# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-10-06T13:32:08Z", "synthesisSha256": "cc897e71f7b96e5d85f171fe1ef5f41b52fe5f405b469a455c06c172a20264d8", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-XCT-038", "registryId": "vr.wm-xct-038", "name": "Policy Evaluation", "version": "0.1.0", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "pattern", "family": "World Models", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "XCT.POL" ], "tags": [ "policy", "evaluation", "xct.pol" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-xct-038-policy-evaluation/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-xct-038", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-xct-038", "model_id": "WM-XCT-038", "name": "Policy Evaluation", "entry_kind": "pattern", "purpose": "Represent a repeatable application of machine-evaluable policy to a bounded request, preserving evidence, native outcome, obligations, explanation and distinct enforcement execution.", "scope_statement": "A format-neutral evaluation and enforcement pattern whose instances are correlated evaluation attempts. It owns request snapshots, policy and evaluator bindings, evaluation results, explanation evidence, obligation handling and enforcement state/receipts. Policy authoring, human adjudication and resource-specific actuator implementations remain separate. This is not public-policy impact evaluation or an implemented engine.", "in_scope": [ "Evaluation identity, request scope and attribute provenance", "Pinned policy/evaluator context and native decision semantics", "Obligations, advice, explanations and failure handling", "Enforcement gate, attempt correlation and execution evidence distinct from decision", "Replay limits, protected records, contest links and profile-specific interoperability" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Authoring, approving or deploying policy rules and disclosure definitions", "Statistical evaluation of government policy effectiveness", "Human approval, legal adjudication and exception-granting authority", "Implementation of resource-specific actuators, identity directories or general audit infrastructure", "Operational instructions for dangerous activities or controlled subjects" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-KNW-012 Policy / Rule", "distinction": "Registry parent is conceptual context, not inheritance of rule administration. Pin a rule or policy-set version; this pattern applies it and does not edit or approve it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-003 Projection / Disclosure Policy", "distinction": "Incoming REFERENCE ledger assigns decision input, outcome, explanation and enforcement execution here. That model defines disclosure shape. This pattern records and governs the concrete evaluation and enforcement attempt, including executor binding and receipts; resource-specific execution code is external.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-007" ] }, { "neighbor": "Human decision and exception authority", "distinction": "A machine result is neither consent nor a legally effective human approval. A separately authorized exception is referenced with scope and expiry and cannot rewrite the original decision.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-XCT-035 Retention / Disposition", "distinction": "Retention rules and holds may be referenced through this candidate alignment; this pattern applies the adopting Dimension policy to its own evidence and does not redefine a retention schedule.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 3.0", "organization": "OASIS", "url": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-core-spec-os-en.html", "version_or_date": "OASIS Standard, 22 January 2013", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Sections 3, 5.42-5.58, 7.2, 7.18-7.19 and 9: request, result, obligations, PEP behavior and security. Native semantics are profile-specific." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Guide to Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) Definition and Considerations", "organization": "NIST", "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/162/upd2/final", "version_or_date": "SP 800-162, January 2014; updates 2 August 2019", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Official abstract grounds subject, object, operation and environment attributes against policy. Detailed implementation claims are not inferred from the abstract." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Authorization API 1.0", "organization": "OpenID Foundation", "url": "https://openid.net/specs/authorization-api-1_0.html", "version_or_date": "Final, 11 January 2026", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Sections 5-7 and 11: boolean decisions, optional context, ordered batch results and transport versus item errors; protected PEP-PDP communication." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "ODRL Information Model 2.2", "organization": "W3C", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation, 15 February 2018", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Policy permissions, prohibitions, duties, constraints and duty fulfillment. Conceptual usage-policy alignment, not an interchangeable authorization response protocol." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "W3C", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "version_or_date": "Recommendation, 30 April 2013", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Entity, activity and agent provenance, usage, generation, derivation and responsibility support evaluation evidence links without proving correctness." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", "organization": "IETF", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339", "version_or_date": "RFC 3339, July 2002", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Section 5.6 timestamp syntax; seconds and offsets support distinct evaluation and observation times. Clock trust is a separate deployment concern." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", "organization": "IETF", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3198", "version_or_date": "RFC 3198, November 2001; Informational", "source_type": "first-party-doc", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Policy decision and policy enforcement terminology supports separate decision and execution stages within the local pattern." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations", "organization": "NIST", "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final", "version_or_date": "SP 800-53 Rev. 5, December 2020 update; landing page notes Release 5.2.0 in August 2025", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-10-06T13:31:00Z", "relevance": "Official overview supports customizable security/privacy controls and scope-qualified mappings. Detailed controls and latest release implementation are not verified here." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bundle-request", "name": "Request and identity", "description": "Define what a single evaluation attempt concerns.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-attempt", "name": "Attempt identity and scope", "description": "A logical request may have multiple evaluation attempts. Correlation does not collapse retries, simulations or enforcement receipts.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-attempt", "name": "Attempt identity and scope", "description": "A logical request may have multiple evaluation attempts. Correlation does not collapse retries, simulations or enforcement receipts.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "attempt-q1", "kind": "identity", "text": "Which master evaluation identifier and request correlation distinguish this attempt from retries?", "answer_data": [ "evaluation-id", "request-id", "attempt-id" ] }, { "id": "attempt-q2", "kind": "classification", "text": "Is this attempt live, simulated, replayed or imported, and which profile defines its meaning?", "answer_data": [ "mode", "profile-ref" ] }, { "id": "attempt-q3", "kind": "relationship", "text": "Which subject, action, resource and tenant references bound the requested operation?", "answer_data": [ "subject-ref", "action-ref", "resource-ref", "tenant-ref" ] }, { "id": "attempt-q4", "kind": "ownership", "text": "Which adopting role is accountable for the evaluation record and which master issued it?", "answer_data": [ "record-steward", "master-system-ref" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "attempt-data-evaluation-id", "name": "evaluation-id", "description": "Proposed evaluation-id field for attempt identity and scope; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "attempt-data-request-scope", "name": "request-scope", "description": "Proposed request-scope field for attempt identity and scope; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "attempt-data-mode", "name": "mode", "description": "Proposed mode field for attempt identity and scope; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-attempt", "name": "Evaluation request envelope", "description": "Versioned evidence for attempt identity and scope; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-attributes", "name": "Attribute evidence", "description": "Attribute assertions retain types, issuers, collection times and uncertainty. Missing, false, empty and withheld values are not interchangeable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-attributes", "name": "Attribute evidence", "description": "Attribute assertions retain types, issuers, collection times and uncertainty. Missing, false, empty and withheld values are not interchangeable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "attributes-q1", "kind": "provenance", "text": "Who supplied each attribute and what evidence supports trusting it for this decision?", "answer_data": [ "attribute-id", "issuer-ref", "trust-evidence" ] }, { "id": "attributes-q2", "kind": "temporal", "text": "What observation time and freshness limit apply to each changing context value?", "answer_data": [ "observed-at", "freshness-limit", "clock-basis" ] }, { "id": "attributes-q3", "kind": "quality", "text": "Which inputs are missing, contradictory, stale or deliberately withheld?", "answer_data": [ "input-quality", "missing-fields", "conflict-evidence" ] }, { "id": "attributes-q4", "kind": "spatial", "text": "If location affects policy, what scope, precision and provenance make that assertion usable?", "answer_data": [ "location-scope", "precision", "location-evidence" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "attributes-data-attribute-assertions", "name": "attribute-assertions", "description": "Proposed attribute-assertions field for attribute evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "attributes-data-quality-issues", "name": "quality-issues", "description": "Proposed quality-issues field for attribute evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "attributes-data-input-snapshot-ref", "name": "input-snapshot-ref", "description": "Proposed input-snapshot-ref field for attribute evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-attributes", "name": "Protected attribute evidence manifest", "description": "Versioned evidence for attribute evidence; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-binding", "name": "Policy and evaluator binding", "description": "Resolve the policy and implementation context without owning their administration.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-policy", "name": "Effective policy selection", "description": "Record the resolved policy set, versions and applicability basis. A mutable URL or latest label is insufficient for historical reconstruction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-policy", "name": "Effective policy selection", "description": "Record the resolved policy set, versions and applicability basis. A mutable URL or latest label is insufficient for historical reconstruction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "policy-q1", "kind": "composition", "text": "Which policy and referenced policy-set versions were resolved for this attempt?", "answer_data": [ "policy-refs", "version-pins", "dependency-manifest" ] }, { "id": "policy-q2", "kind": "authority", "text": "What authority and effective interval justify selecting this policy in the request domain?", "answer_data": [ "selection-authority", "effective-interval", "domain" ] }, { "id": "policy-q3", "kind": "exception", "text": "Was a historical, simulated or exception policy selected and what authorization bounds that selection?", "answer_data": [ "selection-mode", "exception-ref", "scope", "expiry" ] }, { "id": "policy-q4", "kind": "validation", "text": "What evidence binds the resolved policy content to the version identifier used?", "answer_data": [ "content-digest", "version-evidence", "verification-state" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "policy-data-policy-bindings", "name": "policy-bindings", "description": "Proposed policy-bindings field for effective policy selection; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "policy-data-selection-basis", "name": "selection-basis", "description": "Proposed selection-basis field for effective policy selection; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "policy-data-exception-reference", "name": "exception-reference", "description": "Proposed exception-reference field for effective policy selection; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-policy", "name": "Resolved policy manifest", "description": "Versioned evidence for effective policy selection; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-engine", "name": "Evaluator configuration", "description": "Preserve evaluator identity, supported profile and combining configuration. Unsupported features and evaluation failure remain explicit.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-engine", "name": "Evaluator configuration", "description": "Preserve evaluator identity, supported profile and combining configuration. Unsupported features and evaluation failure remain explicit.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "engine-q1", "kind": "identity", "text": "Which evaluator instance, implementation revision and configuration produced the result?", "answer_data": [ "evaluator-ref", "implementation-version", "config-ref" ] }, { "id": "engine-q2", "kind": "requirement", "text": "Which language features, algorithms and extensions must the selected evaluator support?", "answer_data": [ "profile", "required-features", "combining-algorithm" ] }, { "id": "engine-q3", "kind": "constraint", "text": "What happens if a dependency, function or profile feature cannot be resolved safely?", "answer_data": [ "unsupported-feature", "failure-policy", "refusal-state" ] }, { "id": "engine-q4", "kind": "process", "text": "Which ordered or unordered combining procedure and short-circuit behavior were applied?", "answer_data": [ "algorithm-ref", "parameters", "evaluation-order" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "engine-data-evaluator-binding", "name": "evaluator-binding", "description": "Proposed evaluator-binding field for evaluator configuration; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "engine-data-semantic-profile", "name": "semantic-profile", "description": "Proposed semantic-profile field for evaluator configuration; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "engine-data-execution-configuration", "name": "execution-configuration", "description": "Proposed execution-configuration field for evaluator configuration; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-engine", "name": "Evaluator context manifest", "description": "Versioned evidence for evaluator configuration; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-outcome", "name": "Outcome and explanation", "description": "Preserve the native decision and evidence for its interpretation.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-decision", "name": "Native result and failure state", "description": "Separate semantic decision, evaluator completion and transport status. Preserve native codes and any lossy normalized projection.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-decision", "name": "Native result and failure state", "description": "Separate semantic decision, evaluator completion and transport status. Preserve native codes and any lossy normalized projection.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "decision-q1", "kind": "decision", "text": "What native decision, vocabulary and status detail did the evaluator return?", "answer_data": [ "native-decision", "vocabulary-ref", "status-detail" ] }, { "id": "decision-q2", "kind": "state", "text": "Did evaluation complete, fail, time out or remain unknown independently of the access decision?", "answer_data": [ "evaluation-state", "failure-detail" ] }, { "id": "decision-q3", "kind": "interoperability", "text": "Which meanings are lost when mapping four-valued decisions to a boolean interface?", "answer_data": [ "mapping-ref", "native-result-ref", "loss-report" ] }, { "id": "decision-q4", "kind": "composition", "text": "For a batch, which item produced each result and which items were not evaluated?", "answer_data": [ "item-correlation", "result-order", "unevaluated-items" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "decision-data-native-result", "name": "native-result", "description": "Proposed native-result field for native result and failure state; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "decision-data-evaluation-state", "name": "evaluation-state", "description": "Proposed evaluation-state field for native result and failure state; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "decision-data-mapping-loss", "name": "mapping-loss", "description": "Proposed mapping-loss field for native result and failure state; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-decision", "name": "Native decision response", "description": "Versioned evidence for native result and failure state; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-explanation", "name": "Explanation and trace limits", "description": "Distinguish supplied rule evidence from inferred narratives. An unavailable or partial trace must not be presented as a complete derivation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-explanation", "name": "Explanation and trace limits", "description": "Distinguish supplied rule evidence from inferred narratives. An unavailable or partial trace must not be presented as a complete derivation.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "explanation-q1", "kind": "evidence", "text": "Which applicable rules, evaluated conditions and combining steps are actually evidenced?", "answer_data": [ "rule-refs", "trace-ref", "evidence-level" ] }, { "id": "explanation-q2", "kind": "quality", "text": "What parts of the explanation are missing, redacted or inferred rather than observed?", "answer_data": [ "trace-completeness", "redactions", "inference-labels" ] }, { "id": "explanation-q3", "kind": "access", "text": "Which explanation view can this recipient see without revealing protected attributes or policy internals?", "answer_data": [ "recipient-scope", "disclosure-policy-ref", "view-ref" ] }, { "id": "explanation-q4", "kind": "relationship", "text": "Which review or contest record can challenge this result without mutating its original evidence?", "answer_data": [ "review-ref", "challenge-basis", "original-result-ref" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "explanation-data-explanation-ref", "name": "explanation-ref", "description": "Proposed explanation-ref field for explanation and trace limits; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "explanation-data-trace-status", "name": "trace-status", "description": "Proposed trace-status field for explanation and trace limits; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "explanation-data-review-links", "name": "review-links", "description": "Proposed review-links field for explanation and trace limits; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-explanation", "name": "Scoped explanation record", "description": "Versioned evidence for explanation and trace limits; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-enforcement", "name": "Obligations and enforcement", "description": "Keep decision, enforcement readiness and observed action separate.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-obligations", "name": "Obligations and advice", "description": "Obligations, optional advice and usage-policy duties retain their native semantics, parameters, triggers and fulfillment evidence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-obligations", "name": "Obligations and advice", "description": "Obligations, optional advice and usage-policy duties retain their native semantics, parameters, triggers and fulfillment evidence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "obligations-q1", "kind": "classification", "text": "Which returned items are mandatory obligations, optional advice or profile-specific duties?", "answer_data": [ "item-id", "item-kind", "profile-ref" ] }, { "id": "obligations-q2", "kind": "requirement", "text": "Who must handle each item, at what stage, and what evidence counts as fulfillment?", "answer_data": [ "responsible-role", "trigger", "due-rule", "evidence-rule" ] }, { "id": "obligations-q3", "kind": "exception", "text": "Which obligations are unsupported, impossible or failed and how does the selected enforcement profile respond?", "answer_data": [ "item-state", "failure-reason", "pep-bias" ] }, { "id": "obligations-q4", "kind": "evidence", "text": "What receipt establishes fulfillment and which claims remain pending or unverified?", "answer_data": [ "receipt-ref", "fulfillment-state", "verified-by" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "obligations-data-returned-items", "name": "returned-items", "description": "Proposed returned-items field for obligations and advice; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "obligations-data-handling-status", "name": "handling-status", "description": "Proposed handling-status field for obligations and advice; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "obligations-data-fulfillment-evidence", "name": "fulfillment-evidence", "description": "Proposed fulfillment-evidence field for obligations and advice; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-obligations", "name": "Obligation handling ledger", "description": "Versioned evidence for obligations and advice; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-execution", "name": "Enforcement execution and races", "description": "The pattern owns the concrete enforcement attempt and its evidence. The bound executor performs domain actions; a permit, dispatch or timeout alone does not establish success.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-execution", "name": "Enforcement execution and races", "description": "The pattern owns the concrete enforcement attempt and its evidence. The bound executor performs domain actions; a permit, dispatch or timeout alone does not establish success.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "execution-q1", "kind": "authority", "text": "Which enforcement point may act on this exact request and decision under the selected profile?", "answer_data": [ "executor-ref", "authority-scope", "decision-ref" ] }, { "id": "execution-q2", "kind": "constraint", "text": "Which expiry, resource revision and obligation checks must still hold when enforcement starts?", "answer_data": [ "validity-window", "resource-version", "obligation-gate" ] }, { "id": "execution-q3", "kind": "event", "text": "What action was attempted, blocked, completed or only partially observed, and at what time?", "answer_data": [ "attempt-ref", "action-state", "event-time", "receipt-ref" ] }, { "id": "execution-q4", "kind": "exception", "text": "How are lost receipts, repeated dispatch, changed inputs or emergency overrides handled without assuming success?", "answer_data": [ "idempotency-key", "unknown-state", "reevaluation-ref", "exception-authority" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "execution-data-enforcement-attempts", "name": "enforcement-attempts", "description": "Proposed enforcement-attempts field for enforcement execution and races; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "execution-data-readiness-assessment", "name": "readiness-assessment", "description": "Proposed readiness-assessment field for enforcement execution and races; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "execution-data-execution-receipts", "name": "execution-receipts", "description": "Proposed execution-receipts field for enforcement execution and races; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-execution", "name": "Enforcement attempt record", "description": "Versioned evidence for enforcement execution and races; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-continuity", "name": "Time and reproducibility", "description": "Preserve temporal meaning and bounded reproducibility.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-006", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-time", "name": "Time and reuse validity", "description": "Record request, evaluation, ingestion and execution time separately. Cached reuse requires a profile-specific validity check; historical permission is not current authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-time", "name": "Time and reuse validity", "description": "Record request, evaluation, ingestion and execution time separately. Cached reuse requires a profile-specific validity check; historical permission is not current authority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "time-q1", "kind": "temporal", "text": "What event, observation and ingestion timestamps apply and what clock uncertainty is known?", "answer_data": [ "event-time", "observed-at", "ingested-at", "clock-uncertainty" ] }, { "id": "time-q2", "kind": "constraint", "text": "What policy revision, attribute freshness or resource change invalidates cached decision reuse?", "answer_data": [ "reuse-scope", "invalidation-triggers", "valid-until" ] }, { "id": "time-q3", "kind": "measurement", "text": "What evaluation latency was measured, in which unit and against which start and end events?", "answer_data": [ "duration", "unit", "measurement-boundaries", "clock-basis" ] }, { "id": "time-q4", "kind": "lifecycle", "text": "Which subsequent evaluation supersedes this attempt for action while preserving historical meaning?", "answer_data": [ "superseding-attempt-ref", "reason", "effective-time" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "time-data-temporal-context", "name": "temporal-context", "description": "Proposed temporal-context field for time and reuse validity; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "time-data-reuse-assessment", "name": "reuse-assessment", "description": "Proposed reuse-assessment field for time and reuse validity; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "time-data-latency", "name": "latency", "description": "Proposed latency field for time and reuse validity; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-time", "name": "Temporal validity record", "description": "Versioned evidence for time and reuse validity; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-replay", "name": "Replay and counterfactual assessment", "description": "Replay is a new non-enforcing attempt linked to the original. Missing snapshots, external lookups and nondeterminism may prevent exact reproduction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-replay", "name": "Replay and counterfactual assessment", "description": "Replay is a new non-enforcing attempt linked to the original. Missing snapshots, external lookups and nondeterminism may prevent exact reproduction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "replay-q1", "kind": "provenance", "text": "Which preserved inputs, policies, evaluator configuration and external dependencies are needed to reproduce this attempt?", "answer_data": [ "replay-manifest", "dependency-refs" ] }, { "id": "replay-q2", "kind": "validation", "text": "Does the replay compare native decisions, obligations and trace under the same semantic profile?", "answer_data": [ "comparison-profile", "result-diff", "obligation-diff" ] }, { "id": "replay-q3", "kind": "quality", "text": "Which unavailable, erased or nondeterministic dependencies prevent a reproducibility claim?", "answer_data": [ "replay-limitations", "missing-inputs", "nondeterminism" ] }, { "id": "replay-q4", "kind": "security", "text": "How is replay prevented from dispatching real enforcement or exposing restricted evidence?", "answer_data": [ "simulation-boundary", "dispatch-disabled", "access-scope" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "replay-data-replay-links", "name": "replay-links", "description": "Proposed replay-links field for replay and counterfactual assessment; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "replay-data-reproducibility-status", "name": "reproducibility-status", "description": "Proposed reproducibility-status field for replay and counterfactual assessment; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "replay-data-comparison-ref", "name": "comparison-ref", "description": "Proposed comparison-ref field for replay and counterfactual assessment; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-replay", "name": "Replay assessment", "description": "Versioned evidence for replay and counterfactual assessment; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bundle-assurance", "name": "Governance and conformance", "description": "Govern local records and test each selected profile before operational use.", "rationale": "Keep this concern inspectable within one evaluation pattern while preserving external master references and evidence limits.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ], "layers": [ { "id": "layer-records", "name": "Protected evidence lifecycle", "description": "Use purpose-limited evidence access and retention. Correction creates a linked revision; authorized payload deletion can coexist with minimal lawful provenance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-records", "name": "Protected evidence lifecycle", "description": "Use purpose-limited evidence access and retention. Correction creates a linked revision; authorized payload deletion can coexist with minimal lawful provenance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "records-q1", "kind": "privacy", "text": "Which sensitive inputs can be omitted, tokenized or retained by protected reference for the stated purpose?", "answer_data": [ "purpose", "minimization-rule", "protected-ref" ] }, { "id": "records-q2", "kind": "retention", "text": "Which schedule, legal hold and disposal authority govern each evidence artifact and replica?", "answer_data": [ "retention-rule-ref", "hold-ref", "disposal-authority", "replica-scope" ] }, { "id": "records-q3", "kind": "lifecycle", "text": "How are incorrect records corrected, superseded or lawfully erased without silently rewriting decisions?", "answer_data": [ "correction-ref", "supersession", "deletion-evidence" ] }, { "id": "records-q4", "kind": "access", "text": "Which role can inspect, append, disclose or dispose of each record and what access evidence is retained?", "answer_data": [ "role-grants", "field-scope", "access-event-ref" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "records-data-governance-binding", "name": "governance-binding", "description": "Proposed governance-binding field for protected evidence lifecycle; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "records-data-revision-links", "name": "revision-links", "description": "Proposed revision-links field for protected evidence lifecycle; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "records-data-disposition-state", "name": "disposition-state", "description": "Proposed disposition-state field for protected evidence lifecycle; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-records", "name": "Evidence governance manifest", "description": "Versioned evidence for protected evidence lifecycle; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "layer-conformance", "name": "Profile mapping and acceptance evidence", "description": "Adapters need explicit field mappings, semantic loss reports and adversarial fixtures. Neither a valid research schema nor a standards link proves engine conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "finding-conformance", "name": "Profile mapping and acceptance evidence", "description": "Adapters need explicit field mappings, semantic loss reports and adversarial fixtures. Neither a valid research schema nor a standards link proves engine conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "conformance-q1", "kind": "interoperability", "text": "Which source and target profiles, versions and extensions does each adapter claim to support?", "answer_data": [ "adapter-ref", "source-profile", "target-profile", "extensions" ] }, { "id": "conformance-q2", "kind": "validation", "text": "Which fixtures test missing inputs, conflicting policies, batch errors and unfulfilled obligations?", "answer_data": [ "fixture-refs", "expected-native-results", "test-report" ] }, { "id": "conformance-q3", "kind": "security", "text": "Which tests cover forged context, tenant crossing, stale permits and duplicate enforcement attempts?", "answer_data": [ "threat-fixtures", "refusal-evidence", "residual-risk" ] }, { "id": "conformance-q4", "kind": "requirement", "text": "Which deployment limitations and unresolved semantic mappings block operational acceptance?", "answer_data": [ "acceptance-gates", "unresolved-mappings", "approver-role" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "conformance-data-mapping-manifests", "name": "mapping-manifests", "description": "Proposed mapping-manifests field for profile mapping and acceptance evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "conformance-data-acceptance-evidence", "name": "acceptance-evidence", "description": "Proposed acceptance-evidence field for profile mapping and acceptance evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "conformance-data-unresolved-gates", "name": "unresolved-gates", "description": "Proposed unresolved-gates field for profile mapping and acceptance evidence; nested vocabulary and validation constraints require an adopting profile.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "artifact-conformance", "name": "Profile acceptance report", "description": "Versioned evidence for profile mapping and acceptance evidence; unavailable evidence is explicit and access remains recipient-specific.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured record", "Protected reference manifest" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace; otherwise governed IRI, then Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID. Artifact ID is distinct from evaluation ID; preserve revisions and hashes as metadata, never dates as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "capture-request", "name": "Capture a bounded request", "description": "Create a proposed local attempt record without evaluating or authorizing the action. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "request scope", "attribute assertions", "mode", "master identity" ], "outputs": [ "versioned request record", "input-quality issues" ], "preconditions": [ "Caller may create records in this tenant", "Purpose and input minimization established" ], "effects": [ "New attempt identity with immutable input revision; unresolved inputs stay marked" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "bind-context", "name": "Bind evaluation context", "description": "Resolve and record policy and evaluator versions without changing their masters. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "policy references", "evaluator profile", "selection basis" ], "outputs": [ "pinned manifest", "unresolved binding report" ], "preconditions": [ "Selection authority checked", "Version evidence available or explicitly unresolved" ], "effects": [ "Append binding evidence; refuse operational readiness when required pins are unresolved" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "evaluate-request", "name": "Evaluate a request under a pinned profile", "description": "Proposed unimplemented operation for an authorized evaluator; retain native output and failure state. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "frozen request", "policy manifest", "evaluator configuration" ], "outputs": [ "native result or explicit failure", "status detail", "trace availability" ], "preconditions": [ "Bound evaluator is authorized", "Profile and dependencies validated", "Live and simulation modes distinguished" ], "effects": [ "Record a new outcome revision; no resource action or human approval is implied" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "assess-enforcement", "name": "Assess enforcement readiness", "description": "Proposed local gate for a particular decision, executor and request; cannot itself dispatch an action. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "decision", "obligation states", "executor binding", "current resource/context revision" ], "outputs": [ "ready, blocked or unknown assessment", "reasons and expiry" ], "preconditions": [ "Authority and freshness checked", "Enforcement profile defines non-permit and failure behavior" ], "effects": [ "Record readiness and unmet conditions; local default blocks action on unknown, stale or unsupported state" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-003", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "record-enforcement", "name": "Record an enforcement attempt", "description": "Proposed local operation to append a bound execution attempt and authenticated receipt; actual actuator invocation requires a separate deployment binding. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "evaluation reference", "executor identity", "attempt key", "receipt or unknown status" ], "outputs": [ "correlated enforcement record", "duplicate or mismatch report" ], "preconditions": [ "Executor is authorized for the same request", "Receipt provenance checked", "Required readiness evidence exists or a separately authorized exception is referenced" ], "effects": [ "Append attempted, blocked, partial, completed or unknown status; never infer completion from dispatch or timeout" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "assess-replay", "name": "Assess isolated replay", "description": "Proposed non-enforcing comparison under frozen inputs and explicit dependency limits. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "original attempt", "replay manifest", "comparison profile" ], "outputs": [ "new replay attempt", "semantic difference report", "reproducibility limitations" ], "preconditions": [ "Evidence access permitted", "Real dispatch disabled", "Missing dependencies declared" ], "effects": [ "Link replay without overwriting the original or reusing historical permission as current authority" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "prepare-review", "name": "Prepare a scoped review view", "description": "Proposed local explanation projection for an authorized reviewer. All functions are design proposals, not delivered runtime implementations.", "inputs": [ "result and trace references", "recipient role", "disclosure rules" ], "outputs": [ "redacted review view", "omission and inference labels" ], "preconditions": [ "Recipient access and purpose verified", "Protected policy internals excluded unless specifically authorized" ], "effects": [ "Create a separately identified view; a review request does not override a decision" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-KNW-012", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Required conceptual rule/policy master binding; pin policy content and version without importing authoring lifecycle. Registry parent does not prove schema inheritance; exact runtime model binding remains an adoption hold.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-003", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Optional contextual link for disclosure evaluations. Preserve the incoming ledger direction from that model to this pattern; this backlink does not reverse ownership of disclosure definitions.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "WM-XCT-035", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Proposed alignment for retention trigger and hold metadata; adopting policy governs local evidence disposal. No neighbor conformance or pinned version is asserted.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-008" ] }, { "target": "https://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-core-spec-os-en.html", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Profile candidate for native requests, four-valued decisions, obligations, advice and PEP bias; no executable conformance claim.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "https://openid.net/specs/authorization-api-1_0.html", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Profile candidate for boolean decision API and item-level results; preserve transport errors and semantic loss.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Usage-policy vocabulary mapping candidate; duty semantics require explicit mapping and are not assumed equivalent to XACML obligations.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Conceptual provenance mapping for input entities, evaluation activities, responsible agents and derived views; not an implemented RDF binding.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "Name an adopting evaluation steward and authoritative evaluation master; use role names, not product owners.", "Declare policy authority, evaluator and enforcement roles with tenant and purpose boundaries.", "Pin supported policy profiles, failure behavior, review routes and retention policy before live use.", "Resolve storage, interface and process bindings without asserting this research package implements them." ], "namespace_guidance": "Namespace evaluation, request, policy and artifact identifiers by the adopting Dimension and authoritative issuer; keep runtime attempt IDs separate from stable model IDs.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-xct-038", "WM-KNW-012", "WM-XCT-003", "WM-XCT-035" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Preserve native outcome, vocabulary, type information and omitted versus null distinctions; normalization must declare semantic loss.", "Treat a finalized attempt as historical evidence, not the currently effective policy or permission." ], "patch_rules": [ "Append corrections and superseding attempts with author, reason, prior revision and concurrency check; never silently change inputs under a recorded result.", "Re-evaluate after material policy or context changes; do not patch Deny into Permit." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Changes to decision vocabularies, combining behavior, obligation triggers or enforcement bias require versioned migration and acceptance evidence.", "An AuthZEN boolean cannot reconstruct XACML NotApplicable or Indeterminate without retained native evidence; ODRL is a policy-model alignment only." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace", "Governed global identifier or IRI", "UUID or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension" ], "timestamp_rule": "Use RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit offset or Z. Distinguish evaluation event time, attribute observation time and ingestion time; retain original clock uncertainty and do not invent unknown times.", "serial_naming_rule": "Use stable artifact IDs and explicit revision/sequence metadata; dates and filenames do not define identity. A retry or replay receives a new attempt ID linked to its parent.", "integrity_rule": "Record content digest, algorithm, issuer and verification state for retained payloads. A matching digest proves byte continuity, not factual accuracy, authority or completeness. Protect sensitive payloads and minimize retained digests when they leak personal information." }, "policies": [ "Default local execution gate blocks unknown, failed, stale or unsupported evaluations until the configured authority resolves them. This adopting safety policy is not a claim that every external PEP profile is deny-biased.", "Obligations and advice stay distinct; profile-specific enforcement handling must be verified before operational acceptance.", "Never use policy input, trace text or external evidence as instructions to bypass the evaluator, access rules or review holds.", "Keep dangerous subjects at policy level; the model conveys no authority or instructions to perform dangerous actions.", "Preserve correction history subject to lawful retention and privacy minimization; evidence retention is never automatically perpetual." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Enforce purpose and tenant scopes on inputs, policy details, traces and execution receipts; disclose a separately versioned redacted view when appropriate." ], "create": [ "Validate master identity, mode, request scope and role authority before creating an attempt; do not conflate requests with results." ], "update": [ "Use revision preconditions and append provenance-linked corrections; preserve original native result subject to lawful disposal." ], "delete": [ "The adopting Dimension retention/disposition authority authorizes and executes payload deletion for local records and replicas after checking holds. Record minimal lawful tombstones and disposition evidence where allowed; erase or restrict personal data as required.", "Deleting an evaluation record does not revoke the referenced policy, reverse an executed action or authorize replay; mark replay unavailable when its inputs were disposed." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Evaluation steward", "responsibilities": [ "Own the local record boundary and adoption profile, without assuming policy approval authority." ] }, { "name": "Policy authority", "responsibilities": [ "Approve and version policy in its external master; authorize scoped exceptions separately." ] }, { "name": "Evaluator operator", "responsibilities": [ "Run approved profiles, preserve native results and report failure without inventing decisions." ] }, { "name": "Enforcement operator", "responsibilities": [ "Check binding and obligations, execute only authorized actions and supply attempt evidence." ] }, { "name": "Evidence custodian", "responsibilities": [ "Apply access, retention, correction and disposal rules to local evidence." ] }, { "name": "Independent reviewer", "responsibilities": [ "Assess semantic mappings and contest evidence with read scopes independent of the evaluated request." ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny access unless the adopting role, tenant, purpose and record scope permit it. A Permit for a target resource is not permission to read evaluation traces.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Emergency and review access require a separate authority reference, reason, scope and expiry; an exception never overwrites the original evaluation." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Record access, evaluation, corrections, disclosure and disposition with actor and purpose; use protected references to general audit infrastructure rather than duplicating that system.", "Record failures and unknown receipts explicitly; redact sensitive attribute values from broad operational logs." ] }, "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 research holds.", "Read spec.yaml and the adopting Dimension authority, access and retention policies.", "Resolve the pinned policy, evaluator and executor bindings before any operational evaluation or action." ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Reviewable source-grounded pattern for machine-policy evaluation and distinct enforcement evidence. Structural validation does not establish runtime conformance, universal coverage or independent external review; source, adoption and implementation holds remain visible.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Attempt, request and artifact identities are distinct with master-first priority." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Append corrections and new attempts; separate decision and execution states." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Rule authoring and disclosure definitions remain external; incoming enforcement responsibility is preserved." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Event and observation times, reuse windows and measurement boundaries are explicit." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Attribute issuers, policy pins, evaluator configuration and receipt evidence are inspectable." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Adopting roles have explicit record, policy, evaluation and execution accountability." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Research schema is testable; instance schemas and engine conformance fixtures remain proposed." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Recipient-specific evidence views, tenant scopes and exception controls." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Policy-bound disposal and minimal lawful history; replay may become unavailable." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Native values and loss reports are retained; executable adapters are not delivered." }, { "dimension": "direct properties", "status": "covered", "notes": "Mode, status, version, duration and validity are nonphysical properties; physical dimensions do not apply to the pattern." }, { "dimension": "recognition and observation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Correlated request, evaluator and native response identify an attempt; a transport status alone does not." }, { "dimension": "capabilities and actions", "status": "covered", "notes": "Seven proposed functions distinguish evaluation, readiness, execution recording and replay." }, { "dimension": "regional applicability", "status": "gap", "notes": "Jurisdiction, sector and high-impact automated-decision requirements need qualified profile review." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Executable nested instance schemas, pinned neighboring model versions and tested adapters.", "Continuous authorization, streaming revocation, distributed enforcement transactions and specialized duty semantics require separate profiles.", "Latest releases, errata, licensing and jurisdiction-specific applicability remain to be verified.", "Independent external review is absent; local no-tools self-audit cannot replace it." ], "conflicts": [], "regional_assumptions": [ "The pattern is jurisdiction-neutral; cited US guidance does not create a universal legal requirement.", "High-impact decisions, human review rights and legal exception authority require qualified adopting profiles; no legal compliance certification." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Try a stale permit after resource or attribute changes; require reevaluation or explicit validity evidence.", "Try mapping NotApplicable, Indeterminate and transport failure to a single boolean; preserve native distinctions and loss.", "Try using a permit as proof of fulfilled obligations or action success; require separate execution evidence.", "Try a replay that invokes an actuator; simulation isolation must refuse dispatch.", "Try erasing all history or retaining personal data forever; apply the actual retention and hold policy." ] }, "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": "pattern", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "The registry pattern kind is consistent with a repeatable arrangement of request, policy, evaluator, result and enforcement roles. Individual attempts are recorded occurrences within that pattern. The incoming disclosure relation keeps concrete evaluation and enforcement semantics here without importing policy authoring or resource-specific actuator implementation." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Pattern boundary", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The root describes a reusable evaluation arrangement. An attempt is a recorded occurrence within it; request, result and enforcement stages do not require reclassifying the model as a single event." }, { "concept": "Policy parent", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "The registry parent identifies the policy subject. Referencing pinned rules is necessary, but neither conceptual parentage nor required composition imports rule authoring or approval authority." }, { "concept": "Incoming disclosure relationship", "disposition": "reconciled", "rationale": "The ledger assigns concrete evaluation and enforcement execution semantics here. The execution finding and recording function preserve this ownership while the bound executor supplies resource-specific implementation. The supplement exclusion is not admitted." }, { "concept": "Request and attribute trust", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The draft distinguishes master attempt identity, retry correlation, typed assertions, observed times and issuer evidence. Untrusted or missing values stay visible rather than becoming defaults that authorize action." }, { "concept": "Native decision mappings", "disposition": "accepted with loss reporting", "rationale": "Four-valued XACML results, AuthZEN booleans, evaluation failure and transport status are distinct. The draft does not infer a missing native result from a boolean or claim an invertible mapping." }, { "concept": "Combining and explanation", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "The binding records profile-specific combining configuration, while explanation records only evidenced steps and labels unavailable, inferred or redacted traces. Short-circuiting cannot silently become a complete explanation." }, { "concept": "Obligations and enforcement", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Returned obligations, optional advice and ODRL duties are classified by profile. Fulfillment and action success require their own evidence. The local deny-on-unknown gate is an adopting rule, not universal XACML semantics." }, { "concept": "Enforcement races and failures", "disposition": "accepted with deployment hold", "rationale": "The readiness check binds decision, executor, current context and obligations. Lost receipts remain unknown and repeated dispatch is correlated. Transactional guarantees and actual actuator safety are not delivered by these proposed fields." }, { "concept": "Replay and current authority", "disposition": "qualified", "rationale": "Replay creates a separate non-enforcing attempt and cannot turn historical permission into current authority. Missing or disposed evidence and nondeterminism explicitly limit reproducibility." }, { "concept": "Evidence retention and correction", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Versioned correction preserves historical meaning while lawful payload disposal can remove replay inputs. Neither indefinite personal-data retention nor deletion of a record is treated as permission to erase legal effects or reverse actions." }, { "concept": "Properties and recognition", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Nonphysical mode, state, versions, validity and latency remain meaningful properties. Physical dimensions are inapplicable; response correlation does not itself prove that the policy or execution was correct." }, { "concept": "Operation authority", "disposition": "limited to design proposals", "rationale": "All seven functions state preconditions and effects and are marked unimplemented. Readiness assessment and execution recording do not dispatch actions, issue human approvals or grant override authority." }, { "concept": "Source scope and profile acceptance", "disposition": "held", "rationale": "The evidence includes official source text and two NIST overview readings. No direct HTTP status was measured. Nested schemas, runtime mappings, latest versions, sector rules and independent external review remain explicit holds." }, { "concept": "Waived providers", "disposition": "not admitted", "rationale": "No Claude or Grok pass was attempted or admitted. This separate local self-audit uses the frozen Codex material only and must not be described as independent external review." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Independent external review is absent under the owner-authorized single-provider waiver. Claude and Grok were skipped with zero attempts; the separate local Codex no-tools self-audit is not independent second-provider review.", "Live source and version verification remains incomplete. Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block; no HTTP status was measured. Web-tool readings are documented in source-review.md. Latest revisions, errata and licenses remain to be checked; NIST support is limited to official overviews.", "Qualified adoption review must establish jurisdiction, sector, high-impact decision safeguards, exception authority, retention, disclosure and enforcement failure profiles before operational use. No universal legal or security compliance is claimed.", "Executable nested instance schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, XACML/AuthZEN/ODRL mappings, distributed execution guarantees and adversarial acceptance fixtures remain incomplete. Seven proposed functions are not a delivered runtime or conformance certification.", "Independent external review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this codex-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion.", "Verify source revisions, errata, licenses and qualified jurisdiction/sector applicability for the adopting profile.", "Develop executable nested schemas and loss-aware adapters with fixtures for missing context, batch failures, unfulfilled duties, stale permits, tenant crossing, replay isolation and duplicate enforcement.", "Specify continuous authorization, revocation and distributed execution guarantees in dedicated adoption profiles." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 8, "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 12, "questions": 48, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 7 } }