# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T12:04:06Z", "synthesisSha256": "74b6e39242701a6dbd4d26f27909efccb989f50991bfd552bf33006355bc9919", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-POL-021", "registryId": "vr.wm-pol-021", "name": "Judgment / Legal Decision", "version": "0.1.0-reviewable-draft", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.POL.JDG" ], "tags": [ "judgment", "legal", "decision", "soc.pol.jdg" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-021-judgment-legal-decision/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-021", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-pol-021", "model_id": "WM-POL-021", "name": "Judgment / Legal Decision", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Describe one adjudicative decision with its authoritative text, disposition, reasoning and evidence-qualified status, separate from case management and enforcement.", "scope_statement": "One persistent court, tribunal or arbitral decision record, including interim, partial, final, consent and declaratory forms where supported by an adopting legal profile. Issuance is an event concerning the entity; translations, redactions and summaries are representations. Selected civil and international examples ground this proposed structure, not universal legal rules.", "in_scope": [ "Decision identity, issuer, proceeding references, type and jurisdiction profile.", "Authoritative text and representation provenance; issue-level outcomes, reasons and separate opinions when present.", "Evidence-qualified issuance, entry, notification, legal effect, review, correction and access assertions.", "Local record stewardship and mappings to external vocabularies with declared losses." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Case pleadings, hearing workflow, evidence custody and adjudication of the dispute, owned by WM-POL-009 and other masters.", "Sanction or sentence administration and all enforcement execution, owned by WM-POL-022 and WM-POL-023.", "Non-adjudicative administrative acts, legislation, private advice and automated decisions without an adjudicative legal profile.", "Legal advice, automated merits determination, autonomous issuance, service, appeals or publication of case records.", "Operational guidance for weapons, detention or controlled items; any related decisions remain policy-level references." ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-POL-009 Court / Arbitration Case", "distinction": "The case may produce multiple decisions. This decision references one or more proceeding masters without copying case lifecycle or evidence holdings. The incoming candidate CONTAINS edge is preserved as case context, not inheritance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-022 Sanction / Sentence", "distinction": "Outgoing candidate CONTAINS maps to optional COMPOSE. Only an ordered sanction reference and operative-text anchor belong here; no sanction is required and sanction administration remains external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-023 Enforcement Action", "distinction": "Outgoing REFERENCE carries the decision basis and scoped effect assertions. It does not initiate or govern enforcement, and absence of an enforcement reference proves nothing about legal enforceability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "Decision representations and derived commentary", "distinction": "An original, corrected text, language expression, public redaction, headnote and summary must not collapse into a single authoritative file. A revised legal decision and a corrected transcription require different provenance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "neighbor": "Administrative acts and rules", "distinction": "The title is bounded by the court/arbitration case parent. Judicial review of an administrative act is in scope as its own adjudicative decision; the underlying administrative act stays separately mastered.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)", "organization": "European Commission", "url": "https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/legislation-and-case-law/european-case-law-identifier-ecli_en?init=true", "version_or_date": "Portal last update 2021-11-17; indexed official text reviewed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Identifier and metadata alignment only. Participation and national identifier allocation require profile verification. Direct browser opening failed; official indexed text was available." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0. Part 1: XML Vocabulary", "organization": "OASIS Open", "url": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/os/part1-vocabulary/akn-core-v1.0-os-part1-vocabulary.html", "version_or_date": "OASIS Standard, 2018-08-29; section 6.6", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Judgment structure, judicial metadata, opinions, citations and document identity. Conceptual alignment does not assert XML conformance or legal validity." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules Part 40 - Judgments and Orders", "organization": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part40", "version_or_date": "Official online text accessed 2026-10-06; amendment currency not independently verified", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "England and Wales civil examples: maker, date, seal, service, effect, correction and declaratory relief; exceptions and court orders matter." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 - Appeals", "organization": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52", "version_or_date": "Official online text accessed 2026-10-06; rules 52.1 and 52.16", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "In the stated civil appeal scope, appeal generally does not stay the decision, subject to exceptions. No universal finality or stay inference is justified." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure", "organization": "United States Federal Judiciary", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf", "version_or_date": "December 1, 2025 edition; official linked PDF accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Selected federal civil examples: Rule 58 entry and separate-document qualifications; Rule 62 stays and exceptions; Rule 5.2 filing privacy. Not state or criminal procedure." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "European Convention on Human Rights", "organization": "Council of Europe", "url": "https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng", "version_or_date": "English text amended by Protocols 11, 14 and 15; Article 6 and Articles 40-46", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Public pronouncement and fair-trial context; the Court-specific reasons, separate opinions, finality and binding-force provisions must not be generalized to all courts." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, with amendments adopted in 2006", "organization": "United Nations Commission on International Trade Law", "url": "https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/07-86998_ebook.pdf", "version_or_date": "1985 Model Law with 2006 amendments; selected official indexed excerpts", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Article 31 award form and reasons exceptions; Article 33 correction heading and explanatory note distinguishing recourse from recognition/enforcement. Full PDF browser retrieval failed. Model law is not enacted local law." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules Part 5 - Court Documents", "organization": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05", "version_or_date": "Official online text accessed 2026-10-06; rules 5.4B-5.4D", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Qualified party/non-party access to court documents. Restrictions in rule 5.4C(4) address statements of case; they are not a universal judgment-redaction rule." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "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": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Attribution, derivation and revision provenance for local assertions and representations. Provenance does not prove legal authority or truth." }, { "id": "SRC-010", "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": "2026-10-06T12:02:49Z", "relevance": "Timestamp grammar with seconds and explicit offset. Date-only legal facts remain dates; calendar and deadline logic require separate jurisdiction profiles." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "b-identity", "name": "Identity and competence", "description": "Identify the decision and its institutional scope.", "rationale": "Persistent identity must survive copies and later review without owning the proceeding.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-identity", "name": "Decision identity and case links context", "description": "Keep decision identifiers distinct from case numbers and publication citations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-identity", "name": "Decision identity and case links", "description": "Keep decision identifiers distinct from case numbers and publication citations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "identity-q-1", "text": "Which master decision identifier and aliases distinguish this decision from other decisions in the same case?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identity-data-1" ] }, { "id": "identity-q-2", "text": "Which court or arbitration case references establish the proceeding context, including joined matters?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "identity-data-2" ] }, { "id": "identity-q-3", "text": "Which decision type and scope distinguish an interim, partial, consent, final or declaratory outcome?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "identity-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "identity-data-1", "name": "Identifier bindings", "description": "Master namespace and ID; ECLI or neutral citation if allocated; alias provenance; collision disposition. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "identity-data-2", "name": "Proceeding links", "description": "External case identifiers, link role and source; multiple cases allowed without importing case contents. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "identity-data-3", "name": "Decision classification", "description": "Profile vocabulary, subject matter, resolved extent and remaining issues; type alone does not prove finality. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-identity", "name": "Decision identity register", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for decision identity and case links. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-competence", "name": "Issuer and jurisdiction context", "description": "Record who decided and under which legal profile; names and seals alone cannot establish competence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-competence", "name": "Issuer and jurisdiction", "description": "Record who decided and under which legal profile; names and seals alone cannot establish competence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "competence-q-1", "text": "Which deciding body and decision makers are attributed in the authoritative record, and what competence basis is recorded?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "competence-data-1" ] }, { "id": "competence-q-2", "text": "Which jurisdiction, forum or arbitral seat governs this decision, and which places are merely hearing or publication locations?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "competence-data-2" ] }, { "id": "competence-q-3", "text": "Which signature, seal, approval or reasons requirements and exceptions apply to this decision form?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "competence-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "competence-data-1", "name": "Issuer attribution", "description": "Body and adjudicator references, panel roles, appointment or jurisdiction basis reference, and disputed authority. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "competence-data-2", "name": "Jurisdiction context", "description": "Jurisdiction code, applicable profile and version, arbitral seat when relevant, distinct location roles. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "competence-data-3", "name": "Formal requirements", "description": "Requirement source, applicability assessment and evidence; distinguish absence, waiver, exception and unknown. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-competence", "name": "Authority and form assessment", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for issuer and jurisdiction. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-text", "name": "Text and authorship", "description": "Separate authoritative material from attributed reasoning and derived descriptions.", "rationale": "Readers need faithful evidence without treating an extraction or opinion as operative authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-text", "name": "Authoritative text and representations context", "description": "Represent legal text, certified copies, translations and derivative renditions with distinct roles.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-text", "name": "Authoritative text and representations", "description": "Represent legal text, certified copies, translations and derivative renditions with distinct roles.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "text-q-1", "text": "Which retained text or official record supports this decision, and who established its authoritative status?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "text-data-1" ] }, { "id": "text-q-2", "text": "Which translation, transcription, redaction or summary differs from the authoritative representation, and how is the difference disclosed?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "text-data-2" ] }, { "id": "text-q-3", "text": "How are conflicting copies or inconsistent paragraph anchors handled without silently selecting a legal truth?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "text-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "text-data-1", "name": "Text provenance", "description": "Master artifact reference, source, authority assessment, retrieval observation, signature or seal evidence if applicable. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "text-data-2", "name": "Representation lineage", "description": "Language, representation role, parent artifact, transformation agent, changed passages and review status. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "text-data-3", "name": "Copy discrepancy", "description": "Conflicting identifiers or digests, affected fragments, reviewer, unresolved status and quarantined projection. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-text", "name": "Representation manifest", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for authoritative text and representations. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-reasoning", "name": "Grounds and separate opinions context", "description": "Preserve attribution and text anchors for stated reasons, factual findings and separate opinions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-reasoning", "name": "Grounds and separate opinions", "description": "Preserve attribution and text anchors for stated reasons, factual findings and separate opinions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "reasoning-q-1", "text": "Which factual findings and legal grounds are stated in the reasons, with what authoritative passage anchors?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "reasoning-data-1" ] }, { "id": "reasoning-q-2", "text": "Which cited provisions or decisions support, distinguish or otherwise relate to the reasoning, without inferring binding precedent from citation alone?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "reasoning-data-2" ] }, { "id": "reasoning-q-3", "text": "Are reasons or separate opinions present, absent, withheld or lawfully omitted, and whose position does each express?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "reasoning-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "reasoning-data-1", "name": "Grounds index", "description": "Issue reference, stated factual finding or legal ground, text anchor and attribution; no independent truth certification. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "reasoning-data-2", "name": "Citation relations", "description": "Cited resource and version, relation as stated, passage, speaker and jurisdiction-specific treatment if separately assessed. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "reasoning-data-3", "name": "Opinion attribution", "description": "Majority, concurrence, dissent or other role; author, scope, omission basis and availability state. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-reasoning", "name": "Attributed reasoning index", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for grounds and separate opinions. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-outcome", "name": "Disposition and ordered relief", "description": "Anchor each outcome to its operative text and affected scope.", "rationale": "Outcome descriptions are useful without assuming every decision imposes a sanction or permits execution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-disposition", "name": "Issue-level disposition context", "description": "Keep granted, denied, dismissed, reserved and declaratory outcomes distinct under a profile vocabulary.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-disposition", "name": "Issue-level disposition", "description": "Keep granted, denied, dismissed, reserved and declaratory outcomes distinct under a profile vocabulary.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "disposition-q-1", "text": "What does each operative paragraph decide for the referenced issue, claim or party?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "disposition-data-1" ] }, { "id": "disposition-q-2", "text": "Which parts resolve only a portion of the dispute or leave matters for a later decision?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "disposition-data-2" ] }, { "id": "disposition-q-3", "text": "Which conditions or limitations qualify the stated outcome without adding obligations inferred only from commentary?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "disposition-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "disposition-data-1", "name": "Disposition entries", "description": "Stable local item ID, claim or issue reference, affected party reference, outcome code and exact text anchor. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "disposition-data-2", "name": "Resolved scope", "description": "Issue-level extent, unresolved or reserved matters, related decision references and qualification source. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "disposition-data-3", "name": "Operative qualifications", "description": "Condition text anchor, affected disposition item, authoritative qualifier and unresolved interpretation. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-disposition", "name": "Operative disposition map", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for issue-level disposition. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-relief", "name": "Relief and sanction references context", "description": "Record ordered relief and external sanction bindings at policy level; administration stays with its master.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-relief", "name": "Relief and sanction references", "description": "Record ordered relief and external sanction bindings at policy level; administration stays with its master.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "relief-q-1", "text": "Which remedies, costs or other obligations are actually ordered, and which are expressly absent or reserved?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "relief-data-1" ] }, { "id": "relief-q-2", "text": "Where the decision states monetary relief, what amount, currency and interest basis are recorded without computing a payable balance?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "relief-data-2" ] }, { "id": "relief-q-3", "text": "Which optional WM-POL-022 sanction or sentence master is composed by the ordered outcome, and where does local ownership stop?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "relief-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "relief-data-1", "name": "Ordered relief", "description": "Relief classification, affected party roles, operative anchor, reservation and record of absence versus unknown. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "relief-data-2", "name": "Monetary terms", "description": "Decimal amount and currency as stated, unit, interest text or formula reference and cost assessment status; no accrual engine. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "relief-data-3", "name": "Sanction binding", "description": "Target identifier and version, ordered scope and anchor; sanction administration, custody and enforcement excluded. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-relief", "name": "Ordered relief reference schedule", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for relief and sanction references. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-effect", "name": "Issuance and legal effect", "description": "Track distinct event and effect assertions with their legal basis.", "rationale": "A document upload, service report, appeal or elapsed interval cannot supply missing legal authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-issuance", "name": "Issuance, entry and notification context", "description": "Keep making, entry, pronouncement, service and observation times distinct.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-issuance", "name": "Issuance, entry and notification", "description": "Keep making, entry, pronouncement, service and observation times distinct.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "issuance-q-1", "text": "Which making, pronouncement and entry dates or timestamps are evidenced, and which remain date-only facts?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "issuance-data-1" ] }, { "id": "issuance-q-2", "text": "What service or delivery evidence is linked for each authorized recipient, and is its legal sufficiency confirmed or disputed?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "issuance-data-2" ] }, { "id": "issuance-q-3", "text": "Which recorded rule or order connects an issuance or notification event to legal effect or a deadline, including exceptions?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "issuance-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "issuance-data-1", "name": "Decision event times", "description": "Event role, legal date or RFC 3339 timestamp, precision, time zone or offset, evidence and separate observation time. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "issuance-data-2", "name": "Notification evidence", "description": "Recipient role or restricted reference, external service record, reported time, governing rule and assessment state; dispatch is not service. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "issuance-data-3", "name": "Trigger assertions", "description": "Applicable rule version, triggering event, affected scope, assessor and unresolved calendar dependency; no automatic deadline calculation. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-issuance", "name": "Issuance and notification ledger", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for issuance, entry and notification. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-effect", "name": "Effect, finality and stay context", "description": "Use separate evidence-qualified status dimensions rather than a single final boolean.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-effect", "name": "Effect, finality and stay", "description": "Use separate evidence-qualified status dimensions rather than a single final boolean.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "effect-q-1", "text": "What are the separately evidenced legal-effect, finality and stay assertions for each affected part at the observation time?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "effect-data-1" ] }, { "id": "effect-q-2", "text": "Does an appeal or other challenge suspend any effect in this profile, and what rule or order establishes the exception or absence of a stay?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "effect-data-2" ] }, { "id": "effect-q-3", "text": "Which WM-POL-023 enforcement reference cites this decision, and what authorization assessment remains with the enforcement authority?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "effect-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "effect-data-1", "name": "Status assertions", "description": "Status dimension, value, affected item, legal basis, effective interval, observation timestamp and unknown or disputed state. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "effect-data-2", "name": "Stay qualification", "description": "Challenge reference, stay basis, scope and time; appeal pending never automatically means no binding force. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "effect-data-3", "name": "Enforcement reference", "description": "Action master and decision-basis anchor; local evidence-qualified effect is not an instruction to execute. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-effect", "name": "Qualified effect snapshot", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for effect, finality and stay. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-change", "name": "Review and continuity", "description": "Represent changes without replacing the original evidence.", "rationale": "Review outcomes and textual corrections have different authority and identity consequences.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-review", "name": "Review and later decisions context", "description": "Link challenges and later dispositions without managing the review proceeding.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-review", "name": "Review and later decisions", "description": "Link challenges and later dispositions without managing the review proceeding.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "review-q-1", "text": "Which appeal, referral or setting-aside proceeding is reported, with what stage and evidence date?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "review-data-1" ] }, { "id": "review-q-2", "text": "Which later decision affirms, varies, reverses or otherwise addresses this decision, and to what extent?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "review-data-2" ] }, { "id": "review-q-3", "text": "How are stale or contradictory review reports exposed before a consumer relies on the recorded status?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "review-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "review-data-1", "name": "Review links", "description": "External proceeding reference, review kind, source, observation time and availability; unknown is not no appeal. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "review-data-2", "name": "Later dispositions", "description": "Successor decision identifier, authoritative outcome classification, affected items and legal effect evidence. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "review-data-3", "name": "Status freshness", "description": "Last authoritative observation, unresolved discrepancy, permitted refresh policy and reliance warning; no invented expiry rule. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-review", "name": "Review relationship history", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for review and later decisions. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-correction", "name": "Correction and supersession context", "description": "Distinguish source-issued corrections from local transcription repairs and new decisions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-correction", "name": "Correction and supersession", "description": "Distinguish source-issued corrections from local transcription repairs and new decisions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "correction-q-1", "text": "Which issuer-authorized correction or interpretation supports a changed legal text, if any?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "correction-data-1" ] }, { "id": "correction-q-2", "text": "Which local metadata or transcription repair changes only a representation and leaves the legal act unchanged?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "correction-data-2" ] }, { "id": "correction-q-3", "text": "When must a replacement or additional decision receive a distinct master identity and a typed link to this record?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "correction-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "correction-data-1", "name": "Correction authority", "description": "Issuing authority, correcting instrument reference, affected fragments and stated legal effect; no assumed retrospective effect. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "correction-data-2", "name": "Local repair lineage", "description": "Prior and new artifact identifiers, error evidence, repair author, reviewer and clear non-legal effect classification. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "correction-data-3", "name": "Identity continuity", "description": "Profile rule, new master ID, supersedes or supplements relation, affected extent and preserved history subject to lawful retention. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-correction", "name": "Correction and continuity record", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for correction and supersession. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-distribution", "name": "Access and exchange", "description": "Govern recipient-specific views and faithful cross-system references.", "rationale": "Public accessibility and technical interchange do not establish legal authority or universal reuse rights.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-access", "name": "Publication, privacy and retention context", "description": "Separate public, party and restricted views; apply the actual access and retention authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-access", "name": "Publication, privacy and retention", "description": "Separate public, party and restricted views; apply the actual access and retention authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "access-q-1", "text": "Which decision representation may each recipient class access, and what order or policy authorizes that view?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "access-data-1" ] }, { "id": "access-q-2", "text": "Which personal or protected details must be masked in a derived view, and how is re-identification through linked metadata prevented?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "access-data-2" ] }, { "id": "access-q-3", "text": "Which authority governs retention, restriction or lawful disposal of local copies while preserving permitted references to the decision?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "access-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "access-data-1", "name": "Access matrix", "description": "Public, party, court and restricted role scopes; authorization source, embargo or sealing scope and denial evidence. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "access-data-2", "name": "Disclosure control", "description": "Applicable rule or order, protected field scope, redaction lineage and independent disclosure check; filing rules are not a global judgment rule. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "access-data-3", "name": "Disposition policy", "description": "Applicable records schedule, legal hold, lawful disposal authorization, target copies and minimal lawful tombstone; no universal retention term. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-access", "name": "Controlled disclosure and retention assessment", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for publication, privacy and retention. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-exchange", "name": "Alignment and stewardship context", "description": "Declare mappings, loss and accountable stewardship without certifying implementation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-exchange", "name": "Alignment and stewardship", "description": "Declare mappings, loss and accountable stewardship without certifying implementation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "exchange-q-1", "text": "How are local decision identifiers, text anchors and versions mapped to ECLI or Akoma Ntoso where supported?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "exchange-data-1" ] }, { "id": "exchange-q-2", "text": "Which competent court registry, tribunal records custodian or authorized adopting Dimension stewards the record and its namespace?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "exchange-data-2" ] }, { "id": "exchange-q-3", "text": "Which evidence, reference and access checks must pass before a local projection can be handed to an authorized consumer?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "exchange-data-3" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "exchange-data-1", "name": "Mapping profile", "description": "Pinned vocabulary and mapping version, source/target identifiers, unmapped fields, round-trip losses and no conformance claim. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "exchange-data-2", "name": "Stewardship assignment", "description": "Role-based owner and maintainer, master-system authority, namespace responsibility and change contact; no commercial owner substitution. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "exchange-data-3", "name": "Projection validation", "description": "Revision and digest match, unresolved reference report, scoped access decision, legal-status freshness and declared mapping loss. Candidate object group; preserve unknown, disputed and not-applicable states with evidence, assessor and observation time. Nested instance schema remains a profile task.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-exchange", "name": "Exchange and stewardship profile", "description": "Controlled local evidence view for alignment and stewardship. Preserve source pointers, restricted payload separation and assessment status; it is not a new legal act.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Linked authoritative document or excerpt" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Use the authoritative master-system identifier, then governed IRI, then a Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Give each retained revision its own identifier and relation to the decision; dates and hashes are not decision identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "fn-register", "name": "Register a decision reference", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create a local identity binding without making a legal decision.", "inputs": [ "Master decision reference", "Case links and profile" ], "outputs": [ "Local draft decision record", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Master namespace and aliases assessed for collision" ], "effects": [ "Assign local record identity and preserve unresolved bindings", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "fn-attach", "name": "Attach a representation", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Index an authorized copy and its derivation.", "inputs": [ "Artifact pointer and integrity digest", "Representation role, source and language" ], "outputs": [ "Representation manifest revision", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Authoritative versus derived role explicitly assessed" ], "effects": [ "Add a distinct artifact revision; quarantine unexplained copy conflicts", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "fn-extract", "name": "Record attributed content", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record reviewed operative and reasoning anchors without deciding merits.", "inputs": [ "Accessible authoritative text", "Reviewed issue, outcome and grounds annotations" ], "outputs": [ "Attributed disposition and reasoning views", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Reviewer verifies anchors and distinguishes opinion from operative text" ], "effects": [ "Store attributed annotations with uncertainty and external sanction references", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-observe", "name": "Record an effect or review observation", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append qualified evidence without inferring a universal final state.", "inputs": [ "Authority record or order", "Affected item, status dimension and time" ], "outputs": [ "Qualified effect or review snapshot", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Applicable profile and basis supplied; unknown remains expressible" ], "effects": [ "Add effective and observation times; preserve conflicting reports for review", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "fn-revise", "name": "Record correction lineage", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a source-issued correction or a local repair under different change types.", "inputs": [ "Prior artifact revision", "Correction instrument or transcription error evidence" ], "outputs": [ "Revision lineage with affected fragments", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Change authority and legal-versus-local effect classified" ], "effects": [ "Preserve prior evidence subject to lawful retention; reference a new master for a distinct decision", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "fn-project", "name": "Prepare an authorized projection", "description": "Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Prepare a local recipient-specific view with mapping losses.", "inputs": [ "Recipient policy scope", "Approved representation and pinned mapping profile" ], "outputs": [ "Local restricted projection and validation report", "Refusal report with unresolved authority, evidence or revision conflict" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized role and purpose under the adopting Dimension policy", "Expected local revision matches and source access is permitted", "Disclosure review passed; unresolved restrictions fail closed" ], "effects": [ "Minimize exposed data, retain provenance and disclose stale status and unmapped fields", "Record local provenance only; no issuance, service, filing, publication, sanction or enforcement action" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-POL-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Reference the producing Court / Arbitration Case master as the inverse context of its incoming candidate CONTAINS edge; do not duplicate case workflow.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-022", "relation": "COMPOSE", "purpose": "Optional Sanction / Sentence binding preserves the candidate contains relation only when such an outcome exists. The target owns administration; local content is the operative anchor and binding.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-023", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional Enforcement Action reference and decision basis; target owns authorization assessment and execution, never this record.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "European Case Law Identifier", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Optional externally allocated identifier and metadata alignment; allocation and jurisdiction participation require a verified profile.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "Akoma Ntoso 1.0", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual mapping of decision text and judicial metadata; schema conformance and round-trip behavior are unimplemented.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual assertion and representation derivation mapping, not an external audit-trail implementation or legal authority test.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Name a competent legal records custodian and an authorized adopting Dimension with explicit stewardship boundaries.", "Pin jurisdiction, decision classes, access authority, records schedule and external case/sanction/enforcement master bindings.", "Declare namespaces, local schema version, source licensing, transformation permissions and unresolved profile assumptions." ], "namespace_guidance": "Use stable decision and artifact identifiers in a governed namespace. Do not derive identity from party names, legal dates or mutable URLs; separate public aliases from restricted master references.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-pol-021", "WM-POL-009", "WM-POL-022", "WM-POL-023" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "This is a reviewable research draft. Local canonical serialization is distinct from authoritative judicial text, current legal status and canonical research approval.", "Retain source language and legal qualifiers; distinguish authoritative assertions from inferred annotations and preserve unknown values." ], "patch_rules": [ "Apply local patches with expected revision, authorized role, purpose, evidence and a recoverable revision relation.", "Never silently edit legal text. Record source-issued corrections, local repairs and separate successor decisions with different relation types." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version profile vocabularies and mappings; incompatible status meanings, identity rules or disclosure changes require migration review.", "Preserve resolvable references or lawful restricted tombstones; source versions and neighbor bindings must be pinned before operational use." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier for the decision or artifact", "Governed global identifier or IRI, including an allocated ECLI where applicable", "UUID or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension" ], "timestamp_rule": "Use RFC 3339 timestamps with seconds and an explicit offset or Z. Keep legal event time separate from observation and ingestion time. Preserve date-only facts as dates without invented midnight or offset.", "serial_naming_rule": "Use decision ID, artifact role and a stable artifact revision ID; a timestamp or filename alone is not identity.", "integrity_rule": "Record digest algorithm and bytes hashed for retained copies, source location, access scope and lineage. Hash agreement proves byte equality only, not authority, admissibility or legal effect." }, "policies": [ "Research is noncanonical under a single-provider waiver; independent external review, source verification and jurisdictional conformance remain holds.", "Only competent authorities make legal decisions. Automated agents may record evidence and prepare authorized local views; legal acts and external actions need separate lawful authority.", "Public pronouncement, access, reuse permission and disclosure are distinct. No agent may defeat redaction or expose restricted data through identifiers, logs or linked artifacts.", "Dangerous subjects remain policy-level decision references; do not operationalize detention, weapons or controlled items.", "Preserving provenance never authorizes indefinite retention of personal data. Resolve legal holds and disposal authority under the applicable records and privacy regime." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Check recipient, purpose, scope and view authorization; disclose source, representation role, uncertainty and observation date." ], "create": [ "Create a local draft only after resolving master identity and profile scope; an imported record cannot issue a decision." ], "update": [ "Use version-aware local patches and source evidence; keep conflicting authority claims visible until reviewed." ], "delete": [ "Apply the adopting Dimension records schedule and legally authorized retention, restriction or disposal controls to local copies only.", "Check legal holds; delete permitted payloads and derived caches through the authorized records custodian, retaining only a lawful minimal tombstone. Local deletion never annuls a decision or deletes a referenced case, sanction or enforcement master." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Decision records custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain master identity, authoritative source bindings and approved corrections." ] }, { "name": "Legal profile reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Assess jurisdiction, formal requirements, effect and review assertions without inferring universal rules." ] }, { "name": "Disclosure and records officer", "responsibilities": [ "Authorize recipient views, restrictions, retention and lawful disposal." ] }, { "name": "Interoperability maintainer", "responsibilities": [ "Pin mappings, record losses and validate references and schemas." ] }, { "name": "Assisting agent", "responsibilities": [ "Read within scope, preserve evidence and unknowns, flag conflicts and prepare only authorized local changes." ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny access to unclassified or restricted payloads until an authorized view is established; publishable source availability alone grants no broader record access.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Allow a verified public representation within its reuse terms; do not inherit public access onto underlying unredacted material.", "Apply documented court orders, sealing, protected-person and recipient-specific restrictions; escalate unresolved conflicts to the custodian." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Record reader or changer role, purpose, scoped object, policy decision, revision, event and observation time in the designated external audit system.", "Minimize personal data in logs and preserve external audit references only; this model does not own audit-trail execution." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "Read AGENTS.md and the owning Dimension policies.", "Read spec.yaml, research holds and the pinned legal/access/records profile.", "Resolve master decision and neighboring model references before local operations." ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed structure for one persistent adjudicative decision record, with selected civil, human-rights and arbitration examples. Separate local no-tools self-audit completed. Independent review, direct source/version verification, jurisdiction profiles and executable conformance remain holds; this is a noncanonical reviewable draft.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Decision master, case links and separate representation identity." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Issuance, review and correction assertions without external workflow ownership." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Case, optional sanction and enforcement references preserve registry ownership." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Legal dates, event times and observation times remain distinct." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Attribution, evidence pointers and revision lineage." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competent records custodian and adopting Dimension roles." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research schema gate exists; nested instance validation and legal conformance need fixtures." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Recipient-specific views with separately sourced access restrictions." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "gap", "notes": "Policy dependency and disposal questions are explicit; no jurisdictional schedule supplied." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Conceptual ECLI, Akoma Ntoso and PROV-O mapping; no implementation certification." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Type, issuer, jurisdiction, scope, amounts where applicable and status assertions; physical measurement is not applicable to the abstract decision." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Authoritative record and source provenance distinguish decisions from drafts and summaries." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and actions", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local functions with authority, revision and refusal conditions; legal decision making stays external." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent second-provider review is absent; the required later no-tools assessment is a local self-audit.", "Direct HTTP status and hashes are unmeasured in this sandbox. ECLI and arbitration PDF content are limited to official indexed evidence; current versions and enacted applicability remain open.", "Criminal, family, customary, religious, constitutional and specialized tribunal profiles are not exhaustively researched; dangerous matters stay policy-level.", "Cross-border recognition, res judicata, precedential weight, legal calendars and automated effect determination are not implemented.", "Nested instance schemas, neighboring model version pins, mapping fixtures and executable validation are not delivered by candidate object groups.", "Applicable licensing, archival rules, privacy regimes and retention schedules require adopting-jurisdiction review." ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "CPR examples concern England and Wales civil procedure in their stated scope.", "Federal civil rules do not define state or criminal procedure.", "Convention Articles 40-46 govern the European Court of Human Rights; Article 6 is not a universal online-publication license.", "UNCITRAL is a model law requiring enacted-law and agreement verification; the admitted excerpts do not establish local applicability." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "An appeal with no stay must not erase effect or establish finality merely from its existence.", "Two decisions in one case, joined cases, partial dispositions and non-sanction outcomes must retain distinct identity and scope.", "A translation or summary must not replace authoritative text or erase a dissent.", "A local correction and an issuer correction must not share a legal-effect assumption.", "Redacted public text must not expose unredacted identifiers through linked metadata.", "A hash, XML mapping or ECLI cannot certify a decision as authentic, current, binding or enforceable." ] }, "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": "Stable decision identity persists through issuance, review and representations. Issuance is an event, while multiple artifacts do not require an aggregate subject kind. Registry standalone-mm classifies the registry plane. Court, tribunal and arbitral adjudicative decisions fit the Court / Arbitration Case parent; non-adjudicative administrative acts remain outside." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Decision identity and scope", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The entity has its own master identifier rather than inheriting a case number, date, ECLI representation or publication URL as sufficient identity. Multiple decisions and joined proceedings remain expressible." }, { "concept": "Case containment", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Incoming WM-POL-009 CONTAINS remains case-owned context, represented locally by case references. No finding or function imports pleadings, hearing workflow or case evidence custody." }, { "concept": "Sanction and enforcement boundaries", "disposition": "accepted as optional bindings", "rationale": "WM-POL-022 is optional COMPOSE and owns sanction administration. WM-POL-023 stays REFERENCE and owns enforcement. Declaratory, negative and partial dispositions are not forced to contain a sanction or enforcement action." }, { "concept": "Supplement finality and appeal claims", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "The blanket inference from pending appeal to absence of binding force is contradicted by the admitted qualified stay examples. The result separately records effect, finality, review and stay by affected scope and evidence time." }, { "concept": "Decision form and institutional authority", "disposition": "profile-qualified", "rationale": "Questions solicit competence, form requirements and exceptions rather than requiring a judge, seal, signature or reasons in every legal system. Attribution alone does not prove competence." }, { "concept": "Authoritative text and opinions", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Text, translation, redaction, summary and separate opinion retain different roles and provenance. Grounds are stated findings with anchors rather than independently certified truth; citation alone does not establish precedential weight." }, { "concept": "Operative outcome and monetary terms", "disposition": "accepted within recording scope", "rationale": "Issue-level outcomes, affected parties, reserved matters, monetary amounts and qualifications are anchored to operative text. No balance calculation, sanction administration or obligation inferred only from commentary is authorized." }, { "concept": "Time and service", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Making, entry, pronouncement, service and observation are distinct. Legal dates retain their precision, and neither upload nor dispatch supplies legal service or a deadline. Calendar implementation is openly deferred." }, { "concept": "Review and correction continuity", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Later decisions identify affected scope, and unknown or stale review reports stay visible. Issuer corrections, local transcription repairs and distinct successor decisions have different authority and identity consequences." }, { "concept": "Local function authority", "disposition": "accepted as proposed only", "rationale": "All six operations require role, purpose, revision and evidence checks and produce refusal paths. Effects are local records and projections; none issues, serves, files, publishes or enforces a legal act." }, { "concept": "Disclosure and source scope", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Court-specific Convention provisions and federal filing privacy are not generalized to every judgment. The source review correctly limits CPR 5.4C(4) to statements of case. Public access never automatically opens linked restricted payloads." }, { "concept": "Retention and ownership", "disposition": "accepted with policy hold", "rationale": "Competent records custodians and adopting Dimension roles own local records policy. History preservation is qualified by lawful retention and disposal. Local deletion neither annuls a decision nor deletes neighboring masters; jurisdictional schedules are absent and explicitly held." }, { "concept": "Sources and regional completeness", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Eight documents were available as full web text with selected review, and two only as official indexed evidence. No direct HTTP request was attempted. The record correctly avoids claiming ten verified live URLs or universal current-law coverage." }, { "concept": "Candidate schemas and interoperability", "disposition": "deferred beyond research structure", "rationale": "Optional object groups, conceptual alignments and proposed operations are not executable nested schemas, pinned neighbor packages or tested mappings. Coverage gaps and publication holds prevent a conformance claim." }, { "concept": "Provider independence", "disposition": "waived and held", "rationale": "Claude and Grok were explicitly skipped. This assessment uses frozen evidence and adds no facts, but remains a local Codex self-audit, not an independent provider pass or agreement between providers." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent. Claude and Grok were skipped under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not a second-provider review.", "Direct HTTP source checks were not attempted because the owner reports sandbox restrictions: zero measured HTTP 200 responses. Eight documents were available through web-tool text with selected-section review; ECLI and UNCITRAL evidence is indexed-only. The coordinator must run check_sources.py and verify source versions, redirects, challenges and substantive support.", "Jurisdiction-specific legal applicability, current amendments, form and reasons exceptions, privacy, retention, licensing, finality, service, deadlines and cross-border recognition require qualified profile review. Selected regional examples do not establish universal rules.", "Nested instance schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, executable ECLI/Akoma Ntoso/PROV-O mappings, legal calendars and adversarial conformance fixtures remain incomplete. Candidate fields and local functions are research proposals, not an implemented legal engine.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Retrieve the two limited sources in full, verify all source versions and check enacted jurisdiction profiles with competent reviewers.", "Build nested instance schemas and fixtures for joined cases, multiple decisions, partial relief, appeal without stay, unknown finality, corrected text, separate opinions and redacted projections.", "Pin neighboring model versions and mappings; test losses, restricted metadata leaks, lawful disposal and stale-status handling.", "Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 10, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 36, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 6 } }