# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T13:39:40Z", "synthesisSha256": "dca47d5544dfd3d060450f19da23f0d3b8e4b0d8667f983546e334eda552539c", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-XCT-007", "registryId": "vr.wm-xct-007", "name": "Access Breach / Enforcement", "version": "0.1.0-reviewable-draft", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "mixin", "family": "World Models", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "XCT.ENF" ], "tags": [ "access", "breach", "enforcement", "xct.enf" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-xct-007-access-breach-enforcement/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-xct-007", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-xct-007", "model_id": "WM-XCT-007", "name": "Access Breach / Enforcement", "entry_kind": "mixin", "purpose": "Attach evidence-qualified access violation, enforcement and redress records to a host without taking over its identity or authority.", "scope_statement": "A host-attached mixin for resources, agreements or cases that need access-breach accountability. The attachment identifies its host, authority profile and local assertions. It references separately mastered signals, cases, decisions, evidence and grants. It records allegations, assessments and effects without operating access controls, imposing sanctions or deciding legal rights. All structure and local functions are proposed research design.", "in_scope": [ "Host and policy revision binding; signals, disputed assertions and investigation references", "Authority-qualified findings, precautionary measures, sanctions, notification assessment and remedies", "Scoped standing, reinstatement evidence, review, retention and permitted projections" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Access policy authoring, identity and consent masters, raw audit log ownership, incident command and court or arbitration case management", "Executing revocation, surveillance, penalties, payments, notices or erasure; tactical physical enforcement, detention or controlled-item procedures", "Universal legal breach definitions, automatic guilt, cross-context reputation scores or executable compliance certification" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-002 Access Contract / Consent", "distinction": "Reference the effective policy or grant revision. A breach attachment neither creates consent nor changes a grant.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-004 Access Audit", "distinction": "Logs and proofs remain audit-owned. The attachment records evidence references and assessment status; a log entry is not a proven violation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ACT-019 Incident / Emergency", "distinction": "Response coordination is external. Precautionary containment can precede a responsibility determination and must not be recorded as a punitive sanction by inference.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-POL-009 Court / Arbitration Case and WM-POL-010 Dispute Forum", "distinction": "Legacy A19 is ambiguous across case and forum successors. Reference a case for a proceeding and a forum for authority; do not merge either master into this mixin.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-001 Ownership / Stewardship and WM-POL-014 Rights / Entitlements", "distinction": "Legacy S1 is split across stewardship and rights. Custody of the attachment does not prove substantive ownership or entitlement.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-008" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-035 Retention / Disposition and WM-XCT-005 Privacy Aggregation Floor", "distinction": "Use external retention rules and separately approved disclosure profiles. Case closure does not erase evidence automatically and an aggregate view is not automatically anonymous.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "ODRL Information Model 2.2", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation 2018-02-15", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Sections 2.1, 2.6 and 3: policy identity, permissions, prohibitions, duties, remedies and profiles. Vocabulary alignment only; policy evaluation does not establish legal liability." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "eXtensible Access Control Markup Language Version 3.0", "organization": "OASIS Open", "url": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-core-spec-os-en.html", "version_or_date": "OASIS Standard 2013-01-22", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Sections 5.53, 7.2 and 7.18 distinguish decisions, enforcement points, obligations and advice. Preserve the selected enforcement profile and uncertain results." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Incident Response Recommendations and Considerations for Cybersecurity Risk Management", "organization": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "url": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r3.pdf", "version_or_date": "SP 800-61 Rev. 3, April 2025", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "RS.MA, RS.AN and RS.CO support triage, investigation, evidence integrity and stakeholder communication. Incident handling is separate from adjudicating responsibility." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations", "organization": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "url": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r5.pdf", "version_or_date": "SP 800-53 Rev. 5, September 2020 with December 2020 updates; later release 5.2.0 not reconciled", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "AC-3, AC-3(8), AU-9, AU-11 and PS-8 support authorization enforcement, revocation, protected audit records, retention and formal sanctions processes. Selected historical revision only; no baseline compliance claim." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Guidelines 9/2022 on personal data breach notification under GDPR", "organization": "European Data Protection Board", "url": "https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-04/edpb_guidelines_202209_personal_data_breach_notification_v2.0_en.pdf", "version_or_date": "Version 2.0, adopted 2023-03-28", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Sections I-III and V address personal-data breach categories, awareness, conditional notifications, phased information and documentation. Guidance applies in its GDPR context; it is not a universal clock or a substitute for current law." }, { "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": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Entity, activity, agent, derivation and qualified attribution support evidence lineage. Provenance does not certify truth, authority or admissibility." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "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": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Timestamp syntax with seconds and offset supports event records. Precision, clock quality and legal deadline computation need separate fields and profiles." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "EU Charter Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial", "organization": "European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights", "url": "https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/charter/article/47-right-effective-remedy-and-fair-trial", "version_or_date": "Article 47 and explanations accessed 2026-10-06", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:38:26Z", "relevance": "Union-law rights and the article conditions frame effective remedy and fair hearing. Used as a bounded legal example, not as a claim that every private access dispute is a judicial proceeding." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "b-context", "name": "Attachment and applicable authority", "description": "Keep host identity, rules and competence explicit.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for keep host identity, rules and competence explicit.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-binding", "name": "Attachment identity", "description": "Require one explicit host reference per attachment and separate affected resource and party references. Link related attachments without merging identities.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-binding", "name": "Host and subject binding", "description": "Require one explicit host reference per attachment and separate affected resource and party references. Link related attachments without merging identities.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-binding-1", "kind": "identity", "text": "Which authoritative host, attachment identifier and local revision identify this enforcement context?", "answer_data": [ "host_ref, attachment_id, revision, tenant_scope", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-binding-2", "kind": "relationship", "text": "Which resources, parties and external cases are affected, and which links remain uncertain?", "answer_data": [ "resource_refs, party_refs, case_refs, link_status", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-binding-3", "kind": "ownership", "text": "Which custodian maintains the attachment and which external masters retain grants, rights and evidence?", "answer_data": [ "custodian_role, master_bindings, delegation_basis", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-binding-1", "name": "Attachment identity answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: host_ref, attachment_id, revision, tenant_scope. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-binding-2", "name": "Attachment identity answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: resource_refs, party_refs, case_refs, link_status. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-binding-3", "name": "Attachment identity answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: custodian_role, master_bindings, delegation_basis. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-binding", "name": "Attachment identity register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of host and subject binding. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-rules", "name": "Policy and authority", "description": "Pin the relevant rule and effective interval. A role assignment, a policy expression and legal competence are separate assertions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-rules", "name": "Applicable rules and delegated competence", "description": "Pin the relevant rule and effective interval. A role assignment, a policy expression and legal competence are separate assertions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-rules-1", "kind": "requirement", "text": "Which policy, contract or legal profile revision allegedly governs the action and at what time?", "answer_data": [ "rule_refs, profile_version, effective_interval, disputed_applicability", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-rules-2", "kind": "authority", "text": "Who may investigate, determine a breach, authorize a measure and review it under this profile?", "answer_data": [ "authority_refs, role_scope, delegation, conflict_review", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-rules-3", "kind": "exception", "text": "Which exceptions, overriding duties or unresolved rule conflicts affect the alleged violation?", "answer_data": [ "exception_basis, competing_rules, decision_ref, unresolved_reason", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-rules-1", "name": "Policy and authority answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: rule_refs, profile_version, effective_interval, disputed_applicability. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-rules-2", "name": "Policy and authority answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: authority_refs, role_scope, delegation, conflict_review. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-rules-3", "name": "Policy and authority answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: exception_basis, competing_rules, decision_ref, unresolved_reason. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-rules", "name": "Policy and authority register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of applicable rules and delegated competence. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-recognition", "name": "Recognition and evidence", "description": "Separate observations from evaluated assertions.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for separate observations from evaluated assertions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-signals", "name": "Signals and triage", "description": "Keep a report or anomaly distinct from a finding. Failed attempts, permitted exceptions, accidental events and incomplete evidence remain representable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-signals", "name": "Observation without presumption", "description": "Keep a report or anomaly distinct from a finding. Failed attempts, permitted exceptions, accidental events and incomplete evidence remain representable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-signals-1", "kind": "event", "text": "What report or observation raised the concern and what action, target and actor attribution does it actually support?", "answer_data": [ "signal_ref, observed_action, target_ref, attribution_confidence", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-signals-2", "kind": "classification", "text": "Is the concern a suspected access violation, a personal-data breach candidate, another incident or an unresolved category?", "answer_data": [ "category, classifier_version, rationale, assessment_status", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-signals-3", "kind": "decision", "text": "What triage disposition, priority and next review were recorded, including dismissal or linkage to an existing case?", "answer_data": [ "triage_decision, reviewer, priority_basis, case_link, review_due", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-signals-1", "name": "Signals and triage answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: signal_ref, observed_action, target_ref, attribution_confidence. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "d-signals-2", "name": "Signals and triage answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: category, classifier_version, rationale, assessment_status. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "d-signals-3", "name": "Signals and triage answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: triage_decision, reviewer, priority_basis, case_link, review_due. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-signals", "name": "Signals and triage register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of observation without presumption. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-evidence", "name": "Evidence and chronology", "description": "Preserve supporting and contrary material, source access restrictions and clock uncertainty. A digest checks byte integrity, not factual truth.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-evidence", "name": "Traceable and contestable support", "description": "Preserve supporting and contrary material, source access restrictions and clock uncertainty. A digest checks byte integrity, not factual truth.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-evidence-1", "kind": "evidence", "text": "Which evidence supports or challenges each assertion and where is its authoritative retained copy?", "answer_data": [ "assertion_ref, evidence_refs, support_relation, master_locator, access_class", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-2", "kind": "provenance", "text": "Who collected, transformed or transferred the evidence and what integrity or custody gaps remain?", "answer_data": [ "collector, activity_ref, derivation, digest, custody_events, gaps", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-evidence-3", "kind": "temporal", "text": "How do occurrence, detection, awareness and recording times differ and what uncertainty affects their order?", "answer_data": [ "occurred_at, detected_at, aware_at, recorded_at, offset, precision, clock_quality", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-evidence-1", "name": "Evidence and chronology answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: assertion_ref, evidence_refs, support_relation, master_locator, access_class. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-evidence-2", "name": "Evidence and chronology answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: collector, activity_ref, derivation, digest, custody_events, gaps. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-evidence-3", "name": "Evidence and chronology answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: occurred_at, detected_at, aware_at, recorded_at, offset, precision, clock_quality. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-evidence", "name": "Evidence and chronology register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of traceable and contestable support. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-determination", "name": "Determinations and measures", "description": "Separate responsibility, authorization and actual effects.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for separate responsibility, authorization and actual effects.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-assessment", "name": "Assessment and outcomes", "description": "Represent each allegation separately with pending, substantiated, unsubstantiated, dismissed or overturned assertions under a versioned local vocabulary. Mixed case outcomes and reopening remain possible.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-assessment", "name": "Per-allegation determinations", "description": "Represent each allegation separately with pending, substantiated, unsubstantiated, dismissed or overturned assertions under a versioned local vocabulary. Mixed case outcomes and reopening remain possible.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-assessment-1", "kind": "validation", "text": "Which action and rule operands were assessed and what evidence standard or method was applied?", "answer_data": [ "allegation_id, action_ref, rule_revision, method, evidence_standard", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-assessment-2", "kind": "state", "text": "What outcome is recorded for each allegation and which reasons, reviewer and unresolved objections qualify it?", "answer_data": [ "outcome, reason_ref, determining_role, objections, confidence", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-assessment-3", "kind": "measurement", "text": "How are impact and severity assessed separately from responsibility and what limits qualify any counts?", "answer_data": [ "impact_scope, severity_scheme, affected_count, unit, estimate_range, method", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-assessment-1", "name": "Assessment and outcomes answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: allegation_id, action_ref, rule_revision, method, evidence_standard. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-assessment-2", "name": "Assessment and outcomes answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: outcome, reason_ref, determining_role, objections, confidence. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-assessment-3", "name": "Assessment and outcomes answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: impact_scope, severity_scheme, affected_count, unit, estimate_range, method. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-assessment", "name": "Assessment and outcomes register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of per-allegation determinations. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-measures", "name": "Measures and execution evidence", "description": "Separate precautionary containment from formal sanctions and distinguish proposed, authorized, attempted and observed effects. No source grants this mixin enforcement authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-measures", "name": "Precautionary and punitive effects", "description": "Separate precautionary containment from formal sanctions and distinguish proposed, authorized, attempted and observed effects. No source grants this mixin enforcement authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-measures-1", "kind": "authority", "text": "Is the measure precautionary, remedial or punitive and what authority, purpose and review limit support it?", "answer_data": [ "measure_kind, authority_ref, purpose, scope, review_due, expiry", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-measures-2", "kind": "process", "text": "Which external executor and decision record govern the measure and what refusal, partial completion or failure was observed?", "answer_data": [ "decision_ref, executor_ref, execution_ref, result, failure_reason", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-measures-3", "kind": "security", "text": "What approved safeguards govern uncertain access decisions, emergency exceptions and revocation propagation?", "answer_data": [ "enforcement_profile, uncertain_result_policy, exception_authority, propagation_evidence, residual_access", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-measures-1", "name": "Measures and execution evidence answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: measure_kind, authority_ref, purpose, scope, review_due, expiry. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "d-measures-2", "name": "Measures and execution evidence answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: decision_ref, executor_ref, execution_ref, result, failure_reason. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "d-measures-3", "name": "Measures and execution evidence answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: enforcement_profile, uncertain_result_policy, exception_authority, propagation_evidence, residual_access. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-measures", "name": "Measures and execution evidence register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of precautionary and punitive effects. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-response", "name": "Notification and redress", "description": "Track communication and remedy obligations separately.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for track communication and remedy obligations separately.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-notice", "name": "Notice and reporting", "description": "Assess notification requirements promptly under the applicable profile without waiting for final attribution or sanction. Do not impose a universal deadline or infer receipt from dispatch.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-notice", "name": "Recipient-specific notification assessment", "description": "Assess notification requirements promptly under the applicable profile without waiting for final attribution or sanction. Do not impose a universal deadline or infer receipt from dispatch.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-notice-1", "kind": "requirement", "text": "Which recipients, thresholds, awareness triggers and timing rules apply to each notification assessment?", "answer_data": [ "recipient_role, applicable_rule, risk_assessment, trigger, time_rule", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-notice-2", "kind": "exception", "text": "Why was notification required, withheld, phased or delayed and who reviewed that reasoning?", "answer_data": [ "notification_decision, exception_basis, missing_information, delay_reason, reviewer", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-notice-3", "kind": "event", "text": "What approved content version was dispatched and what delivery, receipt or correction evidence exists?", "answer_data": [ "content_ref, approval_ref, dispatched_at, delivery_status, receipt_ref, correction_ref", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-notice-1", "name": "Notice and reporting answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: recipient_role, applicable_rule, risk_assessment, trigger, time_rule. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-notice-2", "name": "Notice and reporting answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: notification_decision, exception_basis, missing_information, delay_reason, reviewer. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-notice-3", "name": "Notice and reporting answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: content_ref, approval_ref, dispatched_at, delivery_status, receipt_ref, correction_ref. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-notice", "name": "Notice and reporting register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of recipient-specific notification assessment. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-redress", "name": "Remedies and verification", "description": "Track redress obligations and evidence of fulfillment independently of sanctions. An ODRL remedy state is not legal exoneration or erasure of historical evidence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-redress", "name": "Obligations and redress progress", "description": "Track redress obligations and evidence of fulfillment independently of sanctions. An ODRL remedy state is not legal exoneration or erasure of historical evidence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-redress-1", "kind": "composition", "text": "Which remedies address which allegations, affected interests and beneficiaries?", "answer_data": [ "remedy_id, allegation_refs, interest_ref, beneficiary_ref, obligation_basis", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-redress-2", "kind": "lifecycle", "text": "What completion criteria, responsible roles and deadlines govern each remedy and what partial or disputed performance exists?", "answer_data": [ "criteria, responsible_role, due_rule, progress, contested_performance", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-redress-3", "kind": "validation", "text": "Who verified remedy completion and what residual harm, limitations or follow-up remain?", "answer_data": [ "verification_ref, verifier_role, result, residual_harm, follow_up", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-redress-1", "name": "Remedies and verification answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: remedy_id, allegation_refs, interest_ref, beneficiary_ref, obligation_basis. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-redress-2", "name": "Remedies and verification answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: criteria, responsible_role, due_rule, progress, contested_performance. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "d-redress-3", "name": "Remedies and verification answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: verification_ref, verifier_role, result, residual_harm, follow_up. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-redress", "name": "Remedies and verification register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of obligations and redress progress. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-review", "name": "Review and scoped standing", "description": "Support corrections and qualified status projections.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for support corrections and qualified status projections.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-review", "name": "Challenge and review", "description": "Keep review routes and procedural rights profile-specific. Record challenge, stay, correction and outcome references without assuming every appeal suspends every measure.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-review", "name": "Corrections and external proceedings", "description": "Keep review routes and procedural rights profile-specific. Record challenge, stay, correction and outcome references without assuming every appeal suspends every measure.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-review-1", "kind": "access", "text": "What authorized view, reasons and opportunity to challenge are available to each affected participant?", "answer_data": [ "participant_ref, view_scope, reasons_ref, route_ref, assistance_requirement", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-review-2", "kind": "relationship", "text": "Which external case and forum handle a referral or challenge and what transmission authority applies?", "answer_data": [ "case_ref, forum_ref, referral_basis, transfer_manifest", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-review-3", "kind": "lifecycle", "text": "What review outcome changes the determination or measure and how are prior assertions superseded?", "answer_data": [ "review_outcome_ref, stay_scope, superseded_revision, effective_at, notice_requirement", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-review-1", "name": "Challenge and review answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: participant_ref, view_scope, reasons_ref, route_ref, assistance_requirement. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-review-2", "name": "Challenge and review answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: case_ref, forum_ref, referral_basis, transfer_manifest. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-review-3", "name": "Challenge and review answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: review_outcome_ref, stay_scope, superseded_revision, effective_at, notice_requirement. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-review", "name": "Challenge and review register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of corrections and external proceedings. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-standing", "name": "Standing and reinstatement", "description": "Standing is a limited projection with source cases, policy version and as-of time, never a universal reputation badge. Reinstatement evidence does not create a new access grant.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-standing", "name": "Scoped derived status", "description": "Standing is a limited projection with source cases, policy version and as-of time, never a universal reputation badge. Reinstatement evidence does not create a new access grant.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-standing-1", "kind": "state", "text": "What standing can be derived for this subject, scope and policy version from active decision records?", "answer_data": [ "subject_ref, scope, standing_rule, decision_refs, as_of, derived_status", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-standing-2", "kind": "quality", "text": "Which stale, missing, stayed or overturned inputs prevent a reliable standing projection?", "answer_data": [ "missing_inputs, stale_after, review_state, uncertainty_reason", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-standing-3", "kind": "authority", "text": "Which conditions and authorized verification support reinstatement and which separate grant decision remains necessary?", "answer_data": [ "reinstatement_conditions, verification_ref, approving_role, grant_decision_ref", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-standing-1", "name": "Standing and reinstatement answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: subject_ref, scope, standing_rule, decision_refs, as_of, derived_status. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-standing-2", "name": "Standing and reinstatement answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: missing_inputs, stale_after, review_state, uncertainty_reason. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-standing-3", "name": "Standing and reinstatement answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: reinstatement_conditions, verification_ref, approving_role, grant_decision_ref. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-standing", "name": "Standing and reinstatement register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of scoped derived status. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "b-continuity", "name": "Stewardship and exchange", "description": "Protect evidence and preserve adoption limits.", "rationale": "Proposed organization for protect evidence and preserve adoption limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "l-retention", "name": "Record stewardship", "description": "Balance protected evidence with lawful storage limits. Keep minimal authorized continuity metadata while applying disposition rules to payloads, copies and projections.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-retention", "name": "Retention holds and restricted views", "description": "Balance protected evidence with lawful storage limits. Keep minimal authorized continuity metadata while applying disposition rules to payloads, copies and projections.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-retention-1", "kind": "retention", "text": "Which retention schedule, trigger, scoped hold and disposition authority apply to each evidence or case record?", "answer_data": [ "record_ref, schedule_version, trigger, hold_scope, review_due, disposition_authority", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-retention-2", "kind": "privacy", "text": "What personal or sensitive information is necessary in each permitted view and how are redactions and onward disclosure controlled?", "answer_data": [ "purpose, data_categories, view_policy, redaction_manifest, recipient_scope", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-retention-3", "kind": "lifecycle", "text": "How are corrections and authorized erasure propagated to copies and derived standing while lawful continuity evidence remains?", "answer_data": [ "correction_ref, copy_inventory, deletion_evidence, projection_invalidation, minimal_tombstone", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-retention-1", "name": "Record stewardship answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: record_ref, schedule_version, trigger, hold_scope, review_due, disposition_authority. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-retention-2", "name": "Record stewardship answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: purpose, data_categories, view_policy, redaction_manifest, recipient_scope. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "d-retention-3", "name": "Record stewardship answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: correction_ref, copy_inventory, deletion_evidence, projection_invalidation, minimal_tombstone. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-retention", "name": "Record stewardship register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of retention holds and restricted views. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "l-exchange", "name": "Interoperability and assurance", "description": "Map concepts explicitly and report losses. This research structure neither implements an access engine nor certifies source, legal or runtime conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "f-exchange", "name": "Mappings and adoption gates", "description": "Map concepts explicitly and report losses. This research structure neither implements an access engine nor certifies source, legal or runtime conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-exchange-1", "kind": "interoperability", "text": "Which pinned mappings preserve policy decisions, obligations, evidence lineage and timestamp semantics in export?", "answer_data": [ "mapping_version, target_schema, source_paths, losses, unresolved_refs", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-exchange-2", "kind": "constraint", "text": "Which profile and runtime restrictions prevent a local record operation from triggering an external enforcement action?", "answer_data": [ "operation_scope, authority_gate, external_effect_policy, rejection_conditions", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] }, { "id": "q-exchange-3", "kind": "validation", "text": "Which adversarial fixtures and independent reviews are still required before this profile is operationally accepted?", "answer_data": [ "fixture_refs, acceptance_criteria, results, unresolved_holds, reviewer_refs", "Assertion source, assessment state and explicit unknown or not-applicable reason" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "d-exchange-1", "name": "Interoperability and assurance answer group 1", "description": "Candidate fields: mapping_version, target_schema, source_paths, losses, unresolved_refs. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-exchange-2", "name": "Interoperability and assurance answer group 2", "description": "Candidate fields: operation_scope, authority_gate, external_effect_policy, rejection_conditions. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "d-exchange-3", "name": "Interoperability and assurance answer group 3", "description": "Candidate fields: fixture_refs, acceptance_criteria, results, unresolved_holds, reviewer_refs. Nested types, enumerations and cross-field constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "a-exchange", "name": "Interoperability and assurance register", "description": "Controlled evidence-linked register of mappings and adoption gates. Stores references and qualified assertions; access and retention follow the host profile.", "media_or_form": [ "application/json", "restricted record view" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system record identifier first; otherwise owner-issued stable identifier scoped by host and attachment. Revisions and sequence numbers are separate from identity; timestamps and filenames are not identifiers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "fn-record-signal", "name": "Record a qualified signal", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Append a local observation without establishing a breach.", "inputs": [ "host and attachment reference", "signal evidence", "expected revision" ], "outputs": [ "Signal revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Append observation and unknown attribution; link duplicates without deleting source signals" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-link-evidence", "name": "Link evidence and contrary material", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Record evidence lineage and evaluation links while leaving the source master unchanged.", "inputs": [ "assertion reference", "evidence locator and access class", "integrity and custody metadata" ], "outputs": [ "Evidence link revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Append support or challenge relation and integrity limitations" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-record-outcome", "name": "Record a determination reference", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Append an authorized external determination for one allegation; do not adjudicate guilt.", "inputs": [ "allegation and rule revision", "determination reference and authority", "reasons and challenge state" ], "outputs": [ "Outcome revision or unresolved-authority report" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Record qualified outcome and supersession; invalidate affected status projections" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-record-measure-result", "name": "Record a measure result", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Record the evidence of an external measure, notice or remedy operation; do not execute it.", "inputs": [ "measure or obligation reference", "external authorization", "execution evidence and uncertainty" ], "outputs": [ "Effect observation revision or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Record partial, failed or completed observation without equating request to effect" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "fn-project-standing", "name": "Project scoped standing", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Compute a proposed local view from eligible evidence-qualified records, with no grant changes.", "inputs": [ "subject and scope", "pinned standing rule", "eligible decision revisions and as-of time" ], "outputs": [ "Scoped status with lineage or unknown result" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Read-only projection; return unknown for unresolved critical inputs" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-validate-export", "name": "Validate a restricted export", "description": "Proposed and unimplemented. Check a proposed evidence view and mapping for completeness and access before local serialization.", "inputs": [ "recipient purpose and scope", "mapping version", "record revision set and retention profile" ], "outputs": [ "Local export manifest or refusal report" ], "preconditions": [ "Authorized purpose and least-privilege role for the host and operation", "Pinned policy and compatible record versions; current revision check for writes", "Missing authority, unresolved host, stale write revision or disallowed disclosure returns refusal without mutation" ], "effects": [ "Report losses, unresolved references and holds; no transmission occurs" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-XCT-002", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate binding to the effective access instrument; resolve its identity and revision before use.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-004", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate binding to audit evidence masters; do not copy their lifecycle.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-001", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate custodian and stewardship binding; substantive rights remain separately evidenced.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-014", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate rights and entitlement reference when relevant; legacy S1 does not select a unique successor.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "target": "WM-ACT-019", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate incident response context; operational command remains external.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-009", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional external adjudication case; legacy A19 also refers to a forum, so resolve explicitly.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "WM-POL-010", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional forum authority reference distinct from a proceeding.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-035", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate retention and disposition profile with scoped legal holds.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-005", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Candidate aggregate disclosure policy; no automatic anonymity guarantee.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "ODRL 2.2", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual policy, duty and remedy alignment; not a mapping implementation or legal judgment.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "XACML 3.0", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual decision and enforcement-point distinction; selected bias and obligations need a runtime profile.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "PROV-O", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual evidence derivation and attribution; not a truth or authority certificate.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Identify the responsible enforcement registrar role and host custodian without using company names as owners", "Declare host identity, attachment namespace, applicable authority and evidence masters", "Pin adoption profile, access policy, retention policy and escalation roles; disclose all research holds" ], "namespace_guidance": "Use an owner-controlled host namespace and stable attachment IDs; keep source master IDs and revision IDs distinct. No date-derived stable IDs.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-xct-007", "Neighbor bindings are candidate references pending profile pinning" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Keep allegation, finding, authorization and effect as separate assertions", "Canonical local state means a selected record revision, never canonical research assurance or proven legal truth" ], "patch_rules": [ "Use expected revision, actor, purpose, reason and evidence for every patch; reject concurrent stale writes", "Correct through attributed supersession; invalidate dependent standing and export views" ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Version profile vocabularies and mappings; never reinterpret an old allegation under a new rule silently", "A source schema match does not prove legal applicability, semantic equivalence or authority" ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier and namespace", "Owner-issued stable record identifier scoped to host and attachment", "Content digest as integrity aid only, never sufficient subject identity" ], "timestamp_rule": "Event timestamps use RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit UTC offset or Z; retain precision, uncertainty and clock source. Preserve date-only and unknown times without invented precision.", "serial_naming_rule": "Use stable register ID plus separate revision and sequence; filenames and timestamps do not establish record identity.", "integrity_rule": "Preserve digest algorithm, source revision, custody and transformations with restricted access; digest equality proves neither truth nor admissibility." }, "policies": [ "These bundles are local design proposals informed by sources, not verbatim standard requirements", "No automated attribution of guilt, public accusation, universal standing score or implicit grant modification", "Notification assessment is independent of final adjudication; dangerous enforcement subjects remain at policy and referral level", "Private evidence and contact details are excluded from public research packages; purpose and disclosure rules apply to all views", "Independent external review, live source/version checks, qualified legal profiles and runtime conformance remain open" ], "crud": { "read": [ "Authorize each host, record and view; return redacted reasons where permitted without exposing unrelated cases" ], "create": [ "Require resolvable host, source, actor, purpose and authority scope; create allegations as qualified assertions" ], "update": [ "Check revision and role; preserve correction provenance and recompute dependent projections", "Record execution evidence separately from decisions, requests and intentions" ], "delete": [ "Apply approved retention schedule and scoped holds before payload deletion; no perpetual retention inferred from history requirements", "Retain only legally justified minimal tombstones and disposition evidence; record inaccessible or unresolved copies. Local deletion does not extinguish external rights or duties" ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Enforcement registrar", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain host bindings, case references and qualified record revisions" ] }, { "name": "Investigator", "responsibilities": [ "Collect permitted evidence and record uncertainty and contrary material" ] }, { "name": "Authorized decision reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Verify competence, reasons, measure scope and challenge handling" ] }, { "name": "Remedy verifier", "responsibilities": [ "Evaluate completion evidence without granting access or absolving responsibility" ] }, { "name": "Privacy and records custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Approve restricted views, retention schedules and disposition holds" ] }, { "name": "Independent assessor", "responsibilities": [ "Evaluate mappings, adversarial fixtures and remaining assurance gaps" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny by default for attachment reads and writes unless the host policy explicitly authorizes purpose, role, scope and record view. This is the proposed local storage rule, not a claim that every XACML enforcement profile is deny-biased.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Emergency access requires predeclared authority, bounded scope, expiry and retrospective review; it creates no punitive authority", "Participant disclosure and public aggregate views require separate profile review and redaction; ownership alone does not expose all evidence" ], "audit_requirements": [ "Record actor, purpose, object revision, decision basis, permitted view and export lineage", "Protect audit history from investigated actors and reconcile access logging with approved retention" ] }, "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 noncanonical review state", "Read spec.yaml holds, host policy and authority profile", "Resolve external masters before filling allegations or performing permitted local operations" ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Source-grounded proposed host-attached access-breach mixin with evidence-qualified allegations, determinations, measures, remedies and scoped standing. A separate local no-tools self-audit found no critical contradiction. This is a noncanonical reviewable draft; independent review, source/version checks, qualified adoption profiles and executable conformance remain incomplete.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Host, attachment, allegation and external master identities remain distinct" }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Pending, mixed outcomes, correction, review and retirement are representable" }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Cases, forums, rights, grants and raw audit logs are referenced masters" }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Occurrence, awareness, effect and recording times are separate" }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Evidence lineage and contrary assertions remain explicit" }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Registrar custody confers no rights or enforcement authority" }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research schema validates structure; nested instance rules and acceptance fixtures remain unimplemented" }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Least-privilege views, exceptions and protected audit requirements are proposed" }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Conceptual alignments only; pinned mappings and round-trip testing are deferred" }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Rule scope, outcome, severity, time and uncertainty are nonphysical properties" }, { "dimension": "physical measurement", "status": "not-applicable", "notes": "The attachment is abstract; physical resources and measurements retain external masters" }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Signals remain distinct from determinations and observed effects" }, { "dimension": "capabilities and actions", "status": "covered", "notes": "Six proposed local operations have preconditions, refusal paths and bounded effects" }, { "dimension": "regional applicability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Selected US guidance and EU legal examples do not establish universal applicability" } ], "known_omissions": [ "Independent second-provider review is absent under the owner waiver", "Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block; no HTTP status measured", "SP 800-53 release 5.2.0 is announced but changes are not reconciled with the selected 2020 PDF", "Current consolidated law, sector-specific sanctions, employment rules and physical access profiles require qualified review", "Candidate object fields lack nested schemas, executable calendars, pinned neighbor interfaces and acceptance fixtures" ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "NIST publications are control and incident-response guidance, not a universal legal mandate", "EDPB guidance and Charter Article 47 are bounded EU examples; applicability and jurisdiction must be supplied by the adopting profile" ], "adversarial_checks": [ "A denied attempt or missing log must not prove successful unauthorized access", "A precautionary restriction must not be silently reclassified as a punitive sanction", "An overturned allegation must invalidate scoped standing without reviving an old grant", "A notification deadline must not wait for final responsibility attribution", "Mixed outcomes and partial remedy completion must remain visible", "Unknown authority, stale evidence or unavailable master bindings must not become permission to act" ] }, "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": "mixin", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "The root attaches accountability assertions to one explicitly bound host and preserves external case, grant, evidence, person and forum identities. This agrees with the registry mixin classification. Legacy S7's standalone lifecycle narrative is reconciled as referenced records and local attachment state, not inherited aggregate ownership." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Host identity and optional candidate fields", "disposition": "accepted with operational hold", "rationale": "The prose requires a resolvable host and attachment identity, while candidate object groups are optional in the research schema. This is coherent as research design, but cannot serve as executable instance validation until required fields and cross-field constraints are implemented." }, { "concept": "External case and forum ownership", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The draft references separately mastered proceedings and authority forums. It explicitly resolves legacy A19 ambiguity and does not treat a forum identifier as an existing case or competent decision." }, { "concept": "Stewardship and substantive rights", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "The legacy S1 successor ambiguity is explicit. Registrar custody and resource ownership do not themselves authorize investigation, unrestricted evidence access or sanctions." }, { "concept": "Signals and successful unauthorized access", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "The questions preserve observed action, attribution confidence and unresolved category. A denied attempt, alert, missing log or personal-data breach candidate is not silently promoted to an established access violation." }, { "concept": "Legacy single case outcome", "disposition": "rejected", "rationale": "Per-allegation dispositions and superseding revisions allow mixed outcomes and later review without simultaneously affirming contradictory outcomes for the same assertion revision." }, { "concept": "Policy and legal authority", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Pinned rules and policy evaluation do not confer competence or legal liability. ODRL and XACML alignments are conceptual, and formal decision authority remains separately evidenced." }, { "concept": "Protective restriction and punitive sanction", "disposition": "separated", "rationale": "The measure layer distinguishes precautionary, remedial and punitive purposes and separates authorization from observed execution. Protective response is not conditioned on a completed responsibility adjudication." }, { "concept": "Default denial and enforcement profiles", "disposition": "accepted with scope qualification", "rationale": "The local storage rule denies by default, while the draft expressly preserves different XACML PEP profiles. Unknown or failed evaluation is not universally interpreted as a proven breach or an instruction to grant access." }, { "concept": "Notification timing", "disposition": "legacy restriction rejected", "rationale": "Notification assessment can precede final attribution, determination or sanction. Recipient, trigger, threshold, exception and phased-reporting questions avoid both a universal clock and a requirement to wait for case closure." }, { "concept": "Remedy completion and reinstatement", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Verification, partial fulfillment and residual harm remain visible. A remedy vocabulary state neither erases history nor proves legal exoneration, and reinstatement requires a separate access-grant decision." }, { "concept": "Standing projection", "disposition": "accepted as scoped only", "rationale": "Subject, policy, scope, eligible decisions and as-of time qualify each derived result. Unknown, stale, stayed or overturned inputs cannot silently yield a universal reputation or current permission." }, { "concept": "Evidence and record stewardship", "disposition": "accepted with profile dependency", "rationale": "Integrity and provenance are not truth or admissibility guarantees. Protected revision history is reconciled with scoped holds, lawful payload disposal, minimal justified tombstones and propagation limits." }, { "concept": "Local functions and dangerous effects", "disposition": "accepted as proposed only", "rationale": "All six functions are unimplemented local operations with authority checks and refusal paths. They record evidence or produce local views; they neither execute controls nor impose sanctions, transmit notices or provide tactical physical enforcement." }, { "concept": "Source and version assurance", "disposition": "limited", "rationale": "Selected primary sections were browser-reviewed, direct HTTP was not attempted and no status was measured. The later SP 800-53 release is unreconciled and current consolidated law was not established. These limits cannot be promoted by the audit." }, { "concept": "Independent review and conformance", "disposition": "deferred", "rationale": "The sole provider's frozen draft supports a local self-audit only. No waived-provider additions or agreement are available, and nested schemas, neighbor bindings, mappings and adversarial fixtures remain incomplete." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts under the owner override and existing single-provider waiver; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not independent provider review.", "Live source and version verification remains incomplete. Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block and no status was measured. Selected browser readings do not verify current versions; SP 800-53 release 5.2.0 is unreconciled and current consolidated legal texts remain unverified. The coordinator must run check_sources.py outside the sandbox.", "Qualified jurisdiction, sector, employment, privacy, physical-access and authority profiles are required before operational use. Notification triggers, deadlines, sanctions, remedies, review effects, retention and licensing must be verified for each adoption; no universal legal or compliance claim is made.", "Required nested instance fields, cross-field constraints, pinned neighbor bindings, ODRL/XACML/PROV mappings, runtime authority gates and adversarial acceptance fixtures remain unimplemented. Research-schema validity does not establish executable conformance.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Complete direct source checks, version reconciliation and qualified current-law applicability review without treating HTTP success as claim verification.", "Implement and test profiles for mixed outcomes, uncertain authority, early notification, partial effects, stayed sanctions, stale standing, overturned allegations and lawful scoped disposal.", "Restore independent external review before canonical or publishable-draft promotion." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 8, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 36, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 6 } }