data Protection Regulation", "organization": "European Union", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679", "version_or_date": "Regulation (EU) 2016/679, original act; indexed selected provisions accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Articles 5 and 17 support qualified data minimization, storage limitation and erasure exceptions within applicable scope. Direct page presented a browser challenge; current consolidation and case applicability remain holds." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", "organization": "Internet Engineering Task Force", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339.html", "version_or_date": "RFC 3339, July 2002, section 5.6", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T11:27:30Z", "relevance": "Timestamp syntax including seconds and UTC offsets. The authored profile keeps legal date-only values separate; timestamp syntax does not decide service or deadline rules." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-identity", "name": "Case identity and applicable procedure", "description": "Separate persistent case identity from procedure definitions and legal authority.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-docket", "name": "Docket and matter", "description": "Keep the case identifier distinct from person, application and decision identifiers. Joins, splits and transfers are qualified links, not automatic identity merges.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-docket", "name": "Stable case identity and relationships", "description": "Keep the case identifier distinct from person, application and decision identifiers. Joins, splits and transfers are qualified links, not automatic identity merges.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-docket-1", "text": "Which authority-qualified case identifier and matter description distinguish this instance from an application or court case?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identity: authorityNamespace,caseId,matter,revision", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-docket-2", "text": "Which linked, joined, split or transferred cases retain separate identities and evidence?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "related: caseRefs,relationType,basisRef,period", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-docket-3", "text": "Which record source and ambiguity checks prevent merging different proceedings concerning the same person or object?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "matching: sourceRef,candidates,decision,unknownReason", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-docket-identity", "name": "Docket and matter: identity", "description": "Proposed field group: authorityNamespace,caseId,matter,revision. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "data-docket-related", "name": "Docket and matter: related", "description": "Proposed field group: caseRefs,relationType,basisRef,period. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "data-docket-matching", "name": "Docket and matter: matching", "description": "Proposed field group: sourceRef,candidates,decision,unknownReason. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-docket", "name": "Case identity and linkage register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-profile", "name": "Procedure profile and competence", "description": "Record jurisdiction, legal basis, effective version and competence evidence separately from staff assignment. Missing rules and competence disputes remain unresolved assertions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-profile", "name": "Applicable profile and competent actors", "description": "Record jurisdiction, legal basis, effective version and competence evidence separately from staff assignment. Missing rules and competence disputes remain unresolved assertions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-profile-1", "text": "Which procedure definition, jurisdiction, version and legal basis apply to this case at the relevant time?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "profile: procedureRef,version,jurisdiction,basisRef,effectivePeriod", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-profile-2", "text": "Which competent authority and delegated officer roles are evidenced rather than inferred from assignment?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "competence: authorityRef,delegationRef,officerRoleRef,scope", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-profile-3", "text": "Which competence disputes, exceptions or missing legal-profile rules prevent operational reliance?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "limits: disputeRefs,exceptions,missingRules,reviewer", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-profile-profile", "name": "Procedure profile and competence: profile", "description": "Proposed field group: procedureRef,version,jurisdiction,basisRef,effectivePeriod. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-profile-competence", "name": "Procedure profile and competence: competence", "description": "Proposed field group: authorityRef,delegationRef,officerRoleRef,scope. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "data-profile-limits", "name": "Procedure profile and competence: limits", "description": "Proposed field group: disputeRefs,exceptions,missingRules,reviewer. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-profile", "name": "Procedure and competence assessment", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-initiation", "name": "Initiation and participants", "description": "Opening evidence, standing and representation establish the case context.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-intake", "name": "Opening and intake", "description": "Differentiate application, referral and official initiative. Receipt, registration and legal commencement need separate evidence; completeness is not substantive approval.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-intake", "name": "Initiation and receipt evidence", "description": "Differentiate application, referral and official initiative. Receipt, registration and legal commencement need separate evidence; completeness is not substantive approval.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-intake-1", "text": "Was the proceeding initiated by application, referral, official initiative or another legally defined trigger?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "trigger: kind,applicationRef,referralRef,exOfficioBasis", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-intake-2", "text": "Which submission, receipt, registration and legally relevant commencement times are supported by evidence?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "intake: sentAt,receivedAt,registeredAt,commencementAt,sourceRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-intake-3", "text": "What admissibility or completeness assessment records missing material without treating intake as approval?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "admission: assessmentRef,missingItems,status,reason", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-intake-trigger", "name": "Opening and intake: trigger", "description": "Proposed field group: kind,applicationRef,referralRef,exOfficioBasis. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-intake-intake", "name": "Opening and intake: intake", "description": "Proposed field group: sentAt,receivedAt,registeredAt,commencementAt,sourceRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-intake-admission", "name": "Opening and intake: admission", "description": "Proposed field group: assessmentRef,missingItems,status,reason. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-intake", "name": "Initiation and receipt register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-parties", "name": "Parties and impartiality", "description": "Record source-qualified participant roles and mandates. Assignment does not establish authority. Keep conflict assessments restricted and record needed language or communication support without assuming universal eligibility rules.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-parties", "name": "Standing, representation and conflicts", "description": "Record source-qualified participant roles and mandates. Assignment does not establish authority. Keep conflict assessments restricted and record needed language or communication support without assuming universal eligibility rules.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-parties-1", "text": "Which applicants, affected parties and other participants have what source-qualified procedural standing?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "parties: partyRefs,standing,basisRef,period", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-parties-2", "text": "Which representatives have evidenced authority, scope and validity for this case?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "representation: representativeRef,mandateRef,scope,validity", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-parties-3", "text": "Which conflicts of interest, exclusions or recusals are recorded without publicly disclosing unnecessary personal details?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "impartiality: conflictRef,restrictedReason,recusalDecision,accessPolicy", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-parties-parties", "name": "Parties and impartiality: parties", "description": "Proposed field group: partyRefs,standing,basisRef,period. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-parties-representation", "name": "Parties and impartiality: representation", "description": "Proposed field group: representativeRef,mandateRef,scope,validity. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-parties-impartiality", "name": "Parties and impartiality: impartiality", "description": "Proposed field group: conflictRef,restrictedReason,recusalDecision,accessPolicy. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-parties", "name": "Participation and representation register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-file", "name": "File evidence and participation", "description": "Evidence evaluation and participation are distinct controlled records.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-evidence", "name": "Evidence and factual findings", "description": "Link evidence to requirements and assertions with provenance, integrity and review status. Include supporting and contrary material; neither a digest nor an evidence-type match proves truth or admissibility.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-evidence", "name": "Evidence support and disputed assertions", "description": "Link evidence to requirements and assertions with provenance, integrity and review status. Include supporting and contrary material; neither a digest nor an evidence-type match proves truth or admissibility.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-evidence-1", "text": "Which requirements and disputed facts are addressed by each submitted or obtained evidence reference?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "support: requirementRefs,factRefs,evidenceRefs", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-2", "text": "Who supplied, obtained or transformed the evidence, and what integrity, date and access qualifiers are known?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "provenance: sourceAgent,activityRef,observedAt,digest,accessRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-3", "text": "Which evidence remains missing, disputed, superseded or unevaluated rather than automatically accepted as true?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "evaluation: status,contradictions,missingEvidence,reviewRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-evidence-support", "name": "Evidence and factual findings: support", "description": "Proposed field group: requirementRefs,factRefs,evidenceRefs. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-evidence-provenance", "name": "Evidence and factual findings: provenance", "description": "Proposed field group: sourceAgent,activityRef,observedAt,digest,accessRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-evidence-evaluation", "name": "Evidence and factual findings: evaluation", "description": "Proposed field group: status,contradictions,missingEvidence,reviewRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-evidence", "name": "Evidence and assertion index", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-hearing", "name": "Hearing and file access", "description": "Record hearing invitations, responses and legally grounded exceptions. A participant's file access is distinct from public disclosure; preserve redaction reasons and do not infer consent from silence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-hearing", "name": "Participation opportunities and permitted views", "description": "Record hearing invitations, responses and legally grounded exceptions. A participant's file access is distinct from public disclosure; preserve redaction reasons and do not infer consent from silence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-hearing-1", "text": "Which opportunities to be heard or submit statements apply under the case's actual legal profile?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "participation: rightBasis,partyRef,scope,profileRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-hearing-2", "text": "Which invitations, responses, waivers or justified exceptions evidence participation without assuming silence is consent?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "hearing: noticeRef,responseRef,exceptionBasis,recordedAt", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-hearing-3", "text": "Which file-access and confidentiality decisions define each participant's permitted view separately from public disclosure?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "access: requestRef,decisionRef,redactions,recipientScope", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-hearing-participation", "name": "Hearing and file access: participation", "description": "Proposed field group: rightBasis,partyRef,scope,profileRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-hearing-hearing", "name": "Hearing and file access: hearing", "description": "Proposed field group: noticeRef,responseRef,exceptionBasis,recordedAt. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "data-hearing-access", "name": "Hearing and file access: access", "description": "Proposed field group: requestRef,decisionRef,redactions,recipientScope. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-hearing", "name": "Hearing and access decision register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-progress", "name": "Progress and time controls", "description": "Workflow observations and legal time assertions have different authority.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-progress", "name": "Activities and procedural events", "description": "Keep planned tasks and actual events separate. Transfers, consultations, suspension and resumption require recorded basis; workflow completion cannot establish finality or legal effect.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-progress", "name": "Planned and actual progress", "description": "Keep planned tasks and actual events separate. Transfers, consultations, suspension and resumption require recorded basis; workflow completion cannot establish finality or legal effect.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-progress-1", "text": "Which procedural stages, tasks and milestones were planned and which actually occurred?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "plan: definitionRef,plannedItems,actualEvents", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-progress-2", "text": "What evidence supports transfers, consultations, suspensions or resumptions and their effect on the case?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "transitions: eventType,basisRef,effectiveAt,actorRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-progress-3", "text": "Which task or case states must remain separate from a legally effective final decision?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "state: workflowState,legalStatus,sourceRef,unresolvedReason", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-progress-plan", "name": "Activities and procedural events: plan", "description": "Proposed field group: definitionRef,plannedItems,actualEvents. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-progress-transitions", "name": "Activities and procedural events: transitions", "description": "Proposed field group: eventType,basisRef,effectiveAt,actorRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "data-progress-state", "name": "Activities and procedural events: state", "description": "Proposed field group: workflowState,legalStatus,sourceRef,unresolvedReason. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-progress", "name": "Procedural event journal", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-time", "name": "Deadlines and delay", "description": "Bind each asserted deadline to a rule, trigger, calendar and precision. Record adjustments and disputes. The model contains no executable calendar or rule that treats silence as automatic approval or refusal.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-time", "name": "Time rules and unresolved calculations", "description": "Bind each asserted deadline to a rule, trigger, calendar and precision. Record adjustments and disputes. The model contains no executable calendar or rule that treats silence as automatic approval or refusal.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-time-1", "text": "Which specific rule, triggering event and calendar govern each deadline relevant to the proceeding?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "deadline: ruleRef,triggerRef,calendarRef,dueValue,precision", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-time-2", "text": "What evidence supports extensions, pauses, restarts and different receipt or service dates?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "adjustments: extensionRef,pauseIntervals,restartBasis,receiptEvidence", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-time-3", "text": "Which disputed calculation or administrative-silence consequence requires competent review rather than automatic inference?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "uncertainty: calculationStatus,silenceRuleRef,dispute,reviewRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-time-deadline", "name": "Deadlines and delay: deadline", "description": "Proposed field group: ruleRef,triggerRef,calendarRef,dueValue,precision. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-time-adjustments", "name": "Deadlines and delay: adjustments", "description": "Proposed field group: extensionRef,pauseIntervals,restartBasis,receiptEvidence. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-time-uncertainty", "name": "Deadlines and delay: uncertainty", "description": "Proposed field group: calculationStatus,silenceRuleRef,dispute,reviewRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-time", "name": "Deadline and uncertainty register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-determination", "name": "Determination and communication", "description": "Outcome records, their communication and their asserted effect remain distinct.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-outcome", "name": "Decision and other outcomes", "description": "Reference decisions, reasons and conditions without taking ownership of the decision master. Preserve partial outcomes, withdrawals and public-law agreement references where supported by the applicable profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-outcome", "name": "Determinations, reasons and alternatives", "description": "Reference decisions, reasons and conditions without taking ownership of the decision master. Preserve partial outcomes, withdrawals and public-law agreement references where supported by the applicable profile.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-outcome-1", "text": "Which decision or other outcome reference records the competent actor, disposition and applicable legal basis?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "outcome: decisionRef,actorRef,disposition,basisRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-outcome-2", "text": "Which factual findings, evidence and reasons support that particular outcome while retaining disputed assertions?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "reasons: findingRefs,evidenceRefs,rationaleRef,contestedFacts,reasonExceptionBasis", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-outcome-3", "text": "Which conditions, partial determinations, withdrawals or public-law agreement outcomes are relevant without forcing one universal closure path?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "variants: conditions,partialScope,withdrawalRef,agreementRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-outcome-outcome", "name": "Decision and other outcomes: outcome", "description": "Proposed field group: decisionRef,actorRef,disposition,basisRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-outcome-reasons", "name": "Decision and other outcomes: reasons", "description": "Proposed field group: findingRefs,evidenceRefs,rationaleRef,contestedFacts,reasonExceptionBasis. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-outcome-variants", "name": "Decision and other outcomes: variants", "description": "Proposed field group: conditions,partialScope,withdrawalRef,agreementRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-outcome", "name": "Outcome and reasoning index", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-notice", "name": "Notification and remedies", "description": "Separate dispatch, receipt, notification and asserted effect for each recipient. Record remedy information and unresolved service or suspension questions; recording a notice does not serve it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-notice", "name": "Communication and asserted legal effect", "description": "Separate dispatch, receipt, notification and asserted effect for each recipient. Record remedy information and unresolved service or suspension questions; recording a notice does not serve it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-notice-1", "text": "Which recipient, channel and delivery evidence distinguish dispatch, receipt, notification and asserted legal effect?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "notification: recipientRef,channel,sentAt,receivedAt,serviceAt,effectAt,evidenceRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-notice-2", "text": "Which remedy instructions name the competent review body, route and time rule actually applicable?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "remedies: routeRef,bodyRef,timeRule,noticeRef", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-notice-3", "text": "Which uncertainty about service, enforceability or suspensive effects must remain explicit before relying on the decision?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "effectiveness: status,basisRef,suspensionRef,unknowns", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-notice-notification", "name": "Notification and remedies: notification", "description": "Proposed field group: recipientRef,channel,sentAt,receivedAt,serviceAt,effectAt,evidenceRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-notice-remedies", "name": "Notification and remedies: remedies", "description": "Proposed field group: routeRef,bodyRef,timeRule,noticeRef. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "data-notice-effectiveness", "name": "Notification and remedies: effectiveness", "description": "Proposed field group: status,basisRef,suspensionRef,unknowns. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-notice", "name": "Notification and remedy evidence register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-continuity", "name": "Review closure and record continuity", "description": "Review links and record stewardship continue beyond administrative completion.", "rationale": "Authored case-model grouping supported by the cited concepts; the hierarchy is not mandated by a source standard.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-review", "name": "Review and closure", "description": "Reference administrative review or reopening with its basis and resulting revisions. A judicial case stays separately mastered. Administrative closure does not itself prove finality, enforceability or exhaustion of remedies.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-review", "name": "Correction, reopening and linked litigation", "description": "Reference administrative review or reopening with its basis and resulting revisions. A judicial case stays separately mastered. Administrative closure does not itself prove finality, enforceability or exhaustion of remedies.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-review-1", "text": "Which administrative review, correction or reopening proceeding changes this case under an evidenced basis?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "review: processRef,decisionRef,basisRef,revision", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-review-2", "text": "Which court challenge is a separate linked case rather than a silent continuation of this administrative record?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "litigation: courtCaseRef,relationship,sourceRef,scope", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-review-3", "text": "What closure and residual-obligation evidence distinguishes administrative completion from finality or exhaustion of remedies?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "closure: status,residualDuties,finalityBasis,unknowns", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-review-review", "name": "Review and closure: review", "description": "Proposed field group: processRef,decisionRef,basisRef,revision. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-review-litigation", "name": "Review and closure: litigation", "description": "Proposed field group: courtCaseRef,relationship,sourceRef,scope. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "data-review-closure", "name": "Review and closure: closure", "description": "Proposed field group: status,residualDuties,finalityBasis,unknowns. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-review", "name": "Review and closure register", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-continuity", "name": "Record continuity and projections", "description": "Apply a custodian-approved retention and disposal profile with legal holds. Export only permitted views with mapping losses; preserve source and version qualifiers. Operational use needs legal-profile and conformance review.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-continuity", "name": "Retention, authorized export and acceptance", "description": "Apply a custodian-approved retention and disposal profile with legal holds. Export only permitted views with mapping losses; preserve source and version qualifiers. Operational use needs legal-profile and conformance review.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-continuity-1", "text": "Which custodian, retention schedule and legal holds govern the case file and its authorized local copies?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "custody: custodianRef,retentionPolicy,legalHold,disposalScope,tombstone", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-continuity-2", "text": "Which pinned target model maps case, evidence and decision references without losing authority, time or disclosure qualifiers?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "projection: profileRef,version,fieldMap,losses,refusalReason", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] }, { "id": "q-continuity-3", "text": "Which validation fixtures, missing legal profiles and independent reviews remain outstanding before operational use?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "acceptance: testRefs,missingRules,reviewer,assuranceHolds", "Preserve assertion source, assessment status and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason." ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "data-continuity-custody", "name": "Record continuity and projections: custody", "description": "Proposed field group: custodianRef,retentionPolicy,legalHold,disposalScope,tombstone. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-continuity-projection", "name": "Record continuity and projections: projection", "description": "Proposed field group: profileRef,version,fieldMap,losses,refusalReason. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "data-continuity-acceptance", "name": "Record continuity and projections: acceptance", "description": "Proposed field group: testRefs,missingRules,reviewer,assuranceHolds. Requires a profile-specific nested schema before operational validation; distinguish unknown from absent.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-continuity", "name": "Retention and projection manifest", "description": "Versioned case-local register or index of referenced records, assessments and unresolved assertions. It does not replace authoritative external documents.", "media_or_form": [ "structured register", "authorized document projection" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier plus namespace and revision first; otherwise a stable local UUID with explicit reconciliation status. Case reference plus opaque sequence identifies each entry; no personal names in filenames.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "resolve-case-reference", "name": "Resolve a qualified case reference", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Resolve exact master namespace and case ID, returning ambiguous or unresolved status instead of merging by party or matter similarity.", "inputs": [ "authority namespace", "case reference", "authorized purpose" ], "outputs": [ "resolved case reference or ambiguity report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Read-only result; no master identity change" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-intake", "name": "Record evidenced intake", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Append a local intake assertion from receipt evidence; do not file an application or determine admissibility.", "inputs": [ "case reference", "trigger and receipt evidence", "expected current revision" ], "outputs": [ "intake revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append provenance and intake status; leave legal commencement unknown unless evidenced" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "link-case-evidence", "name": "Link evidence to a case assertion", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Add an authorized evidence reference and evaluation state; preserve contrary and superseded assertions without overwriting source records.", "inputs": [ "case reference", "evidence and requirement references", "expected current revision" ], "outputs": [ "versioned evidence linkage or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append an evaluated or unevaluated link; no truth or admissibility determination" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "record-procedural-event", "name": "Record a procedural event", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Append a supported occurrence and keep workflow state separate from legal state. Never fabricate service or deadline effects.", "inputs": [ "event evidence and actor", "event time and precision", "expected current revision" ], "outputs": [ "event journal revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append occurrence and unresolved effect qualifiers; do not execute the event" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "record-outcome-reference", "name": "Record an outcome reference", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Link a competent authority's existing outcome and reasons, with notification and review context. This operation cannot issue, sign, serve or annul a decision.", "inputs": [ "case reference", "outcome master reference and authority evidence", "expected current revision" ], "outputs": [ "outcome index revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Append outcome linkage without changing decision master or deciding rights" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "export-authorized-case-projection", "name": "Prepare an authorized case projection", "description": "Proposed operation, not implemented. Produce a local recipient-scoped projection with pinned mapping, redaction and loss reports. Refuse a target that cannot carry required authority, time or confidentiality qualifiers.", "inputs": [ "recipient authorization", "case revision", "target profile and mapping version" ], "outputs": [ "local projection with provenance or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Verified role, purpose and access scope for every referenced record", "Source evidence and applicable profile identified; unresolved authority causes refusal", "For mutation, expected current revision and idempotency key match; otherwise refuse" ], "effects": [ "Create a local export artifact and access audit; no transmission or disclosure expansion" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-ACT-021", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Candidate generic case relationship only; inheritance and mandatory runtime dependency are not ratified.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "WM-REC-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional application or request master. Ex officio initiation does not require this record.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "WM-REC-010", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional decision or approval master with independent identity; open cases and other outcomes must remain valid.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-016", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Competent institution candidate reference; pin and verify the neighbor boundary before integration. Authority evidence remains necessary even if this model binding is unavailable.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "CMMN 1.1", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Selected logical case, file and event alignment; no executable conformance claim.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "CPSV-AP 3.2.0", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "External public service and evidence definitions; no identity equivalence with a case instance.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O 2013-04-30", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Assertion attribution and derivation; not proof of legal authority or truth.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Named competent public authority and accountable case custodian with authority evidence", "Procedure and jurisdiction profile, legal-basis references and effective version", "Master namespaces, retention schedule, access policy and escalation roles" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use authority-qualified opaque case IDs. Preserve aliases with evidence; do not embed names, addresses or dates as sole identity.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-017", "Optional neighbor bindings must be pinned before operational integration" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Normalize references only within an evidenced authority namespace; keep source assertions, disputes and uncertainty distinct.", "Do not turn workflow completion into legal finality, service, admissibility or approval." ], "patch_rules": [ "Use expected-revision checks, actor, purpose, provenance and idempotency keys for every append or correction.", "Retain supersession links; restrict or erase personal payload under an approved disposition rule without falsifying the change history." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version field mappings and legal profiles; refusal is required when a target loses mandatory legal or disclosure qualifiers." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier with namespace and revision", "Verified stable external record URI with version", "Local opaque UUID with reconciliation state" ], "timestamp_rule": "Recording instants use RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit UTC offset. Preserve event, receipt, notification, asserted legal-effect and ingestion times separately. Keep date-only legal values, timezone/calendar references, precision and unknowns; never manufacture midnight timestamps.", "serial_naming_rule": "Use an opaque case key, artifact type and immutable sequence or revision; no personal identifiers in filenames.", "integrity_rule": "Record content digest, algorithm, source and transformation provenance where available. Integrity checks do not establish truth, admissibility, signature authority or legal effect." }, "policies": [ "This is a reviewable draft under the single-provider waiver; independent external review remains outstanding.", "Apply purpose limitation, minimal disclosure, participant-specific views and a current jurisdictional retention profile; public metadata does not authorize public case files.", "The European institutional and German federal examples are not universal rules. No numeric deadline, silence consequence or remedy entitlement is executable from this draft.", "No operation issues, signs or serves a decision, files an appeal, executes enforcement or replaces competent human legal review." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Authenticate purpose and recipient scope; return authorized redacted views with source and uncertainty qualifiers." ], "create": [ "Require namespace, matter, initiation evidence and custodian; allow pending legal-profile assessment explicitly." ], "update": [ "Append evidenced local changes against the expected revision; preserve correction and dispute history." ], "delete": [ "Retention schedules, legal holds and lawful erasure duties govern disposition of each payload and copy. Authorized disposal records a minimal non-identifying tombstone where lawful; no indefinite personal audit payload retention.", "Local deletion neither annuls an administrative act nor erases the authoritative case master by implication." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Case custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain identity, file continuity and authorized stewardship" ] }, { "name": "Authorized case officer", "responsibilities": [ "Record supported procedural events within evidenced delegation" ] }, { "name": "Legal reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Assess competence, exceptions, time rules and unresolved legal effects" ] }, { "name": "Access and records officer", "responsibilities": [ "Approve recipient scopes, retention, legal holds and disposal" ] }, { "name": "Participant or representative", "responsibilities": [ "Provide evidence and inspect only the permitted view within verified standing or mandate" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny case-content disclosure unless the recipient, purpose and scope are authorized; ownership of infrastructure grants no procedural standing.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Emergency or statutory disclosure requires an explicit legal basis, responsible actor and limited scope; no blanket bypass.", "Separate participant access, public access requests and supervisory access; preserve exception reasons without leaking protected details." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Log reads, exports, corrections and disposal with actor, purpose, scope, revision and result under a minimal-data retention rule." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md and owner authority/access policies", "spec.yaml and visible publication holds", "Pinned legal profile, source records and recipient-specific view" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed structure for one persistent administrative case instance, bounded by selected German federal and EU institutional examples. Local no-tools self-audit completed; source verification, profile conformance and independent review remain holds. This is a reviewable draft, not a universal procedure or operational legal engine.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Authority-qualified IDs and conservative matching; root is a persistent entity." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Intake, progress, outcomes, review and closure without a universal terminal decision." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Optional application and decision references, separate court case and authority masters." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Separate legal and recorded times with precision, calendar and unresolved rules." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Source, actor, derivation, integrity and assertion status." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competent authority and case custodian; no commercial owner assignment." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Schema and semantic gates validate this research; nested profiles, legal applicability and executable conformance remain pending." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Recipient-specific file access, redaction, exceptions and audit." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Schedule, legal hold, scoped erasure and minimal tombstones; not perpetual personal logs." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Selected conceptual alignments only; version pins and loss reports required." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Nonphysical case properties include matter, jurisdiction, procedural state and time assertions; physical measurements are not applicable." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Docket and authority evidence distinguish case, request, decision, ticket and court case." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and hazards", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local operations with refusal rules; missed deadlines, disclosure and false legal finality are explicit hazards." }, { "dimension": "context and evidence", "status": "covered", "notes": "Applicable law, profile scope, participants and evidence are retained without asserting universal completeness." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent external review is waived; this local Codex self-audit cannot substitute for it.", "Live consolidated legal versions, full source retrieval, translation, licensing and case-specific applicability remain to be verified.", "Nested field schemas, executable deadlines, calendar rules, automated-decision authorization and remedy computations are not implemented.", "Sector-specific procedures, enforcement, mass participation, emergency derogations and non-European profiles need separate research.", "CMMN, CPSV-AP and PROV-O mappings, neighbor bindings and adversarial instance fixtures require conformance work." ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "Selected German federal procedure and EU institutional good-administration material do not establish rules for Cyprus, other jurisdictions or every sector.", "The GDPR source is a selected regional privacy example; applicable regimes, including those for Union institutions, require separate profile review." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Reject mandatory application and decision links for every case.", "Reject workflow completion, successful notification upload or silence as proof of legal effect.", "Reject open public file access from Article 41 or a public service description.", "Reject treating referenced standards as an implemented runtime or legal-compliance certification." ] }, "researchAdjudication": { "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "activeProviders": [ "codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "claude", "grok" ], "providerPolicy": { "contract_version": "1.0.0", "mode": "single-provider-waiver", "effective_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "scope": "Canonical single-stream subject-model research after the six-workstream consolidation", "active_providers": [ "codex" ], "waived_providers": [ { "provider": "claude", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "reason": "Claude produced no result on prior 1800-second and 900-second attempts and again timed out on bounded 600-second Sonnet and 300-second Haiku passes. The owner prioritized completion over provider availability." }, { "provider": "grok", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-09-06T00:00:00Z", "reason": "The repository owner authorized completion without Grok when Grok is unavailable, slow or schema-invalid. Grok may still be attempted as a bounded supplemental reviewer, but its failure never blocks a valid Claude plus no-tools result." } ], "review_rule": "Codex may complete source-grounded fallback research after bounded Claude and Grok attempts fail. It requires a separate no-tools adversarial audit and remains reviewable-draft with a visible absence-of-external-review hold.", "supplemental_provider_attempts": [ { "provider": "claude", "required": false, "maximum_attempts": 1, "failure_policy": "record-and-continue", "admission_rule": "Use only a locally schema-valid result whose sources and boundaries survive adjudication." }, { "provider": "grok", "required": false, "maximum_attempts": 1, "failure_policy": "record-and-continue", "admission_rule": "Use only a locally schema-valid result whose sources and boundaries survive adjudication." } ] }, "boundaryDecision": { "entry_kind": "entity", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "The root has stable case identity across events, reviews and record revisions. Multiple linked records do not make it an aggregate root by themselves. The registry standalone-mm value classifies the record plane; procedure definitions, authorities, applications, decisions and judicial cases remain separately mastered." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Persistent case boundary", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The scope, identity questions and lifecycle retain one case instance without conflating a process definition or an individual event with its root." }, { "concept": "Mandatory application containment", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "The frozen registry COMPOSE candidate is overbroad for official initiative or referral. The admitted result uses an optional external reference and asks for the actual initiation basis." }, { "concept": "Mandatory decision endpoint", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "An active case can lack a decision. Partial outcomes, withdrawal and public-law agreement references fit the declared boundary without forcing a universal closure path." }, { "concept": "Generic ticket inheritance and authority binding", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "The generic parent is alignment only, and the institution binding remains a candidate. Legal competence must be evidenced separately from assignment or a model link." }, { "concept": "Hearing and access rights", "disposition": "accepted with profile qualification", "rationale": "Questions preserve the applicable right, exception basis and recipient-specific view. They neither generalize the cited institutional scope nor turn file access into public disclosure." }, { "concept": "Workflow state and legal effect", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "Progress, deadline and notification findings consistently reject inference from task completion, upload, dispatch or silence to finality, service or legal approval." }, { "concept": "Evidence attribution and truth", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "The evidence index and linking operation preserve contrary material and evaluation state. Source attribution, a digest and a vocabulary type do not certify truth or admissibility." }, { "concept": "Local operation authority", "disposition": "accepted as proposed only", "rationale": "All six functions are explicitly unimplemented local operations with role, evidence and revision preconditions and refusal results. None issues or serves a decision or changes legal rights." }, { "concept": "Record retention and erasure", "disposition": "accepted with policy dependency", "rationale": "The service rules reconcile revision history with scoped payload erasure, holds and minimal lawful tombstones. They do not impose perpetual personal-data retention or annul legal acts by local deletion." }, { "concept": "Physical and nonphysical properties", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "The root has matter, jurisdiction, status and time properties. Physical measurements are inapplicable; the supplement's broader no-properties claim is not admitted." }, { "concept": "Source and regional coverage", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "The pack admits six complete browser readings and selected official German and GDPR evidence, with retrieval and consolidation limits. Zero measured HTTP 200 responses is an environment limitation, not proof that sources are unavailable or verified current." }, { "concept": "Instance schemas and conformance", "disposition": "deferred", "rationale": "Candidate object groups and conceptual alignments are useful research structure, but do not provide nested instance schemas, a legal calendar, runtime mappings or acceptance fixtures." }, { "concept": "Independent review", "disposition": "waived and held", "rationale": "This separate phase is a local Codex self-audit of frozen evidence. No external provider result exists for admission, so neither provider agreement nor independent external review can be claimed." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver. Claude and Grok were skipped for this run; the separate local Codex self-audit is not an independent second-provider review.", "Live source and version verification remains incomplete. Direct HTTP requests for all eight source URLs were blocked locally before a response, giving zero measured HTTP 200 responses. Browser content access is documented separately; the consolidated German act and GDPR full text/current versions remain unverified.", "Jurisdiction, sector, translation, licensing, legal applicability, automated-decision authority, deadlines, service effects and remedies require qualified profile review before operational use.", "Nested data schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, CMMN/CPSV-AP/PROV-O mappings, executable conformance and adversarial instance fixtures remain incomplete. No runtime or legal-compliance certification is claimed.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Verify current consolidated legal texts, effective dates, exception coverage and applicable records/privacy regimes for each adopting jurisdiction.", "Develop and test nested schemas and mappings with cases covering official initiative, disputed service, partial outcomes, reopening, confidentiality and lawful disposal.", "Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 8, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 36, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 6 } }