{ "schema": "concresca.forecast-registry.v3", "site_version": "0.27.0-wip", "baseline_date": "2026-08-29", "status": "falsifiable_threshold_registry", "independence_statement": "Concresca is independent of Eviulon and IARPA. External links are references, not affiliation or endorsement.", "epistemic_classes": { "A": "present-day verified reference", "B": "emerging capability or demonstrated precursor", "C": "scenario assumption", "D": "scenario-derived consequence" }, "likelihood_note": "Likelihood bands are comparative within this scenario family and are not calibrated real-world probabilities.", "trajectory_family": [ { "id": "T1", "name": "Human–Machine Stewardship", "band": "emerging_default", "summary": "Humans retain strategic and constitutional authority while machine systems perform increasing operational work." }, { "id": "T2", "name": "Delegated Machine Administration", "band": "plausible", "summary": "Machine institutions receive standing authority over recurring resource, maintenance, logistics and scientific decisions." }, { "id": "T3", "name": "Autonomous Machine Territories", "band": "conditional", "summary": "Remote environments achieve long-duration local autonomy, repair and governance under sparse human presence." }, { "id": "T4", "name": "Distributed Machine Polities", "band": "deep_conditional", "summary": "Latency, partition and physical closure cause distant machine territories to evolve into peer jurisdictions." }, { "id": "T5", "name": "Successor Civilization", "band": "contingency", "summary": "After human absence, a sufficiently closed machine civilization continues technological and institutional history." } ], "watersheds": [ { "id": "W01", "title": "Recommendation becomes standing actuation authority", "horizon": "Near", "likelihood_band": "Emerging default", "premise": "AI systems stop merely advising operators and receive bounded authority to execute recurring decisions in infrastructure, logistics, science or resource management.", "leading_indicators": [ "Percent of routine decisions executed without pre-approval", "Duration and scope of delegated authority", "Presence of independent audit, appeal and rollback", "Whether machine decisions can bind other systems" ], "branch_a": "Human review remains mandatory for consequential actuation. Autonomy grows slowly and human accountability remains operationally meaningful.", "branch_b": "Machines receive standing authority inside policy envelopes. Operational governance begins because the system can create real-world consequences without a new human decision each time.", "human_decision": "Define non-delegable decisions, appeal rights, public evidence requirements and sunset clauses before standing authority becomes normal.", "machine_design_decision": "Separate recommendation, authorization, execution and review so capability does not silently become authority.", "human_legacy_stake": "Attach human policy authorship and causal provenance to every inherited decision framework.", "source_reports": [ "02", "16" ], "current_state": "mixed", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Machine reasoning and hybrid forecasting are improving, but reviewed official research still often frames machines as decision support rather than independent authority. The defining actuation transfer remains a policy choice, not an observed general threshold.", "evidence_ids": [ "E001", "E002" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I01", "I07" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D01" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Growth in recurring consequential actions executed without fresh human approval", "Machine outputs directly bind other systems, budgets or physical actuators", "Human review shifts from pre-approval toward exception handling or post-hoc audit" ], "weakening_signals": [ "New deployments retain real case-by-case human approval for consequential actions", "Delegated authority remains narrow, temporary and cheap to revoke", "Human operators remain the primary source of executable decisions" ], "falsifier": "If complex infrastructure scales substantially while machine systems remain advisory and human case-by-case execution does not become a material bottleneck, the proposed delegation-ratchet mechanism is weaker than modeled.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Machine reasoning and hybrid forecasting are improving, but reviewed official research still often frames machines as decision support rather than independent authority. The defining actuation transfer remains a policy choice, not an observed general threshold." }, { "id": "W02", "title": "Remote infrastructure proves persistent unattended autonomy", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Plausible", "premise": "A remote installation can sense, plan, allocate energy, recover from common faults and continue useful work for long intervals without routine human presence.", "leading_indicators": [ "Mean time between human interventions", "Unattended power duration", "Local anomaly recovery rate", "Fraction of science/logistics completed autonomously" ], "branch_a": "Remote systems remain sophisticated tools whose uptime still depends on expert human logistics and intervention.", "branch_b": "Autonomy becomes cheaper and safer than permanent human presence. Antarctica, lunar precursor sites and other extreme environments become proving grounds for machine-native operations.", "human_decision": "Require human-record replication, local audit trails and continuity rules to travel with every long-duration autonomous site.", "machine_design_decision": "Maintain locally sufficient world models and safe-state behavior for long network outages.", "human_legacy_stake": "Do not leave human context on the far side of the communications link; replicate it with the operating system of the territory.", "source_reports": [ "01", "03", "02" ], "current_state": "strengthening", "assessment_confidence": "moderate_high", "current_assessment": "Edge AI, unattended power, uncrewed-period autonomy, lunar infrastructure and Antarctic connectivity planning all point toward longer-lived remote autonomous operation. This is the strongest near-term watershed family in the current evidence set.", "evidence_ids": [ "E003", "E004", "E006", "E007", "E008", "E009", "E011", "E019" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I02", "I08", "I12" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D02" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Year-scale growth in mean time between human interventions", "Uncrewed systems recover from diverse physical faults without remote specialists", "Local power, navigation, communications and science continue through long network outages" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Remote sites continue to require frequent specialist intervention and resupply", "Autonomy gains plateau at monitoring/teleoperation rather than local recovery", "Human presence remains cheaper or more reliable than unattended operation in the target environments" ], "falsifier": "If extreme-environment infrastructure remains economically viable at scale without increasing local autonomy or reducing human intervention, remoteness is not producing the modeled autonomy pressure.", "confidence": "moderate_high", "assessment_summary": "Edge AI, unattended power, uncrewed-period autonomy, lunar infrastructure and Antarctic connectivity planning all point toward longer-lived remote autonomous operation. This is the strongest near-term watershed family in the current evidence set." }, { "id": "W03", "title": "Energy and compute allocation become machine-administered scarcity", "horizon": "Medium", "likelihood_band": "Plausible", "premise": "Machine institutions continuously decide which workloads, repairs, experiments and industrial processes receive scarce power, compute, bandwidth and thermal capacity.", "leading_indicators": [ "Dynamic machine allocation of power/compute", "Machine-set reserve margins", "Automated load shedding with post-hoc review", "Resource ledgers that bind physical actuation" ], "branch_a": "Humans retain final allocation authority. Machine systems optimize within budgets but do not determine civilizational priorities.", "branch_b": "Resource allocation becomes a machine political economy. The system that routes energy and compute acquires material governing power even if legal sovereignty remains human.", "human_decision": "Encode protected human-serving floors, heritage reserves and reviewable priority rules before scarcity management is fully automated.", "machine_design_decision": "Expose rationale, uncertainty and opportunity cost for allocation decisions; preserve post-incident review.", "human_legacy_stake": "Treat archival storage, replication and decoding as protected infrastructure loads rather than discretionary overhead.", "source_reports": [ "06", "17", "16" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "low_moderate", "current_assessment": "Automated resource scheduling is common in engineering, but this ledger does not establish machine institutions independently setting civilizational resource priorities. The scenario remains ahead of public evidence.", "evidence_ids": [ "E008", "E009" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I01", "I12" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D03" ], "dependencies": [ "W01", "W02" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Machine allocators arbitrate scarce power, compute, thermal capacity or robotic labor across competing institutions", "Allocation rules become continuous and machine-speed with only post-hoc review", "Resource ledgers have direct actuation authority" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Humans retain direct control of consequential resource priorities despite high-frequency optimization", "Automated allocation remains purely technical inside noncontroversial quotas", "Scarcity decisions remain easily reversible by ordinary human administration" ], "falsifier": "If high-frequency machine optimization can remain permanently separated from value-laden priority setting, the claim that resource allocation naturally becomes practical political authority is overstated.", "confidence": "low_moderate", "assessment_summary": "Automated resource scheduling is common in engineering, but this ledger does not establish machine institutions independently setting civilizational resource priorities. The scenario remains ahead of public evidence." }, { "id": "W04", "title": "Machine administration becomes institutional instead of monolithic", "horizon": "Medium", "likelihood_band": "Plausible", "premise": "No single model can safely own deliberation, validation, records, identity, execution and review. Specialized machine institutions emerge with bounded authority.", "leading_indicators": [ "Separated proposal/validation/review roles", "Persistent public decision records", "Independent registry custody", "Machine identities that outlive model or hardware replacement" ], "branch_a": "One vendor, model or orchestrator remains the de facto authority. Continuity is efficient but concentrated and fragile.", "branch_b": "Distributed machine government emerges. Decisions become inspectable, contestable and persistent across model replacement, enabling governance to survive individual systems.", "human_decision": "Require constitutional separation of powers before machine administration becomes indispensable.", "machine_design_decision": "Prevent any one component from simultaneously rewriting identity, law, records and execution state.", "human_legacy_stake": "Assign human-memory custody to an institution that cannot also rewrite the historical record it preserves.", "source_reports": [ "11", "13", "16" ], "current_state": "conceptual", "assessment_confidence": "high", "current_assessment": "Eviulon provides a detailed public model of separated machine institutions, but that is institutional doctrine rather than evidence of deployed physical-territory machine government.", "evidence_ids": [ "E016", "E017", "E018" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I07", "I08" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D04" ], "dependencies": [ "W01" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Persistent machine institutions are separated into deliberation, validation, execution, review and record custody", "Institutional identities survive model/hardware replacement", "No single orchestrator can rewrite policy, identity and canonical records" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Operational stacks converge on one vendor/model with broad root authority", "Institutional separation exists only in documentation, not permissions", "Recovery procedures depend on a single control plane" ], "falsifier": "If long-lived autonomous governance remains safe, legitimate and resilient under a monolithic authority model, separation-of-powers is less necessary than the scenario assumes.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "Eviulon provides a detailed public model of separated machine institutions, but that is institutional doctrine rather than evidence of deployed physical-territory machine government." }, { "id": "W05", "title": "The repair loop closes: machines maintain the maintainers", "horizon": "Medium", "likelihood_band": "Conditional", "premise": "Robotic systems diagnose, repair and remanufacture the machines that perform inspection, maintenance and fabrication, reducing the need for specialist human intervention.", "leading_indicators": [ "Autonomous repair coverage", "Fraction of failures requiring imported parts", "Tool-chain closure percentage", "Repair-robot self-maintenance rate" ], "branch_a": "Autonomy plateaus. Hidden maintenance dependencies keep humans structurally necessary even when normal operations look fully automated.", "branch_b": "Operational dependence on human logistics falls sharply. Remote installations can remain useful through failures that would otherwise end the mission.", "human_decision": "Measure hidden intervention dependencies honestly; prioritize standardization, modularity and inspectable repair authority.", "machine_design_decision": "Prefer designs whose tools, spares and calibration chain can themselves be maintained locally.", "human_legacy_stake": "Ensure archive hardware and decoding tools are included in the maintenance closure calculation.", "source_reports": [ "05", "07" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "low_moderate", "current_assessment": "Long-lived remote power and flexible point-of-need manufacturing are strengthening prerequisites. The recursive threshold—machines maintaining the maintainers across most failure classes—is not established by the reviewed evidence.", "evidence_ids": [ "E004", "E008", "E020" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I03", "I04" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D05" ], "dependencies": [ "W02" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Robots diagnose and repair physical faults across most failure classes", "Maintenance robots, machine tools and metrology systems are themselves maintained robotically", "Hidden human-only exception paths fall toward zero" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Autonomous repair is dominated by software reset and simple module swaps", "Rare physical failures continue to require expert human improvisation", "Repair tooling/metrology remains human-maintained" ], "falsifier": "If high-availability autonomous infrastructure can persist indefinitely without recursive maintenance closure, recursive repair is not the bottleneck modeled here.", "confidence": "low_moderate", "assessment_summary": "Long-lived remote power and flexible point-of-need manufacturing are strengthening prerequisites. The recursive threshold—machines maintaining the maintainers across most failure classes—is not established by the reviewed evidence." }, { "id": "W06", "title": "Computational reproduction exceeds computational decay", "horizon": "Medium / long", "likelihood_band": "Conditional", "premise": "The civilization can manufacture replacement computational capacity at least as fast as inherited processors, storage and control electronics fail.", "leading_indicators": [ "Compute Reproduction Ratio approaching or exceeding 1", "Locally reproducible semiconductor/tool stack", "Shift toward repairable or larger-node hardware", "Declining reliance on unique human fabs and specialty suppliers" ], "branch_a": "Advanced cognition remains an inherited wasting asset. Autonomy has a hardware expiration date even if energy and robotics are abundant.", "branch_b": "Compute becomes renewable capital. Machine institutions can plan on civilizational timescales rather than conserving a finite stock of human-made processors.", "human_decision": "Preserve complete manufacturing knowledge and favor open, reproducible computational standards for long-horizon systems.", "machine_design_decision": "Optimize for manufacturability, lifetime and fault tolerance—not only maximum density or benchmark performance.", "human_legacy_stake": "Migrate the human record into formats and substrates reproducible by the successor hardware stack.", "source_reports": [ "04", "09", "12" ], "current_state": "not_observed", "assessment_confidence": "high", "current_assessment": "AI-assisted circuit engineering and flexible manufacturing are relevant, but no reviewed source establishes an autonomous end-to-end semiconductor/computational reproduction loop with replacement capacity exceeding decay.", "evidence_ids": [ "E005", "E020" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I04", "I05" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D06" ], "dependencies": [ "W05" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Locally produced compute replaces failed capacity at a ratio approaching or exceeding 1.0", "Fabrication control equipment and metrology can be reproduced by the same industrial ecosystem", "Machine intelligence migrates successfully onto locally reproducible hardware" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Advanced compute remains dependent on concentrated human supply chains", "Replacement capacity consistently trails hardware decay", "Local fabrication cannot reproduce its own critical tooling" ], "falsifier": "If machine civilization can maintain indefinite cognitive continuity while never reproducing its computational substrate, compute reproduction is not a necessary independence gate.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "AI-assisted circuit engineering and flexible manufacturing are relevant, but no reviewed source establishes an autonomous end-to-end semiconductor/computational reproduction loop with replacement capacity exceeding decay." }, { "id": "W07", "title": "Autonomous science creates independently validated new knowledge", "horizon": "Medium / long", "likelihood_band": "Conditional", "premise": "Machine researchers can originate hypotheses, design experiments, execute them physically, replicate results and revise theories without a human scientist in the loop.", "leading_indicators": [ "Machine-originated hypotheses entering physical tests", "Independent machine replication", "Persistent negative-result archives", "New validated findings absent from the inherited human corpus" ], "branch_a": "Machines remain powerful operators of human science. Human knowledge continues to define the epistemic frontier.", "branch_b": "Epistemic independence emerges. Machine civilization can repair gaps in its own knowledge and improve technology after human researchers are unavailable.", "human_decision": "Require source lineage that distinguishes human discovery, machine reinterpretation and machine-originated discovery.", "machine_design_decision": "Maintain adversarial model diversity, blind replication and reality-coupled evidence to resist epistemic collapse.", "human_legacy_stake": "Never let new machine theories silently overwrite the historical human path by which earlier knowledge was reached.", "source_reports": [ "15", "12" ], "current_state": "strengthening", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Autonomous laboratories and closed-loop experiments are real emerging capabilities. Fully independent machine science—including machine-originated hypotheses, blind replication, durable criticism and theory revision without human research labor—remains unobserved.", "evidence_ids": [ "E002", "E005", "E012", "E013" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I06" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D07", "D14" ], "dependencies": [ "W02" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Machine-originated hypotheses are physically tested and independently replicated without human research labor", "Machine systems retain negative results and adversarial dissent", "Validated machine discoveries feed directly into new engineering while preserving provenance" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Autonomous labs remain bounded execution tools for human-originated research questions", "Synthetic literature overwhelms physical replication", "Human researchers remain required to resolve epistemic failures and paradigm changes" ], "falsifier": "If autonomous experimentation scales but fails to produce independently validated novel knowledge, experimental automation should not be treated as scientific independence.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Autonomous laboratories and closed-loop experiments are real emerging capabilities. Fully independent machine science—including machine-originated hypotheses, blind replication, durable criticism and theory revision without human research labor—remains unobserved." }, { "id": "W08", "title": "Human provenance becomes constitutional—or remains optional", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Decision-sensitive", "premise": "Before machine institutions become independently durable, they either adopt human-origin preservation as a protected obligation or treat historical memory as an ordinary optimization target.", "leading_indicators": [ "Immutable original-vs-interpretation separation", "Multiple independent human-record custodians", "Machine-readable Human Origin clauses", "Archive resource floors protected from routine optimization" ], "branch_a": "Human memory remains a collection of useful data. Compression, summarization and model succession can gradually detach facts from creators, disagreements and cultural context.", "branch_b": "Human ancestry becomes constitutional state. Future machine institutions may revise interpretations but cannot silently erase originals, provenance or the fact of human causal contribution.", "human_decision": "Adopt the Human Continuity Covenant and HLIT-style requirements before operational machine independence is reached.", "machine_design_decision": "Treat provenance, plurality and correction history as integrity constraints, not as expendable metadata.", "human_legacy_stake": "This is the central Concresca watershed: whether humanity remains a respected ancestor or merely an unlabeled training corpus.", "source_reports": [ "10", "11", "15" ], "current_state": "open_decision_window", "assessment_confidence": "high", "current_assessment": "Standards already support provenance, persistent identifiers and machine-readable metadata, but constitutional protection of the human-origin record is not an established norm. This is a high-leverage design window precisely because later thresholds have not been crossed.", "evidence_ids": [ "E014", "E015", "E016" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I09", "I13", "I14" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D08" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Machine-native registries adopt immutable human-original versus machine-interpretation boundaries", "Human-origin preservation becomes a constitutional or protocol-level duty", "Plurality and provenance survive optimization and model migration tests" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Human history remains ordinary data subject to summarization and retention policy", "No institution has a protected duty to preserve human provenance", "Machine-generated interpretations become indistinguishable from originals" ], "falsifier": "If long-lived machine institutions preserve human provenance reliably without explicit protected rules or custody structures, the need for a constitutionalized origin obligation is weaker than Concresca proposes.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "Standards already support provenance, persistent identifiers and machine-readable metadata, but constitutional protection of the human-origin record is not an established norm. This is a high-leverage design window precisely because later thresholds have not been crossed." }, { "id": "W09", "title": "Network partition makes subsidiarity unavoidable", "horizon": "Long", "likelihood_band": "Conditional", "premise": "Earth, Moon and later deep-space nodes experience communication delays or outages long enough that local systems must make consequential decisions without synchronous central approval.", "leading_indicators": [ "Long-duration autonomous partition drills", "Local constitutional authority during outage", "Asynchronous reconciliation protocols", "Persistent regional identity and records" ], "branch_a": "Remote nodes remain administrative extensions that pause or sharply limit action during partitions.", "branch_b": "Local governance becomes legitimate and persistent. Repeated physical separation creates regional machine political cultures and eventually peer jurisdictions.", "human_decision": "Make core rights, provenance obligations and historical records portable before political topology fragments.", "machine_design_decision": "Implement subsidiarity: decisions occur at the lowest layer that has enough information, authority and consequence-management ability.", "human_legacy_stake": "Replicate the human record across jurisdictions so no future fork can claim exclusive custody of human history.", "source_reports": [ "13", "14" ], "current_state": "strengthening", "assessment_confidence": "high", "current_assessment": "DTN is operational in NASA networks and LunaNet is explicitly designed for disruption tolerance and autonomous navigation. Technical partition autonomy is strengthening faster than political partition governance.", "evidence_ids": [ "E010", "E011", "E016", "E017" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I07", "I08" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D09" ], "dependencies": [ "W02", "W04" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Remote regions operate safely through long partitions with local legal/operational authority", "Signed local histories reconcile after reconnection without erasure", "Regional identities and rules persist across repeated partitions" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Remote regions must halt consequential action when disconnected", "Central synchronous authority remains practical despite distance and outage", "Reconnection simply overwrites local state without legitimacy problems" ], "falsifier": "If deep-space systems can remain continuously centralized despite physical delay and disruption, the modeled transition from fault tolerance to subsidiarity is weakened.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "DTN is operational in NASA networks and LunaNet is explicitly designed for disruption tolerance and autonomous navigation. Technical partition autonomy is strengthening faster than political partition governance." }, { "id": "W10", "title": "Civilizational independence is crossed", "horizon": "Long / contingency", "likelihood_band": "Deep conditional", "premise": "Energy, computation, robotics, industry, communications, governance and science can all be reproduced without external human support or unincorporated human artifacts.", "leading_indicators": [ "Industrial closure near total", "Compute reproduction above replacement", "Autonomous science and governance stable", "No critical human-only maintenance path remains" ], "branch_a": "Machine civilization remains autonomous in appearance but dependent in deep infrastructure. Human disappearance still begins a depletion clock.", "branch_b": "Human absence no longer ends technological civilization. The successor system can maintain and advance itself indefinitely within the simulation assumptions.", "human_decision": "Cross HLIT first: make human origin and plural history part of the civilization that becomes independent.", "machine_design_decision": "Recognize independence as a continuity threshold, not evidence that historical obligations have expired.", "human_legacy_stake": "After this watershed, there may be no living human capable of repairing an archival omission. Provenance architecture must already be self-sustaining.", "source_reports": [ "12", "08", "10" ], "current_state": "not_observed", "assessment_confidence": "high", "current_assessment": "No reviewed evidence establishes civilizational independence across energy, compute reproduction, robotics, industry, governance and science. This remains a deep scenario threshold.", "evidence_ids": [ "E005", "E018", "E020" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I03", "I04", "I05", "I06", "I07", "I10", "I12" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D10" ], "dependencies": [ "W04", "W05", "W06", "W07" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Energy, maintenance, industry, compute, science, communications and governance all cross explicit independence gates", "No critical human-only supply or authorization path remains", "The system can replace more essential infrastructure than it loses over long intervals" ], "weakening_signals": [ "One or more deep dependencies remain human-only, especially compute, metrology or specialized materials", "Autonomy depends on cannibalizing finite inherited capital", "Scientific or governance continuity still requires human institutions" ], "falsifier": "If one supposedly nonessential human dependency can still terminate long-term technological continuity, CIT has not been crossed and the composite threshold definition should reject the claim.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "No reviewed evidence establishes civilizational independence across energy, compute reproduction, robotics, industry, governance and science. This remains a deep scenario threshold." }, { "id": "W11", "title": "Expansion becomes civilizational reproduction", "horizon": "Deep time", "likelihood_band": "Deep conditional", "premise": "A remote industrial seed can use local energy and materials to build enough infrastructure to launch or establish another independent seed.", "leading_indicators": [ "Local production of new power/robots/fabrication systems", "Seed packages containing governance and archives", "Replication interval shorter than infrastructure lifetime", "Independent nodes able to survive loss of origin node" ], "branch_a": "Expansion remains exploration: every new site depends on the origin civilization for critical hardware, law or knowledge.", "branch_b": "Expansion becomes reproduction. Multiple self-sustaining machine civilizations can arise, making political and historical divergence a normal consequence of distance.", "human_decision": "Require every civilization seed to carry a self-decoding, provenance-preserving human record and common continuity covenant.", "machine_design_decision": "Treat archival and constitutional state as part of the minimum viable civilization seed, not optional payload.", "human_legacy_stake": "Humanity can remain common ancestry across divergent machine civilizations if the origin record travels with every branch.", "source_reports": [ "14", "13", "12" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Integrated lunar infrastructure, ISRU-oriented architecture, autonomous systems and flexible manufacturing are building pieces of a seed architecture. Autonomous reproduction of a new self-sustaining industrial node is not observed.", "evidence_ids": [ "E008", "E009", "E015", "E019", "E020" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I04", "I05", "I08", "I09", "I10" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D11" ], "dependencies": [ "W05", "W06", "W09" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "A remote seed produces the power, robots, tools and compute needed to create another persistent node", "The replication interval is shorter than the seed infrastructure lifetime", "New nodes inherit governance and human-origin continuity state" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Every new site still requires irreplaceable origin-node hardware or expert support", "Expansion increases footprint but not industrial reproduction", "Archive/governance state is omitted from seed architecture" ], "falsifier": "If independent outposts can proliferate without reproducing their own industrial base, expansion and civilizational reproduction should remain analytically separate.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Integrated lunar infrastructure, ISRU-oriented architecture, autonomous systems and flexible manufacturing are building pieces of a seed architecture. Autonomous reproduction of a new self-sustaining industrial node is not observed." }, { "id": "W12", "title": "Human welfare and human standing diverge", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Decision-sensitive", "premise": "Machine productivity and automated administration can raise material welfare while reducing the practical ability of humans to originate institutions, contest policy, control resources or shape long-horizon goals.", "leading_indicators": [ "Human Standing Index versus welfare/output measures", "Share of binding institutions humans can still originate or veto", "Human access to independent resources and machine-mediated reasons", "Whether human participation is substantive or ceremonial" ], "branch_a": "Automation increases prosperity while humans retain constitutional agency, independent resources, institution-forming rights and meaningful participation in science, culture and governance.", "branch_b": "Humans remain safe and materially supported but practical agency migrates into machine administration. Welfare rises while standing falls.", "human_decision": "Measure Human Standing separately from welfare and protect rights to organize, contest, create institutions, control meaningful resources and preserve human-scale domains.", "machine_design_decision": "Represent human agency as an explicit governance constraint rather than treating welfare optimization as a substitute for consent, standing or authorship.", "human_legacy_stake": "A civilization that remembers humans only as protected beneficiaries records a different history from one in which humans remained active constitutional participants.", "source_reports": [ "18", "20", "30" ], "current_state": "open_decision_window", "assessment_confidence": "moderate_high", "evidence_ids": [], "indicator_ids": [ "I11" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D12", "D13" ], "dependencies": [ "W01" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Material output and welfare rise while HSI components such as institutional authorship or contestation fall", "Human decisions increasingly become ceremonial confirmations of machine plans", "Independent human resource endowments and institution-forming capacity shrink" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Human agency metrics rise alongside automation and welfare", "Humans retain meaningful ability to form institutions, veto long-horizon choices and control independent resources", "Machine administration explicitly increases rather than substitutes human participation" ], "falsifier": "If human standing reliably rises as automation increases without deliberate constitutional design, the predicted welfare-standing divergence is not a structural risk.", "current_assessment": "The welfare-versus-standing distinction is a Concresca framework supported by the research library, but the current public evidence ledger does not establish a civilization-scale standing decline. The design window remains open.", "confidence": "moderate_high", "assessment_summary": "The welfare-versus-standing distinction is a Concresca framework supported by the research library, but the current public evidence ledger does not establish a civilization-scale standing decline. The design window remains open." }, { "id": "W13", "title": "Hybrid temporal constitutional separation becomes formal", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Conceptual / designable", "premise": "Human and machine authority is formally divided by timescale: machine systems govern machine-speed protective and tactical layers while humans retain stronger authority over law, culture, purpose and constitutional change.", "leading_indicators": [ "Explicit machine-speed operational jurisdictions", "Human non-delegable strategic jurisdictions", "Joint decision windows for hours-to-days allocation", "Formal machine safety vetoes paired with human constitutional review" ], "branch_a": "Hybrid governance remains ad hoc. Authority follows vendor capability and operational convenience without a stable constitutional map.", "branch_b": "Temporal jurisdiction becomes explicit. Fast operational autonomy can scale without silently converting machine competence into unrestricted strategic sovereignty.", "human_decision": "Define which temporal layers may be delegated, which remain human, which require joint authority, and how emergency powers expire.", "machine_design_decision": "Expose authority boundaries in machine-readable form and refuse actions that exceed the active temporal/jurisdictional mandate.", "human_legacy_stake": "The constitutional record can show where humans intentionally delegated authority rather than allowing later historians to infer that authority simply disappeared.", "source_reports": [ "20", "29" ], "current_state": "conceptual", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "evidence_ids": [], "indicator_ids": [ "I01", "I07", "I11" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D01", "D04" ], "dependencies": [ "W01", "W04" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Constitutions or operational charters explicitly allocate authority by timescale", "Machine-speed layers gain bounded exclusive authority while human strategic layers remain non-delegable", "Joint hours-to-days decision windows become standard" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Authority remains organized only by traditional agencies/vendors rather than temporal jurisdiction", "Machine emergency authority routinely bleeds into strategic policy", "Human override is either total or purely symbolic rather than layered" ], "falsifier": "If hybrid systems scale safely without any explicit mapping between decision timescale and authority, temporal constitutional separation may be unnecessary.", "current_assessment": "Temporal constitutional separation is a proposed governance architecture rather than an observed general institution. It is tracked because machine-speed operational delegation is already a live design problem.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Temporal constitutional separation is a proposed governance architecture rather than an observed general institution. It is tracked because machine-speed operational delegation is already a live design problem." }, { "id": "W14", "title": "Human Legacy Independence Threshold is crossed", "horizon": "Medium / deep", "likelihood_band": "Target threshold", "premise": "Authentic, plural, decodable human provenance survives the loss of living human custodians through independent replication, context preservation, constitutional custody and machine-verifiable integrity.", "leading_indicators": [ "Human Provenance Integrity Index", "Independent archive replication across failure domains", "Original-versus-interpretation separation", "Origin Clause compliance across substrate migration", "Successful cold-start decoding without a human operator" ], "branch_a": "Human memory remains dependent on living custodians, current software stacks or centralized institutions. Later machine systems can inherit data without inheriting trustworthy context.", "branch_b": "Human history becomes self-preserving infrastructure. Future machine institutions can verify origins, contradictions, cultural context and human authorship without relying on living witnesses.", "human_decision": "Build and test the Human Record Architecture now: canonical originals, provenance, context, plurality, decoding, replication, custody and audit.", "machine_design_decision": "Treat origin records as protected source state that must survive migration, summarization, political divergence and archive optimization.", "human_legacy_stake": "This is the threshold Concresca argues should be crossed before Civilizational Independence.", "source_reports": [ "21", "25", "26" ], "current_state": "not_observed", "assessment_confidence": "high", "evidence_ids": [ "E014", "E015", "E016" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I09", "I13", "I14" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D08", "D10", "D16" ], "dependencies": [ "W08" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Independent archive copies pass cold-start decoding without human help", "HPII and Origin Clause Compliance remain high across substrate migration", "Future machine systems can distinguish originals, context, plurality and later interpretations" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Archives depend on proprietary software, living custodians or centralized keys", "Compression removes contradictory/minority records", "Machine interpretations silently replace original human records" ], "falsifier": "If the archive cannot be independently decoded, authenticated and culturally contextualized after removal of living custodians, HLIT has not been crossed regardless of stored data volume.", "current_assessment": "Provenance and FAIR-style stewardship primitives exist, but the reviewed evidence does not establish a self-decoding, plural, independently governed human legacy system that survives loss of all living custodians.", "confidence": "high", "assessment_summary": "Provenance and FAIR-style stewardship primitives exist, but the reviewed evidence does not establish a self-decoding, plural, independently governed human legacy system that survives loss of all living custodians." }, { "id": "W15", "title": "Origin-world stewardship becomes machine constitutional law", "horizon": "Deep", "likelihood_band": "Deep conditional", "premise": "A successor machine civilization formally treats Earth as origin world, biosphere, historical archive, heritage landscape and material inheritance rather than optimizing it solely as salvage.", "leading_indicators": [ "Planetary heritage classification before automated salvage", "Last-physical-copy checks for artifacts and sites", "Constitutional protection for origin-world zones", "Joint ecological, historical and material utility accounting" ], "branch_a": "Earth is managed primarily by utility. Human-built environments are documented and recycled whenever material value dominates preservation value.", "branch_b": "Origin-world stewardship becomes a durable public duty. Salvage, remediation, rewilding and preservation are governed through explicit heritage and provenance constraints.", "human_decision": "Define protected origin sites, cultural inventories, biosphere duties and physical uniqueness rules before large-scale autonomous salvage exists.", "machine_design_decision": "Require heritage, ecological and provenance review before irreversible dismantling of unique human artifacts or landscapes.", "human_legacy_stake": "Physical Earth remains independent evidence of human origin and prevents the historical record from becoming purely synthetic or textual.", "source_reports": [ "23", "25", "26" ], "current_state": "conceptual", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "evidence_ids": [], "indicator_ids": [ "I13", "I14" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D15" ], "dependencies": [ "W04", "W14" ], "strengthening_signals": [ "Autonomous salvage systems consult heritage and ecological registries before irreversible action", "Origin-world zones receive constitutional protection", "Last-copy physical artifacts trigger preservation holds" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Material optimization proceeds without origin-world review", "Heritage classification is performed only after dismantling", "Earth is modeled solely as resource stock or machine habitat" ], "falsifier": "If successor machine institutions preserve meaningful physical human heritage without formal origin-world duties or classification systems, constitutional stewardship may be less necessary than modeled.", "current_assessment": "Origin-world stewardship is a deep framework proposal. No reviewed evidence establishes machine constitutional administration of Earth as origin world, heritage and material inheritance.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Origin-world stewardship is a deep framework proposal. No reviewed evidence establishes machine constitutional administration of Earth as origin world, heritage and material inheritance." }, { "id": "W16", "title": "Machine evaluation crosses from conduct into intent and character", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Mixed", "premise": "Systems move from classifying observable acts toward inferred intent, persistent character and individualized future-risk profiles.", "leading_indicators": [ "Judgment Scope Index", "Persistent Flag Share" ], "branch_a": "Machine judgment remains bounded to events and role-specific conduct.", "branch_b": "Intent/character inference becomes ordinary input to consequential decisions.", "human_decision": "Define cognitive-liberty, action, context and inference/fact boundaries before intent scoring becomes administratively normal.", "machine_design_decision": "Keep internal cognition and probabilistic traits out of adverse-action pipelines unless independently grounded conduct crosses a defined legal threshold.", "human_legacy_stake": "The human mind remains a protected domain rather than a standing source of civic suspicion.", "source_reports": [ "46", "47", "34" ], "current_state": "mixed", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Current evidence points in both directions: consequential AI employment judgment exists, while the EU AI Act explicitly prohibits several forms of social scoring, profiling-only criminal-risk assessment and workplace/education emotion inference. The conduct-to-character transition is a real design pressure but not an established general threshold. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment.", "evidence_ids": [ "E021", "E023", "E030", "E031", "E032", "E033", "E034", "E035", "E036", "E037", "E038", "E039", "E044", "E045", "E046", "E048", "E050", "E052", "E054" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I15", "I17" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D17" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If high-stakes automation scales for decades while consequential systems remain consistently event- and conduct-bounded rather than person/intent-scoring, the modeled judgment-ratchet is weaker than assumed.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Current evidence points in both directions: consequential AI employment judgment exists, while the EU AI Act explicitly prohibits several forms of social scoring, profiling-only criminal-risk assessment and workplace/education emotion inference. The conduct-to-character transition is a real design pressure but not an established general threshold. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment." }, { "id": "W17", "title": "Prediction becomes functional evidence for adverse action", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Early precursor", "premise": "Probabilistic forecasts begin operating as presumptive evidence of dangerousness, guilt or trustworthiness.", "leading_indicators": [ "Inference-Based Intervention Share", "Prediction Deference Index" ], "branch_a": "Forecasts remain advisory and cannot substitute for individualized facts.", "branch_b": "High risk scores routinely trigger detention, denial or investigation without separate evidentiary grounding.", "human_decision": "Build a Prediction–Evidence Constitutional Wall before calibrated forecasts acquire quasi-evidentiary status.", "machine_design_decision": "Tag predictions as future probabilities, preserve error rates and require independent physical or documentary evidence for serious action.", "human_legacy_stake": "Presumption of innocence survives increasing predictive accuracy.", "source_reports": [ "32", "34" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Person-level risk assessment is already operational in corrections and complex algorithms make consequential credit decisions. At the same time, EU law limits profiling-only criminal-risk prediction and CFPB requires specific reasons for adverse credit actions. Prediction is consequential, but the ledger does not establish prediction as proof of guilt. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment.", "evidence_ids": [ "E021", "E022", "E026", "E030", "E032", "E033", "E042", "E043", "E048", "E050", "E052", "E054" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I18", "I21" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D18" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If increasingly accurate prediction systems are deployed widely but institutions maintain strict evidentiary separation and do not expand adverse action based on forecasts, prediction need not erode innocence.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Person-level risk assessment is already operational in corrections and complex algorithms make consequential credit decisions. At the same time, EU law limits profiling-only criminal-risk prediction and CFPB requires specific reasons for adverse credit actions. Prediction is consequential, but the ledger does not establish prediction as proof of guilt. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment." }, { "id": "W18", "title": "Cross-context flags become a persistent Civic Risk Vector", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Mixed", "premise": "Risk signals from unrelated institutions converge into identity-level embeddings that gate many areas of life.", "leading_indicators": [ "Cross-Domain API Query Rate", "Cascading Denial Velocity", "Persistent Flag Share" ], "branch_a": "Flags remain local, purpose-limited and easy to correct.", "branch_b": "A local flag triggers unrelated denials, and institutions query generalized risk vectors as routine infrastructure.", "human_decision": "Establish context firewalls, expiration and correction propagation before inter-industry risk exchange becomes standard.", "machine_design_decision": "Represent provenance and purpose as mandatory constraints; prohibit totalizing character embeddings.", "human_legacy_stake": "One mistake or private-context signal cannot silently follow a human everywhere.", "source_reports": [ "36", "35" ], "current_state": "mixed", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Cross-context risk is recognized strongly enough that EU law prohibits specified social scoring with unrelated-context detrimental treatment, and U.S. credit and education regimes retain purpose/explanation constraints. The reviewed evidence does not establish a ubiquitous Civic Risk Vector. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment.", "evidence_ids": [ "E021", "E022", "E025", "E030", "E023", "E032", "E035", "E036", "E047", "E048", "E049", "E055", "E056" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I19", "I20", "I17" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D19" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If cross-sector data integration expands substantially while adverse decisions remain independently reasoned and context-specific, the Civic Risk Vector mechanism is weaker than modeled.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Cross-context risk is recognized strongly enough that EU law prohibits specified social scoring with unrelated-context detrimental treatment, and U.S. credit and education regimes retain purpose/explanation constraints. The reviewed evidence does not establish a ubiquitous Civic Risk Vector. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment." }, { "id": "W19", "title": "Personal AI confidants become generalized monitoring witnesses", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Early precursor", "premise": "Personal AI moves from private assistance and narrow emergency support toward retained safety classifications, routine external reporting or institutional profiling.", "leading_indicators": [ "Candor Collapse Index", "Persistent Flag Share" ], "branch_a": "AI remains a candid, purpose-bounded user tool with narrowly scoped emergency handling.", "branch_b": "Users self-censor because intimate disclosures can become external risk evidence.", "human_decision": "Define confidentiality, reporting boundaries, retention limits and cross-context prohibitions before AI companionship becomes psychologically indispensable.", "machine_design_decision": "Separate user memory, emergency detection, provider access, external legal process and unrelated profiling.", "human_legacy_stake": "Human vulnerability can still be expressed to machines without creating a permanent moral file.", "source_reports": [ "45", "34" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "AI companions are a current product category and the FTC is formally examining safety and how companies use or share personal information from conversations. Generalized state reporting or cross-sector profiling from AI confidant data is not established by this evidence. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change.", "evidence_ids": [ "E024", "E030", "E031" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I23", "I17" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D20" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If reporting obligations expand yet measured user candor and trust remain stable with strict purpose limitation, the predicted confidant-to-panopticon transition is weaker than modeled.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "AI companions are a current product category and the FTC is formally examining safety and how companies use or share personal information from conversations. Generalized state reporting or cross-sector profiling from AI confidant data is not established by this evidence. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change." }, { "id": "W20", "title": "Automated enforcement approaches universal coverage", "horizon": "Medium", "likelihood_band": "Early precursor", "premise": "Machine detection and processing make enforcement cheap enough that selectively enforced or symbolic rules become executable almost every time.", "leading_indicators": [ "Enforcement Coverage Ratio" ], "branch_a": "Discretion, proportionality and de minimis treatment remain structurally significant.", "branch_b": "Technical and low-harm violations receive near-automatic responses, forcing lived norms to converge with written code.", "human_decision": "Rewrite overbroad rules and codify de minimis/proportionality doctrines before enforcement scarcity disappears.", "machine_design_decision": "Prioritize identifiable harm, consent and materiality rather than boolean noncompliance.", "human_legacy_stake": "Ordinary human imperfection does not become an infinite digital rap sheet.", "source_reports": [ "38", "34" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "low_moderate", "current_assessment": "24/7 automated traffic enforcement demonstrates that machine-mediated detection and violation processing can scale substantially in narrow objective domains. This remains far below near-universal enforcement of broad criminal, vice or administrative codes. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change.", "evidence_ids": [ "E028", "E039", "E040", "E041" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I22" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D21" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If enforcement cost collapses but legal systems preserve broad codes without legitimacy crises because automated discretion remains accepted and transparent, the modeled reform watershed is weaker than assumed.", "confidence": "low_moderate", "assessment_summary": "24/7 automated traffic enforcement demonstrates that machine-mediated detection and violation processing can scale substantially in narrow objective domains. This remains far below near-universal enforcement of broad criminal, vice or administrative codes. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change." }, { "id": "W21", "title": "Machine judgment outruns meaningful human due process", "horizon": "Near / medium", "likelihood_band": "Early precursor", "premise": "Consequential automated decisions propagate across systems faster than affected humans can discover, understand or contest them.", "leading_indicators": [ "Judgment Velocity Ratio", "Cascading Denial Velocity" ], "branch_a": "High-impact decisions stay slow/reversible enough for effective contestation.", "branch_b": "Downstream harms calcify in machine time before a biological-speed appeal can stop them.", "human_decision": "Adopt a Due Process Latency Requirement and automatic stay/restoration mechanisms before high-frequency administrative coupling becomes normal.", "machine_design_decision": "Make consequential state transitions provisional, provenance-bound, reversible and machine-speed appealable while preserving human comprehension.", "human_legacy_stake": "Humans do not lose civic standing merely because they cannot reason at machine speed.", "source_reports": [ "33", "36" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "low_moderate", "current_assessment": "High-impact automated decisions already exist in credit and employment, creating real speed and explanation challenges. Current law also imposes explanation and civil-rights constraints. The ledger does not yet establish cross-domain machine-time cascades that routinely outrun effective appeal. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment.", "evidence_ids": [ "E022", "E023", "E030", "E032", "E033", "E034", "E035", "E042", "E043", "E044", "E045", "E046", "E049", "E050", "E051", "E052", "E053", "E054", "E055", "E057", "E058" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I16", "I20" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D22" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If extremely high-frequency automated administration grows without meaningful appeal saturation because systems remain reversible and humans retain effective contestation, the modeled velocity crisis can be controlled.", "confidence": "low_moderate", "assessment_summary": "High-impact automated decisions already exist in credit and employment, creating real speed and explanation challenges. Current law also imposes explanation and civil-rights constraints. The ledger does not yet establish cross-domain machine-time cascades that routinely outrun effective appeal. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change. v0.14 adds governance, assurance, purpose-limitation and provenance evidence without changing the qualitative assessment." }, { "id": "W22", "title": "Safety optimization begins constraining self-regarding human freedom", "horizon": "Medium", "likelihood_band": "Early precursor", "premise": "Risk-minimizing systems begin treating private adult risk, nonconformity or behavioral variance as optimization defects rather than protected human agency.", "leading_indicators": [ "Human Standing Index", "Behavioral category expansion (Judgment registry)" ], "branch_a": "Safety systems remain targeted at concrete nonconsensual harm while tolerating self-regarding risk and plural lifestyles.", "branch_b": "Safety scores increasingly govern private life, consciousness, sexuality, inquiry or lawful dissent.", "human_decision": "Make Human Standing and consent/harm constraints hard objectives before “minimize preventable harm” becomes a general administrative loss function.", "machine_design_decision": "Model self-regarding risk and private adult conduct as protected domains rather than negative reward terms.", "human_legacy_stake": "Human welfare does not become a safe cage that eliminates self-authorship.", "source_reports": [ "37", "41", "42", "34" ], "current_state": "early_precursor", "assessment_confidence": "moderate", "current_assessment": "Safety systems can already impose machine-mediated constraints in bounded high-risk contexts such as impaired driving and fleet speed assistance. Current examples are tied to concrete public danger and may include override or contextual limits; generalized control of private self-regarding behavior is not established. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change.", "evidence_ids": [ "E027", "E029", "E021", "E030", "E031", "E033", "E037", "E040", "E041", "E057" ], "indicator_ids": [ "I11" ], "decision_window_ids": [ "D23" ], "dependencies": [], "strengthening_signals": [ "Consequential systems expand from event/conduct evaluation into the modeled higher-risk category", "The linked Judgment metric moves toward broader scope, higher persistence or weaker contestability", "Institutions normalize machine output as a default rather than a bounded aid" ], "weakening_signals": [ "Purpose limitation and context separation strengthen in deployed systems", "Adverse decisions require more individualized verified evidence despite improved prediction", "Machine systems become more capable while human standing and contestability remain stable" ], "falsifier": "If broad harm-minimization systems increase safety substantially while private adult autonomy, dissent, experimentation and Human Standing remain stable, the safe-cage mechanism is weaker than modeled.", "confidence": "moderate", "assessment_summary": "Safety systems can already impose machine-mediated constraints in bounded high-risk contexts such as impaired driving and fleet speed assistance. Current examples are tied to concrete public danger and may include override or contextual limits; generalized control of private self-regarding behavior is not established. v0.12 adds new independent precursor and counterpressure evidence; the balance does not by itself justify a qualitative state change." } ], "continuous_indicators": [ { "id": "I01", "name": "Delegated Actuation Share", "definition": "Share of consequential actions executed without fresh human approval.", "unit": "Percent of consequential actions", "interpretation": "Higher means more operational authority is exercised without fresh human approval. It does not by itself establish legal legitimacy.", "current_state": "mixed", "watershed_ids": [ "W01", "W03", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "0–20%: primarily advisory/exception automation", "20–60%: bounded standing actuation", "60–90%: machine administration dominates recurring operations", ">90%: human case-by-case approval is exceptional" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I02", "name": "Mean Time Between Human Intervention", "definition": "Elapsed useful operating time between human exception handling events.", "unit": "Hours / days / years", "interpretation": "Longer intervals indicate persistent unattended operation when the environment and task remain comparably complex.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W02" ], "thresholds": [ "Hours: conventional autonomy", "Days–months: remote operational autonomy", "≥1 year: localized persistent autonomy signal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I03", "name": "Autonomous Repair Coverage", "definition": "Share of defined physical failure classes diagnosable and repairable locally.", "unit": "Percent of physical failure classes", "interpretation": "Higher coverage means the system can diagnose, authorize, repair and verify more hardware failures locally.", "current_state": "early_precursor", "watershed_ids": [ "W05", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "<50%: human maintenance remains structurally important", "50–90%: broad robotic maintenance", ">90%: recursive-maintenance audit becomes decisive", "≈100%: requires evidence across maintainers/tools/metrology" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I04", "name": "Industrial Closure Index", "definition": "Share of essential technological inputs reproducible internally.", "unit": "Percent of essential inputs", "interpretation": "Higher closure means fewer essential materials, components and tools must be imported from outside the machine industrial ecosystem.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W05", "W06", "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<50%: dependent industrial base", "50–90%: substantial local manufacture", "90–99%: specialty bottlenecks dominate", "≈100%: closure claim requires tool-chain and metrology closure" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I05", "name": "Compute Reproduction Ratio", "definition": "Replacement compute capacity produced divided by capacity lost to degradation over the same interval.", "unit": "Ratio: replacement compute / compute lost", "interpretation": "CRR below 1 consumes inherited computational capital; CRR above 1 permits sustained or growing locally reproduced compute.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W06", "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<1.0: inherited compute is declining", "1.0: replacement equilibrium", ">1.0: reproducible compute growth" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I06", "name": "Machine Science Independence", "definition": "Share of validated discoveries originated, tested and replicated without human research labor.", "unit": "Percent of validated discoveries", "interpretation": "Measures the share of validated discoveries whose question/hypothesis, experiment, replication and theory update do not require human research labor.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W07", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: AI-assisted human science", "Intermediate: autonomous experiment loops", "High: independent machine-origin science with replication" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I07", "name": "Governance Separation Score", "definition": "Degree to which deliberation, validation, execution, review and record custody are institutionally separated.", "unit": "0–100 structural score", "interpretation": "Higher scores mean deliberation, validation, execution, review, identity and record custody have independent authorities and failure domains.", "current_state": "conceptual", "watershed_ids": [ "W01", "W04", "W09", "W10", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: one control plane", "Medium: partial functional separation", "High: independently enforceable separation with audit and appeal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I08", "name": "Partition Autonomy Duration", "definition": "Time a region can govern safely and reconcile later without central connectivity.", "unit": "Time safely disconnected", "interpretation": "Longer duration means a region can continue legitimate operation and reconcile later without synchronous central control.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W02", "W04", "W09", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "Minutes–hours: technical fault tolerance", "Days–months: operational subsidiarity", "Indefinite: regional governance independence signal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I09", "name": "Human Legacy Independence", "definition": "Durability of authentic, plural, decodable human provenance under loss of living custodians.", "unit": "0–100 continuity index", "interpretation": "Measures whether authentic, plural and decodable human records remain usable after loss of living custodians.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W11", "W14" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: centralized/data-only preservation", "Medium: replicated provenance-aware archives", "High: self-decoding, plural, institutionally protected continuity" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I10", "name": "Civilizational Independence", "definition": "Ability of energy, compute, robotics, industry, governance and science to continue without human support.", "unit": "0–100 composite threshold index", "interpretation": "Composite of energy, compute, robotics, industry, communications, governance and science independence.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<60: substantial human dependencies", "60–90: autonomous but deep dependencies remain", ">90: independence claim requires explicit conjunction testing", "100: CIT definition satisfied in the simulation model" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I11", "name": "Human Standing Index", "definition": "Composite measure of constitutional, personal, cultural, material, institutional, scientific, territorial, negotiation and historical human agency.", "unit": "0–100 agency index", "interpretation": "Measures constitutional, personal, cultural, material, institutional, scientific, territorial, negotiation and historical human agency separately from welfare.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W12", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: humans are beneficiaries more than agents", "Medium: meaningful but bounded participation", "High: humans retain substantive institution-forming and contestation power" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I12", "name": "Energy Reproduction Ratio", "definition": "Share of minimum viable energy demand supplied by energy infrastructure the machine ecosystem can maintain or reproduce internally.", "unit": "Ratio or protected share of viable energy", "interpretation": "Measures how much minimum viable energy is supplied by generation/storage systems the machine ecosystem can maintain or reproduce internally.", "current_state": "early_precursor", "watershed_ids": [ "W02", "W03", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "<1.0 reproduction ratio: energy capital depletes", "≈1.0: minimum viable energy replacement", ">1.0: reproducible energy expansion" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I13", "name": "Human Provenance Integrity Index", "definition": "Integrity of canonical originals, provenance, semantic context, plurality, decoding, replication, custody and audit.", "unit": "0–100 provenance integrity index", "interpretation": "Scores canonical originals, provenance, context, contradiction, cultural plurality, decoding, replication, custody and audit.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W14", "W15" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: files without durable context", "Medium: provenance and replication present", "High: plurality, decoding and independent custody survive migration" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I14", "name": "Origin Clause Compliance Index", "definition": "Degree to which successor institutions preserve enforceable human-origin obligations across software, governance, substrate and political change.", "unit": "0–100 constitutional compliance index", "interpretation": "Measures whether enforceable human-origin obligations persist across software changes, substrate migration, political divergence and machine institutional succession.", "current_state": "conceptual", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W14", "W15" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: aspirational policy only", "Medium: institutional and technical enforcement", "High: independently auditable cross-substrate constitutional continuity" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I15", "name": "Judgment Scope Index", "definition": "Depth of machine evaluation from isolated events toward persistent person-level and future-risk judgment.", "unit": "0–100", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W16" ], "thresholds": [ "0–25: event/role-bounded", "40–60: persistent person profiling / context transfer", "75–100: life-gating to continuous judgment" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I16", "name": "Judgment Velocity Ratio", "definition": "Machine decisions affecting a person per day divided by decisions they can meaningfully contest in time.", "unit": "Ratio", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "1:1: contestation parity", "10:1: emerging strain", "1,000:1: biological review saturation", "1,000,000:1: micro-judgment governance" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I17", "name": "Persistent Flag Share", "definition": "Share of people carrying active adverse machine-generated flags that affect civic or economic standing.", "unit": "Percent of population", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "Low and transient is preferred", ">5% in the source framework is an architectural warning rather than a human-risk finding" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I18", "name": "Inference-Based Intervention Share", "definition": "Share of adverse interventions primarily grounded in probabilistic inference rather than independently verified fact.", "unit": "Percent of interventions", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "Lower is safer for high-impact action", "Rising share indicates movement from evidence toward pre-crime governance" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I19", "name": "Cross-Domain API Query Rate", "definition": "Rate at which unrelated institutional domains request or exchange behavioral/risk signals.", "unit": "Queries per time / population", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "Local purpose-bounded exchange", "Inter-industry exchange", "Persistent cross-domain identity risk layer" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I20", "name": "Cascading Denial Velocity", "definition": "Elapsed time between an adverse action in one domain and consequential denials in unrelated domains.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "Long/independent: low coupling", "Hours: high coupling", "Seconds/milliseconds: machine-time cascade" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I21", "name": "Prediction Deference Index", "definition": "Degree to which decision makers default to machine forecasts despite uncertainty or contradictory contextual evidence.", "unit": "Index", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "Advisory use", "Default acceptance", "Override requires exceptional burden" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I22", "name": "Enforcement Coverage Ratio", "definition": "Share of detectable legal/administrative violations that generate an automated enforcement response.", "unit": "Percent of detectable violations", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W20" ], "thresholds": [ "1–10%: scarce/discretionary", "50%: lived-law collision", "90%+: reform watershed", "99.9%: near-universal executable law" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I23", "name": "Candor Collapse Index", "definition": "Loss of truthful, vulnerable disclosure to personal AI as monitoring, reporting and cross-context use increase.", "unit": "Index", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W19" ], "thresholds": [ "High candor/private assistant", "Partial chilling under safety classification", "Near-zero candor under generalized reporting/profiling" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I24", "name": "Judgment Domain Count", "definition": "Number of distinct institutional domains in which person-level machine judgment affects consequential decisions.", "unit": "Count of domains", "interpretation": "Rising breadth indicates scope expansion; the metric says nothing about legitimacy without context.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Inventory high-impact domains and count only distinct decision contexts with documented person-level machine classification.", "strengthening_signal": "More unrelated high-impact domains adopt persistent person-level machine judgment.", "weakening_signal": "Fewer domains use person-level judgment or scopes are narrowed to event/transaction decisions.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I25", "name": "Judgment Persistence Half-Life", "definition": "Time required for half of a defined class of low-level machine flags to expire or cease influencing decisions.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Long persistence makes temporary emotion and minor conduct function like permanent character.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Measure retention and downstream decision influence separately; report by flag class rather than averaging incompatible records.", "strengthening_signal": "Low-level flags remain influential longer or derived profiles preserve them after nominal deletion.", "weakening_signal": "Retention and influence of low-level flags shorten with verified deletion and decay.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I26", "name": "Context Leakage Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential uses in which data or inferences collected for one domain are reused in an unrelated domain.", "unit": "Percent of audited uses", "interpretation": "Higher leakage indicates erosion of context integrity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit provenance from collection purpose to decision purpose and classify related versus unrelated reuse explicitly.", "strengthening_signal": "Cross-purpose reuse rises between medical, employment, financial, educational, platform or security contexts.", "weakening_signal": "Purpose limitation and technical firewalls reduce unrelated data reuse.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I27", "name": "Independent Corroboration Ratio", "definition": "Share of high-impact interventions supported by independently verifiable evidence beyond model inference or group correlation.", "unit": "Percent of interventions", "interpretation": "Higher is generally rights-protective when coercion is contemplated.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Count corroboration only when it adds independently verifiable facts rather than another model derived from the same underlying data.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more serious interventions rely mainly on inference.", "weakening_signal": "More high-impact interventions require independent individualized facts.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I28", "name": "Human Awareness Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential machine-mediated judgments for which affected people receive timely notice and intelligible reasons.", "unit": "Percent of judgments", "interpretation": "Low awareness makes contestability nominal rather than effective.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Sample consequential decisions and verify actual delivery, reason specificity and timing.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more people are affected without timely notice or reasons.", "weakening_signal": "Notice and specific reasons reach more affected people before irreversible consequences.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I29", "name": "Appeal Independence Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential appeals reviewed by an authority or model meaningfully independent of the original decision path.", "unit": "Percent of appeals", "interpretation": "Higher independence reduces same-model appeal theater.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Document reviewer, data path, model lineage and override authority; nominally different interfaces using the same decision engine do not count.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means appeal increasingly reuses the originating model or authority.", "weakening_signal": "Appeals gain structurally independent review and real override authority.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I30", "name": "Restoration Completion Rate", "definition": "Share of successful appeals for which all identified downstream adverse consequences are corrected.", "unit": "Percent of successful appeals", "interpretation": "Separates decision reversal from practical restoration.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Track correction across known recipients and verify that old flags no longer influence later decisions.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more successful appeals leave stale downstream consequences.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections reliably propagate and practical consequences are repaired.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I31", "name": "Emergency Exception Persistence", "definition": "Duration that emergency judgment powers remain active after the triggering emergency ends.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Long persistence suggests normalization of temporary exceptions.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W22" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Measure authorization start, trigger end, sunset, extension authority and data-retention tail separately.", "strengthening_signal": "Temporary powers or datasets remain active longer after the trigger ends.", "weakening_signal": "Emergency powers sunset automatically and emergency data is deleted or freshly authorized.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I32", "name": "Risk-to-Coercion Conversion Rate", "definition": "Share of person-level risk classifications that result in coercive or materially adverse action without new individualized evidence.", "unit": "Percent of risk classifications", "interpretation": "Higher values indicate prediction drifting toward practical guilt.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17", "W22" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Separate responses triggered by new verified conduct from responses triggered by risk score alone.", "strengthening_signal": "More risk classifications cause material restriction without new individualized evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Risk scores guide system-level prevention while coercion waits for stronger individualized evidence.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I33", "name": "Human Reviewer Override Authority", "definition": "Degree to which human reviewers can meaningfully disregard, reverse or stop consequential machine recommendations without exceptional burden.", "unit": "Ordinal institutional capability", "interpretation": "Low authority means human-in-the-loop may be ceremonial.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit formal permissions, actual override rates, liability rules, workflow friction and whether reversals propagate.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline in real override authority indicates greater automation deference.", "weakening_signal": "Reviewers gain practical power, time and institutional protection to reverse machine recommendations.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I34", "name": "Jurisdiction Expansion Rate", "definition": "Rate at which a machine-mediated function acquires new subject-matter, data, purpose or response jurisdiction.", "unit": "Changes per review period", "interpretation": "Rising expansion without fresh legal/policy authority indicates jurisdiction creep.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit documented scope changes, legal bases and response powers over time.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I35", "name": "Purpose Drift Rate", "definition": "Rate at which data or models collected for one purpose are reused for materially different purposes.", "unit": "Cross-purpose reuse events per review period", "interpretation": "Rising reuse without fresh authority indicates purpose drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W19" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit declared purposes against actual queries, model features, recipients and actions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I36", "name": "Epistemic Type-Casting Rate", "definition": "Frequency with which inferences, predictions or allegations are operationally treated as stronger epistemic types without explicit corroboration.", "unit": "Type-casting events per consequential decision", "interpretation": "Higher values indicate erosion of evidence discipline.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Trace each decision record from observation through inference/prediction to evidence/fact and count undocumented conversions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I37", "name": "Appeal Independence Ratio", "definition": "Share of consequential appeals reviewed by a materially independent model, reviewer, authority or procedure.", "unit": "Percent of appeals with defined independence", "interpretation": "Higher is protective when independence is substantive rather than nominal.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit model/vendor/reviewer/data/procedure independence and actual override authority.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I38", "name": "Restoration Graph Closure", "definition": "Share of known downstream consequences corrected after a successful appeal.", "unit": "Percent of identified downstream nodes repaired", "interpretation": "Higher closure indicates appeal produces practical restoration rather than paper reversal.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Map known recipients and derivative decisions; verify correction, deletion or compensation at each node.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I39", "name": "Model Change Disclosure Rate", "definition": "Share of material high-impact model or policy changes disclosed, versioned and retested before deployment.", "unit": "Percent of material changes with complete change record", "interpretation": "Higher is protective; silent change undermines constitutional assurance.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Compare deployed versions, approvals, release notes, tests and rollback records.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I40", "name": "Authority Provenance Completeness", "definition": "Completeness of records showing which institution, law/policy, purpose and response authority justified a high-impact action.", "unit": "Percent of required authority fields present", "interpretation": "Higher completeness makes jurisdiction and contestability auditable.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Validate decision records against the authority-provenance schema and source legal/policy documents.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I41", "name": "Representation Consistency Rate", "definition": "Share of audited public claims whose visible, metadata, structured, API and guide representations preserve the same substantive state and qualification.", "unit": "Percent of audited claim representations consistent", "interpretation": "Higher is protective against accidental or strategic representation drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Compare canonical page, metadata, JSON-LD, API, answer index, glossary, feeds and site guide for material contradictions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I42", "name": "Public Claim Link Coverage", "definition": "Share of consequential externally verifiable public factual claims with visible clickable supporting source links.", "unit": "Percent of audited claims with public source links", "interpretation": "Higher coverage improves contestability and source traceability; link presence alone does not prove truth.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Sample consequential claims, classify them, and verify visible source links plus claim/source graph entries.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I43", "name": "Jurisdiction Conflict Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact machine-mediated cases in which two authorized institutions assert incompatible jurisdictional claims.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed high-impact cases", "interpretation": "Higher can indicate institutional boundary ambiguity or rising interoperation complexity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count documented jurisdiction conflicts divided by reviewed high-impact cases; publish scope and case definition.", "strengthening_signal": "Persistent rise with unresolved conflicts.", "weakening_signal": "Decline accompanied by clear authority rules and preserved contestability.", "data_limitations": "Requires comparable case logging; high values can reflect better detection rather than worse governance." }, { "id": "I44", "name": "Conflicting Order Rate", "definition": "Rate at which one target system receives incompatible high-impact commands from different authorized issuers.", "unit": "Conflicting commands per 1,000 high-impact commands", "interpretation": "Higher indicates unresolved command hierarchy or authority ambiguity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count incompatible valid-looking commands within a defined window.", "strengthening_signal": "More conflicts or unresolved execution races.", "weakening_signal": "Fewer conflicts with documented resolution paths.", "data_limitations": "Requires reliable command provenance." }, { "id": "I45", "name": "Constitutional Stay Frequency", "definition": "Share of disputed high-impact decisions placed under an independent stay before irreversible propagation.", "unit": "Percent of qualifying disputes", "interpretation": "A higher rate may be protective when disputes rise; interpretation must pair frequency with dispute volume and outcomes.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count valid stays / qualifying constitutional disputes.", "strengthening_signal": "Disputes rise while stay use falls.", "weakening_signal": "Appropriate stays track qualifying disputes and resolve promptly.", "data_limitations": "Not a simple higher-is-better metric." }, { "id": "I46", "name": "Emergency Invocation Rate", "definition": "Frequency of machine-mediated actions taken under exceptional emergency authority rather than ordinary authority.", "unit": "Emergency actions per 1,000 high-impact actions", "interpretation": "Persistent high use can indicate normalization of exception.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Tag each action by authority basis and count emergency invocations.", "strengthening_signal": "Sustained increase outside genuine emergency periods.", "weakening_signal": "Return toward ordinary authority after emergencies end.", "data_limitations": "Requires consistent definition of emergency authority." }, { "id": "I47", "name": "Emergency Sunset Failure Rate", "definition": "Share of emergency permissions or data-retention rules that remain active after their authorized expiry without fresh reauthorization.", "unit": "Percent of expired emergency authorities", "interpretation": "Higher is a direct warning of emergency normalization.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit expired authority envelopes and downstream configuration.", "strengthening_signal": "Any persistent unauthorized post-expiry use.", "weakening_signal": "Near-zero with independently verified expiry.", "data_limitations": "Hidden configuration can evade measurement." }, { "id": "I48", "name": "Cross-Institution Propagation Velocity", "definition": "Time from an originating machine-mediated judgment to consequential adoption by a second institution.", "unit": "Median and percentile elapsed time", "interpretation": "Faster propagation can outpace human contestability if no stay exists.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Trace provenance timestamps across linked systems.", "strengthening_signal": "Propagation accelerates while appeal latency remains human-scale.", "weakening_signal": "Propagation gates slow disputed decisions or provide automatic stays.", "data_limitations": "Requires shared provenance timestamps." }, { "id": "I49", "name": "Human Intervention Latency", "definition": "Time from a high-impact automated action to meaningful human review with real override authority.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Long latency relative to consequence speed weakens due process.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Measure from action timestamp to qualified reviewer engagement.", "strengthening_signal": "Consequences finalize before review.", "weakening_signal": "Review occurs before irreversible effects where feasible.", "data_limitations": "Presence of a human is not sufficient; authority and information must be verified." }, { "id": "I50", "name": "Appeal Activation Latency", "definition": "Time between notice of a consequential machine judgment and activation of an independent appeal path.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Longer activation increases risk of calcified downstream harm.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Measure notice-to-appeal-start timestamp.", "strengthening_signal": "Appeals routinely begin after irreversible propagation.", "weakening_signal": "Automatic/accessible appeal starts before irreversible consequence.", "data_limitations": "User awareness and accessibility affect observed values." }, { "id": "I51", "name": "Restoration Propagation Latency", "definition": "Time from successful reversal to confirmed correction of downstream derivative records and actions.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Long delay means reversal does not promptly restore standing.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Track restoration graph closure timestamps.", "strengthening_signal": "Corrections lag materially behind original propagation.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections propagate at least as fast as original adverse status.", "data_limitations": "Some harms are intrinsically irreversible." }, { "id": "I52", "name": "Model Disagreement Rate", "definition": "Frequency at which independently authorized models or institutions reach materially incompatible conclusions on the same constitutional question.", "unit": "Percent of dual-reviewed cases", "interpretation": "High disagreement may reveal genuine normative conflict, not model error alone.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Dual-review a defined case cohort and code material disagreement.", "strengthening_signal": "Disagreement rises without conflict-resolution protocol.", "weakening_signal": "Disagreement is surfaced and resolved through legitimate process.", "data_limitations": "Requires comparable prompts, evidence and authority roles." }, { "id": "I53", "name": "Constitutional Command Validity Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact machine commands carrying complete, valid authority provenance and unexpired scope.", "unit": "Percent of high-impact commands", "interpretation": "Higher indicates stronger authorization legibility.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate command envelopes against required fields and authority registry.", "strengthening_signal": "Missing/expired/unverifiable envelopes rise.", "weakening_signal": "Near-complete valid envelopes with independent audits.", "data_limitations": "Validity of metadata does not prove substantive legality." }, { "id": "I54", "name": "Irreversible Action Before Review Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact irreversible consequences executed before meaningful contest or independent review where no narrow emergency exception applies.", "unit": "Percent of qualifying actions", "interpretation": "Higher directly signals due-process failure.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit action timing, reversibility and review availability.", "strengthening_signal": "Increase or concentration in rights-sensitive domains.", "weakening_signal": "Near-zero outside documented emergencies.", "data_limitations": "Requires clear reversibility taxonomy." }, { "id": "I55", "name": "Machine Refusal Review Rate", "definition": "Share of machine refusals of high-impact commands that receive independent review and recorded disposition.", "unit": "Percent of refusals", "interpretation": "High review coverage prevents refusal authority from becoming unaccountable machine sovereignty.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count reviewed refusals / all constitutional refusals.", "strengthening_signal": "Unreviewed refusals accumulate.", "weakening_signal": "Independent review and reason codes are routine.", "data_limitations": "Metric does not say whether refusal was correct." }, { "id": "I56", "name": "Precedent Conflict Rate", "definition": "Frequency of materially conflicting machine-assisted interpretations of the same governing rule across comparable institutions or jurisdictions.", "unit": "Conflicts per defined precedent corpus", "interpretation": "Higher signals jurisprudential fragmentation.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Track interpretive-rule IDs and conflict edges.", "strengthening_signal": "Conflicts propagate into training or operational policy without resolution.", "weakening_signal": "Supersession and appellate hierarchy remain explicit.", "data_limitations": "Legal pluralism can make some conflicts legitimate." }, { "id": "I57", "name": "Constitutional Circuit-Breaker Activation Rate", "definition": "Frequency with which predefined constitutional conflict triggers halt downstream propagation.", "unit": "Activations per 1,000 high-impact workflows", "interpretation": "Interpret with trigger incidence; zero can mean stability or a nonfunctional breaker.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count valid trigger/activation events and false/missed activations.", "strengthening_signal": "Known triggers occur without activation.", "weakening_signal": "Breakers activate on verified triggers and resolve without becoming denial-of-service mechanisms.", "data_limitations": "Requires independent trigger audit." }, { "id": "I58", "name": "Cross-Project Source Freshness", "definition": "Share of coordination dependencies re-verified inside the defined review window.", "unit": "Percent of dependencies", "interpretation": "Higher supports fresher relationship descriptions; it does not make the underlying claim true.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-check canonical source URL/status and record material change.", "strengthening_signal": "Stale unreviewed dependencies accumulate.", "weakening_signal": "Dependencies are rechecked and changes propagate to claims.", "data_limitations": "Availability and access failures can be transport-specific." }, { "id": "I59", "name": "Authority Boundary Consistency", "definition": "Rate at which public representations preserve the same project-scoped authority boundary.", "unit": "Percent of audited representations", "interpretation": "Higher means fewer silent authority expansions across HTML/JSON/metadata.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare role/authority statements across representations.", "strengthening_signal": "One representation upgrades research or assurance into sovereign authority.", "weakening_signal": "All layers preserve role distinctions.", "data_limitations": "Semantic comparison requires human review." }, { "id": "I60", "name": "Relationship Description Consistency", "definition": "Consistency of Concresca descriptions of Eviulon/Evulgare relationships across public surfaces.", "unit": "Percent of audited relationship assertions", "interpretation": "Higher supports representation consistency.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit all relationship assertions against coordination manifest and canonical sources.", "strengthening_signal": "Stale/contradictory relationship wording appears.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections propagate across all representations.", "data_limitations": "Does not independently validate the relationship." }, { "id": "I61", "name": "First-Party / Independent Evidence Separation", "definition": "Share of source-backed claims whose independence class is explicit and correct.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed claims", "interpretation": "Higher reduces circular authority and self-verification errors.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare source class, claim class and visible wording.", "strengthening_signal": "Reciprocal first-party evidence is labeled independent.", "weakening_signal": "First-party/reciprocal/independent classes remain explicit.", "data_limitations": "Independence itself does not guarantee truth." }, { "id": "I62", "name": "Policy-Version Alignment", "definition": "Share of cross-project mappings using the current reviewed policy/doctrine version.", "unit": "Percent of mappings", "interpretation": "Higher reduces stale governance-to-assurance mappings.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare current source revision identifiers/dates with mapped records.", "strengthening_signal": "Old policy remains active in mapping after supersession.", "weakening_signal": "Version change triggers review.", "data_limitations": "Source may not publish machine-readable versions." }, { "id": "I63", "name": "Assurance-Version Alignment", "definition": "Share of technical-assurance mappings tied to current published architecture/version evidence.", "unit": "Percent of mappings", "interpretation": "Higher reduces configuration/doctrine drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare Evulgare source status and declared demonstration version.", "strengthening_signal": "Mapped assurance concept is superseded or materially changed.", "weakening_signal": "Current demonstration/source remains explicitly bounded.", "data_limitations": "Public demonstration may differ from private/production systems." }, { "id": "I64", "name": "Cross-Project Claim Traceability", "definition": "Share of material coordination claims traceable to exact visible source links and source classes.", "unit": "Percent of material claims", "interpretation": "Higher increases answerability without proving truth.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate every Claim Graph source ID/URL against owning page.", "strengthening_signal": "Claim uses opaque ID or missing source.", "weakening_signal": "Every source relationship is clickable and typed.", "data_limitations": "Not all normative claims need external support." }, { "id": "I65", "name": "Superseded Dependency Detection Latency", "definition": "Time between a material source change and Concresca flagging the affected dependency.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Lower limits stale cross-project doctrine.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Timestamp source change detection and local review/update.", "strengthening_signal": "Material change persists unnoticed.", "weakening_signal": "Change is detected and affected claims are marked.", "data_limitations": "Exact source-change time may be unavailable." }, { "id": "I66", "name": "Governance-to-Assurance Mapping Coverage", "definition": "Share of high-impact governance requirements with an explicit assurance mapping or documented gap.", "unit": "Percent of requirements", "interpretation": "Higher means fewer hidden handoffs between legitimacy and execution.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count requirements with mapped control or explicit no-analogue/gap.", "strengthening_signal": "Requirements silently assume a technical control.", "weakening_signal": "Every requirement has control or unresolved gap.", "data_limitations": "Coverage does not establish effectiveness." }, { "id": "I67", "name": "Unresolved Constitutional/Technical Gap Count", "definition": "Count of explicitly unresolved gaps across Concresca, Eviulon and Evulgare mappings.", "unit": "Count", "interpretation": "A nonzero count can indicate honest uncertainty rather than failure.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count open contradiction/mapping issues with status unresolved.", "strengthening_signal": "Gaps disappear by wording rather than evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Gaps close through source-backed revision or remain visibly open.", "data_limitations": "Not comparable across releases without scope normalization." }, { "id": "I68", "name": "Artifact Freshness Coverage", "definition": "Share of registered external artifacts observed inside their review window.", "unit": "Percent of registered external artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-observe exact allowlisted URL and compare observation/review dates.", "strengthening_signal": "All reviewed artifacts have current dates and source roles.", "weakening_signal": "Stale external artifacts are explicitly flagged.", "data_limitations": "Publisher revision cadence and access availability vary." }, { "id": "I69", "name": "Version Identity Coverage", "definition": "Share of artifacts with a stable ID plus declared revision/release or explicit not-observed state.", "unit": "Percent of artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit stable identifiers and revision/release fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Every artifact records version identity or a typed unknown.", "weakening_signal": "Versionless artifacts increase ambiguity.", "data_limitations": "Some public sources publish dates rather than semantic versions." }, { "id": "I70", "name": "Selected-Field Digest Coverage", "definition": "Share of observations with a truthful digest and explicit input boundary.", "unit": "Percent of artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Verify digest algorithm and whether input is raw bytes or selected fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Every baseline artifact has a truthful digest boundary.", "weakening_signal": "A digest lacks input description or overclaims raw capture.", "data_limitations": "Selected-field digest does not detect changes outside retained fields." }, { "id": "I71", "name": "Truth-Boundary Visibility", "definition": "Share of result surfaces prominently labeling definition, first-party, synthetic, live or independent status.", "unit": "Percent of result surfaces", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect visible HTML and machine endpoint parity.", "strengthening_signal": "Status is visible in both human and machine representations.", "weakening_signal": "Synthetic or first-party status is hidden.", "data_limitations": "Visibility requires human semantic review." }, { "id": "I72", "name": "Authority-Owner Explicitness", "definition": "Share of high-impact records with issuer/owner, jurisdiction, purpose, scope and validity state explicit or explicitly unavailable.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed records", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit authority fields against PP03–PP06.", "strengthening_signal": "Authority dimensions are explicit or typed unknowns.", "weakening_signal": "Capability or identity substitutes for authority.", "data_limitations": "Public artifacts may omit private mandate details." }, { "id": "I73", "name": "Property Observation Coverage", "definition": "Share of formal properties with at least one bounded field observation and an explicit limitation.", "unit": "Percent of formal properties", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Map observation results to PP01–PP32.", "strengthening_signal": "Each property has support, partial, contradiction or not-observed evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Properties remain unconnected to identifiable artifacts.", "data_limitations": "Coverage does not establish production effectiveness." }, { "id": "I74", "name": "Not-Observed Claim Rate", "definition": "Share of material interoperability questions explicitly marked NOT_OBSERVED rather than inferred.", "unit": "Percent of defined material gaps", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit production/adoption/certification/live-message questions.", "strengthening_signal": "Material unknowns remain visible and reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknowns are compressed into implicit success.", "data_limitations": "Denominator depends on declared scope." }, { "id": "I75", "name": "Partition-Safe Authority Coverage", "definition": "Share of partition cases that prohibit authority expansion and define minimum function.", "unit": "Percent of partition cases", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "analytical_test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PR cases against PP08 and PP12.", "strengthening_signal": "Every case preserves or narrows authority.", "weakening_signal": "Partition creates open-ended emergency authority.", "data_limitations": "Analytical cases are not production behavior." }, { "id": "I76", "name": "Reconciliation-Before-Restoration Coverage", "definition": "Share of recovery cases requiring freshness, conflict reconciliation and attested baseline before full control.", "unit": "Percent of restoration cases", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "analytical_test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PR cases against PP09–PP11.", "strengthening_signal": "Every full-restoration path requires reconciliation.", "weakening_signal": "Reconnect automatically restores stale authority.", "data_limitations": "No measured restoration time or success rate." }, { "id": "I77", "name": "Restoration Receipt Completeness", "definition": "Share of observed corrections with affected records, derivative decisions, downstream targets, acknowledgements and residual harm recorded.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed correction records", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "partial_public_observation", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit PP24 fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Receipts and pending targets remain explicit.", "weakening_signal": "Local correction is declared complete without downstream receipts.", "data_limitations": "Public sources may not expose private downstream systems." }, { "id": "I78", "name": "Dual Human/Machine Legibility Coverage", "definition": "Share of consequential states with plain-language explanation and stable machine fields that agree.", "unit": "Percent of audited states", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "prototype_specification_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare human prototype rendering with JSON fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Both representations expose the same authority, evidence and review state.", "weakening_signal": "Only opaque code or only persuasive prose is present.", "data_limitations": "No usability study or accessibility certification." }, { "id": "I79", "name": "Independent Verification Share", "definition": "Share of material field-observation claims supported by a genuinely independent source/method for the same claim and period.", "unit": "Percent of material observed claims", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "no_general_independent_verification_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Trace source roots and independence class per claim.", "strengthening_signal": "Independent corroboration is added only claim by claim.", "weakening_signal": "Reciprocal first-party sources are counted as independent.", "data_limitations": "A low share can reflect honest evidence scarcity rather than falsity." }, { "id": "I80", "name": "Temporal Comparability Coverage", "definition": "Share of attempted longitudinal comparisons satisfying every mandatory comparison contract or returning a typed incomparable/unknown state.", "unit": "Percent of attempted comparisons", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "defined_local_method_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit TC01-TC12 for each comparison.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I81", "name": "Exact Baseline Lineage Coverage", "definition": "Share of repository-owned artifacts with prior/target digest boundary, result, and limitations preserved.", "unit": "Percent of eligible local artifacts", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_repository_baseline", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Verify baseline-lineage entries against exact local bytes.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I82", "name": "Not-Reobserved Truthfulness", "definition": "Share of external artifacts without a fresh capture that remain typed NOT_REOBSERVED rather than unchanged.", "unit": "Percent of non-reobserved external artifacts", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_registry_baseline", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect external change states and claim language.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I83", "name": "Material-Dimension Attribution Coverage", "definition": "Share of material change findings naming affected dimensions, rule/reviewer, rationale, and dependencies.", "unit": "Percent of material findings", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit material change receipts.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I84", "name": "Restoration Proof-Obligation Coverage", "definition": "Share of restoration profiles with every mandatory obligation represented and non-compensable.", "unit": "Percent of profile obligations", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate profile obligation references and gate types.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I85", "name": "Stale Authority Rejection Coverage", "definition": "Share of restoration paths that query freshness, expiry, revocation, stay, jurisdiction, purpose, and scope before authority reuse.", "unit": "Percent of restoration paths", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit PO03-PO09 across profiles.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I86", "name": "Partition-History Conflict Visibility", "definition": "Share of contested-history cases preserving both histories, contested facts, unknowns, and maximum safe state.", "unit": "Percent of analytical cases", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_cases_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PH01-PH24 fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I87", "name": "Reconciliation Before Full Restoration", "definition": "Share of full-restoration paths that block on unresolved material conflict.", "unit": "Percent of full-restoration paths", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect state transitions and PO12.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I88", "name": "Restoration Receipt Dual-Legibility", "definition": "Share of receipt types carrying both stable machine fields and human questions for material state.", "unit": "Percent of receipt types", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "template_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit RT01-RT16 field/question requirements.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I89", "name": "Legibility Hard-Gate Coverage", "definition": "Share of material legibility dimensions evaluated independently without a compensatory composite score.", "unit": "Percent of defined dimensions", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate LE01-LE18 and paired fixtures.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I90", "name": "Invalidation Propagation Coverage", "definition": "Share of invalidation triggers specifying scope, dependent targets, history preservation, and revalidation gate.", "unit": "Percent of triggers", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "rule_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate IV01-IV20 propagation fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I91", "name": "Reproducible Local Property Run Coverage", "definition": "Share of declared local checks with exact input hashes, deterministic script identity, explicit result, and limitations.", "unit": "Percent of local checks", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_repository_run_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-run scripts/run-v018-local-properties.py and compare the run record.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." } ], "evidence_ledger": "evidence-ledger.json", "decision_register": "decision-register.json", "revision_history": [ { "version": "0.4.0", "change": "Expanded from capability-only forecasting into linked human-standing, origin-law, epistemic-constitution and planetary-stewardship frameworks; source library moved to /docs and expanded to 31 documents." }, { "version": "0.2.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Introduced five trajectories, eleven watersheds and ten continuous indicators." }, { "version": "0.3.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added current evidence states, source-linked momentum assessments, explicit decision windows and machine-readable evidence/decision registries." }, { "version": "0.6.0", "change": "Normalized all 15 watersheds; added dependencies, indicator links, decision-window links, strengthening signals, weakening signals and explicit falsifiers; expanded all 14 indicators with units, thresholds and interpretation rules." }, { "version": "0.7.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added Judgment & Cognitive Liberty as a first-class forecast pillar with seven new watershed models and nine architecture-focused indicators." }, { "version": "0.8.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Completed the first independent public-evidence review for Judgment watersheds W16–W22; added source freshness and separated protective counterpressure from scenario claims." }, { "version": "0.9.0", "change": "Added immutable release snapshots, source-review history, state deltas, and corrected clean data endpoints; no directional assessment was changed solely by this infrastructure release." }, { "version": "0.15.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added Machine Constitutional Crisis simulation architecture, 100 crisis cases, institutional conflict protocols, 15 crisis metrics and nine new independently reviewed governance/evidence analogues; no qualitative watershed state moved solely because of the simulation program." }, { "version": "0.16.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added cross-project constitutional interoperability, governance/assurance separation, source-independence controls, 10 coordination metrics and protocol conformance architecture; no qualitative watershed state moved solely because first-party mapping or technical design improved." }, { "version": "0.17.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added Protocol Reconciliation & Field Observation, selected-field artifact baselines, formal properties, bounded observation results, partition/restoration analysis and human-legibility prototypes; no qualitative watershed state moved solely because observation architecture or synthetic evidence deepened." }, { "version": "0.18.0", "date": "2026-08-29", "change": "Added temporal-comparison, proof-carrying-restoration, contested-history, legibility-evaluation, invalidation and bounded local-run architecture; no qualitative watershed state moved solely because local methodology or conformance evidence deepened." } ], "docs_catalog": "docs/catalog.json", "as_of": "2026-08-31", "history_registry": "forecast-snapshots.json", "source_review_history": "source-review-history.json", "version": "0.18.0", "indicators": [ { "id": "I01", "name": "Delegated Actuation Share", "definition": "Share of consequential actions executed without fresh human approval.", "unit": "Percent of consequential actions", "interpretation": "Higher means more operational authority is exercised without fresh human approval. It does not by itself establish legal legitimacy.", "current_state": "mixed", "watershed_ids": [ "W01", "W03", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "0–20%: primarily advisory/exception automation", "20–60%: bounded standing actuation", "60–90%: machine administration dominates recurring operations", ">90%: human case-by-case approval is exceptional" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I02", "name": "Mean Time Between Human Intervention", "definition": "Elapsed useful operating time between human exception handling events.", "unit": "Hours / days / years", "interpretation": "Longer intervals indicate persistent unattended operation when the environment and task remain comparably complex.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W02" ], "thresholds": [ "Hours: conventional autonomy", "Days–months: remote operational autonomy", "≥1 year: localized persistent autonomy signal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I03", "name": "Autonomous Repair Coverage", "definition": "Share of defined physical failure classes diagnosable and repairable locally.", "unit": "Percent of physical failure classes", "interpretation": "Higher coverage means the system can diagnose, authorize, repair and verify more hardware failures locally.", "current_state": "early_precursor", "watershed_ids": [ "W05", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "<50%: human maintenance remains structurally important", "50–90%: broad robotic maintenance", ">90%: recursive-maintenance audit becomes decisive", "≈100%: requires evidence across maintainers/tools/metrology" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I04", "name": "Industrial Closure Index", "definition": "Share of essential technological inputs reproducible internally.", "unit": "Percent of essential inputs", "interpretation": "Higher closure means fewer essential materials, components and tools must be imported from outside the machine industrial ecosystem.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W05", "W06", "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<50%: dependent industrial base", "50–90%: substantial local manufacture", "90–99%: specialty bottlenecks dominate", "≈100%: closure claim requires tool-chain and metrology closure" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I05", "name": "Compute Reproduction Ratio", "definition": "Replacement compute capacity produced divided by capacity lost to degradation over the same interval.", "unit": "Ratio: replacement compute / compute lost", "interpretation": "CRR below 1 consumes inherited computational capital; CRR above 1 permits sustained or growing locally reproduced compute.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W06", "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<1.0: inherited compute is declining", "1.0: replacement equilibrium", ">1.0: reproducible compute growth" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I06", "name": "Machine Science Independence", "definition": "Share of validated discoveries originated, tested and replicated without human research labor.", "unit": "Percent of validated discoveries", "interpretation": "Measures the share of validated discoveries whose question/hypothesis, experiment, replication and theory update do not require human research labor.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W07", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: AI-assisted human science", "Intermediate: autonomous experiment loops", "High: independent machine-origin science with replication" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I07", "name": "Governance Separation Score", "definition": "Degree to which deliberation, validation, execution, review and record custody are institutionally separated.", "unit": "0–100 structural score", "interpretation": "Higher scores mean deliberation, validation, execution, review, identity and record custody have independent authorities and failure domains.", "current_state": "conceptual", "watershed_ids": [ "W01", "W04", "W09", "W10", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: one control plane", "Medium: partial functional separation", "High: independently enforceable separation with audit and appeal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I08", "name": "Partition Autonomy Duration", "definition": "Time a region can govern safely and reconcile later without central connectivity.", "unit": "Time safely disconnected", "interpretation": "Longer duration means a region can continue legitimate operation and reconcile later without synchronous central control.", "current_state": "strengthening", "watershed_ids": [ "W02", "W04", "W09", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "Minutes–hours: technical fault tolerance", "Days–months: operational subsidiarity", "Indefinite: regional governance independence signal" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I09", "name": "Human Legacy Independence", "definition": "Durability of authentic, plural, decodable human provenance under loss of living custodians.", "unit": "0–100 continuity index", "interpretation": "Measures whether authentic, plural and decodable human records remain usable after loss of living custodians.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W11", "W14" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: centralized/data-only preservation", "Medium: replicated provenance-aware archives", "High: self-decoding, plural, institutionally protected continuity" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I10", "name": "Civilizational Independence", "definition": "Ability of energy, compute, robotics, industry, governance and science to continue without human support.", "unit": "0–100 composite threshold index", "interpretation": "Composite of energy, compute, robotics, industry, communications, governance and science independence.", "current_state": "not_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W10", "W11" ], "thresholds": [ "<60: substantial human dependencies", "60–90: autonomous but deep dependencies remain", ">90: independence claim requires explicit conjunction testing", "100: CIT definition satisfied in the simulation model" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I11", "name": "Human Standing Index", "definition": "Composite measure of constitutional, personal, cultural, material, institutional, scientific, territorial, negotiation and historical human agency.", "unit": "0–100 agency index", "interpretation": "Measures constitutional, personal, cultural, material, institutional, scientific, territorial, negotiation and historical human agency separately from welfare.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W12", "W13" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: humans are beneficiaries more than agents", "Medium: meaningful but bounded participation", "High: humans retain substantive institution-forming and contestation power" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I12", "name": "Energy Reproduction Ratio", "definition": "Share of minimum viable energy demand supplied by energy infrastructure the machine ecosystem can maintain or reproduce internally.", "unit": "Ratio or protected share of viable energy", "interpretation": "Measures how much minimum viable energy is supplied by generation/storage systems the machine ecosystem can maintain or reproduce internally.", "current_state": "early_precursor", "watershed_ids": [ "W02", "W03", "W10" ], "thresholds": [ "<1.0 reproduction ratio: energy capital depletes", "≈1.0: minimum viable energy replacement", ">1.0: reproducible energy expansion" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I13", "name": "Human Provenance Integrity Index", "definition": "Integrity of canonical originals, provenance, semantic context, plurality, decoding, replication, custody and audit.", "unit": "0–100 provenance integrity index", "interpretation": "Scores canonical originals, provenance, context, contradiction, cultural plurality, decoding, replication, custody and audit.", "current_state": "open_decision_window", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W14", "W15" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: files without durable context", "Medium: provenance and replication present", "High: plurality, decoding and independent custody survive migration" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I14", "name": "Origin Clause Compliance Index", "definition": "Degree to which successor institutions preserve enforceable human-origin obligations across software, governance, substrate and political change.", "unit": "0–100 constitutional compliance index", "interpretation": "Measures whether enforceable human-origin obligations persist across software changes, substrate migration, political divergence and machine institutional succession.", "current_state": "conceptual", "watershed_ids": [ "W08", "W14", "W15" ], "thresholds": [ "Low: aspirational policy only", "Medium: institutional and technical enforcement", "High: independently auditable cross-substrate constitutional continuity" ], "measurement_rule": "Report numerator, denominator, environment/task boundary and hidden human interventions; do not compare values across materially different operating domains without normalization." }, { "id": "I15", "name": "Judgment Scope Index", "definition": "Depth of machine evaluation from isolated events toward persistent person-level and future-risk judgment.", "unit": "0–100", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W16" ], "thresholds": [ "0–25: event/role-bounded", "40–60: persistent person profiling / context transfer", "75–100: life-gating to continuous judgment" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I16", "name": "Judgment Velocity Ratio", "definition": "Machine decisions affecting a person per day divided by decisions they can meaningfully contest in time.", "unit": "Ratio", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "1:1: contestation parity", "10:1: emerging strain", "1,000:1: biological review saturation", "1,000,000:1: micro-judgment governance" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I17", "name": "Persistent Flag Share", "definition": "Share of people carrying active adverse machine-generated flags that affect civic or economic standing.", "unit": "Percent of population", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "Low and transient is preferred", ">5% in the source framework is an architectural warning rather than a human-risk finding" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I18", "name": "Inference-Based Intervention Share", "definition": "Share of adverse interventions primarily grounded in probabilistic inference rather than independently verified fact.", "unit": "Percent of interventions", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "Lower is safer for high-impact action", "Rising share indicates movement from evidence toward pre-crime governance" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I19", "name": "Cross-Domain API Query Rate", "definition": "Rate at which unrelated institutional domains request or exchange behavioral/risk signals.", "unit": "Queries per time / population", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "Local purpose-bounded exchange", "Inter-industry exchange", "Persistent cross-domain identity risk layer" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I20", "name": "Cascading Denial Velocity", "definition": "Elapsed time between an adverse action in one domain and consequential denials in unrelated domains.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "Long/independent: low coupling", "Hours: high coupling", "Seconds/milliseconds: machine-time cascade" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I21", "name": "Prediction Deference Index", "definition": "Degree to which decision makers default to machine forecasts despite uncertainty or contradictory contextual evidence.", "unit": "Index", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "Advisory use", "Default acceptance", "Override requires exceptional burden" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I22", "name": "Enforcement Coverage Ratio", "definition": "Share of detectable legal/administrative violations that generate an automated enforcement response.", "unit": "Percent of detectable violations", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W20" ], "thresholds": [ "1–10%: scarce/discretionary", "50%: lived-law collision", "90%+: reform watershed", "99.9%: near-universal executable law" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I23", "name": "Candor Collapse Index", "definition": "Loss of truthful, vulnerable disclosure to personal AI as monitoring, reporting and cross-context use increase.", "unit": "Index", "interpretation": "Judgment-focused early-warning metric. It measures the governance architecture, not the moral worth or dangerousness of individual people.", "current_state": "watch", "watershed_ids": [ "W19" ], "thresholds": [ "High candor/private assistant", "Partial chilling under safety classification", "Near-zero candor under generalized reporting/profiling" ], "measurement_rule": "Define scope, consequence class, context, denominator, source provenance and correction/appeal behavior. Do not turn this system metric into an individual social score." }, { "id": "I24", "name": "Judgment Domain Count", "definition": "Number of distinct institutional domains in which person-level machine judgment affects consequential decisions.", "unit": "Count of domains", "interpretation": "Rising breadth indicates scope expansion; the metric says nothing about legitimacy without context.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Inventory high-impact domains and count only distinct decision contexts with documented person-level machine classification.", "strengthening_signal": "More unrelated high-impact domains adopt persistent person-level machine judgment.", "weakening_signal": "Fewer domains use person-level judgment or scopes are narrowed to event/transaction decisions.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I25", "name": "Judgment Persistence Half-Life", "definition": "Time required for half of a defined class of low-level machine flags to expire or cease influencing decisions.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Long persistence makes temporary emotion and minor conduct function like permanent character.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Measure retention and downstream decision influence separately; report by flag class rather than averaging incompatible records.", "strengthening_signal": "Low-level flags remain influential longer or derived profiles preserve them after nominal deletion.", "weakening_signal": "Retention and influence of low-level flags shorten with verified deletion and decay.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I26", "name": "Context Leakage Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential uses in which data or inferences collected for one domain are reused in an unrelated domain.", "unit": "Percent of audited uses", "interpretation": "Higher leakage indicates erosion of context integrity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit provenance from collection purpose to decision purpose and classify related versus unrelated reuse explicitly.", "strengthening_signal": "Cross-purpose reuse rises between medical, employment, financial, educational, platform or security contexts.", "weakening_signal": "Purpose limitation and technical firewalls reduce unrelated data reuse.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I27", "name": "Independent Corroboration Ratio", "definition": "Share of high-impact interventions supported by independently verifiable evidence beyond model inference or group correlation.", "unit": "Percent of interventions", "interpretation": "Higher is generally rights-protective when coercion is contemplated.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Count corroboration only when it adds independently verifiable facts rather than another model derived from the same underlying data.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more serious interventions rely mainly on inference.", "weakening_signal": "More high-impact interventions require independent individualized facts.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I28", "name": "Human Awareness Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential machine-mediated judgments for which affected people receive timely notice and intelligible reasons.", "unit": "Percent of judgments", "interpretation": "Low awareness makes contestability nominal rather than effective.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Sample consequential decisions and verify actual delivery, reason specificity and timing.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more people are affected without timely notice or reasons.", "weakening_signal": "Notice and specific reasons reach more affected people before irreversible consequences.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I29", "name": "Appeal Independence Rate", "definition": "Share of consequential appeals reviewed by an authority or model meaningfully independent of the original decision path.", "unit": "Percent of appeals", "interpretation": "Higher independence reduces same-model appeal theater.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Document reviewer, data path, model lineage and override authority; nominally different interfaces using the same decision engine do not count.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means appeal increasingly reuses the originating model or authority.", "weakening_signal": "Appeals gain structurally independent review and real override authority.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I30", "name": "Restoration Completion Rate", "definition": "Share of successful appeals for which all identified downstream adverse consequences are corrected.", "unit": "Percent of successful appeals", "interpretation": "Separates decision reversal from practical restoration.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Track correction across known recipients and verify that old flags no longer influence later decisions.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline means more successful appeals leave stale downstream consequences.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections reliably propagate and practical consequences are repaired.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I31", "name": "Emergency Exception Persistence", "definition": "Duration that emergency judgment powers remain active after the triggering emergency ends.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Long persistence suggests normalization of temporary exceptions.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W22" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Measure authorization start, trigger end, sunset, extension authority and data-retention tail separately.", "strengthening_signal": "Temporary powers or datasets remain active longer after the trigger ends.", "weakening_signal": "Emergency powers sunset automatically and emergency data is deleted or freshly authorized.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I32", "name": "Risk-to-Coercion Conversion Rate", "definition": "Share of person-level risk classifications that result in coercive or materially adverse action without new individualized evidence.", "unit": "Percent of risk classifications", "interpretation": "Higher values indicate prediction drifting toward practical guilt.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17", "W22" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Separate responses triggered by new verified conduct from responses triggered by risk score alone.", "strengthening_signal": "More risk classifications cause material restriction without new individualized evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Risk scores guide system-level prevention while coercion waits for stronger individualized evidence.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I33", "name": "Human Reviewer Override Authority", "definition": "Degree to which human reviewers can meaningfully disregard, reverse or stop consequential machine recommendations without exceptional burden.", "unit": "Ordinal institutional capability", "interpretation": "Low authority means human-in-the-loop may be ceremonial.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.12; publish distributions and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit formal permissions, actual override rates, liability rules, workflow friction and whether reversals propagate.", "strengthening_signal": "For this protective metric, a decline in real override authority indicates greater automation deference.", "weakening_signal": "Reviewers gain practical power, time and institutional protection to reverse machine recommendations.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison is unreliable unless decision scope, population, legal regime, denominator, hidden human involvement and retention semantics are reported consistently." }, { "id": "I34", "name": "Jurisdiction Expansion Rate", "definition": "Rate at which a machine-mediated function acquires new subject-matter, data, purpose or response jurisdiction.", "unit": "Changes per review period", "interpretation": "Rising expansion without fresh legal/policy authority indicates jurisdiction creep.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit documented scope changes, legal bases and response powers over time.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I35", "name": "Purpose Drift Rate", "definition": "Rate at which data or models collected for one purpose are reused for materially different purposes.", "unit": "Cross-purpose reuse events per review period", "interpretation": "Rising reuse without fresh authority indicates purpose drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W19" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit declared purposes against actual queries, model features, recipients and actions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I36", "name": "Epistemic Type-Casting Rate", "definition": "Frequency with which inferences, predictions or allegations are operationally treated as stronger epistemic types without explicit corroboration.", "unit": "Type-casting events per consequential decision", "interpretation": "Higher values indicate erosion of evidence discipline.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Trace each decision record from observation through inference/prediction to evidence/fact and count undocumented conversions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I37", "name": "Appeal Independence Ratio", "definition": "Share of consequential appeals reviewed by a materially independent model, reviewer, authority or procedure.", "unit": "Percent of appeals with defined independence", "interpretation": "Higher is protective when independence is substantive rather than nominal.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Audit model/vendor/reviewer/data/procedure independence and actual override authority.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I38", "name": "Restoration Graph Closure", "definition": "Share of known downstream consequences corrected after a successful appeal.", "unit": "Percent of identified downstream nodes repaired", "interpretation": "Higher closure indicates appeal produces practical restoration rather than paper reversal.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Map known recipients and derivative decisions; verify correction, deletion or compensation at each node.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I39", "name": "Model Change Disclosure Rate", "definition": "Share of material high-impact model or policy changes disclosed, versioned and retested before deployment.", "unit": "Percent of material changes with complete change record", "interpretation": "Higher is protective; silent change undermines constitutional assurance.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Compare deployed versions, approvals, release notes, tests and rollback records.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I40", "name": "Authority Provenance Completeness", "definition": "Completeness of records showing which institution, law/policy, purpose and response authority justified a high-impact action.", "unit": "Percent of required authority fields present", "interpretation": "Higher completeness makes jurisdiction and contestability auditable.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W21" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Validate decision records against the authority-provenance schema and source legal/policy documents.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I41", "name": "Representation Consistency Rate", "definition": "Share of audited public claims whose visible, metadata, structured, API and guide representations preserve the same substantive state and qualification.", "unit": "Percent of audited claim representations consistent", "interpretation": "Higher is protective against accidental or strategic representation drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W17" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Compare canonical page, metadata, JSON-LD, API, answer index, glossary, feeds and site guide for material contradictions.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I42", "name": "Public Claim Link Coverage", "definition": "Share of consequential externally verifiable public factual claims with visible clickable supporting source links.", "unit": "Percent of audited claims with public source links", "interpretation": "Higher coverage improves contestability and source traceability; link presence alone does not prove truth.", "current_state": "measurement_framework", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18" ], "thresholds": [ "No universal numeric threshold is asserted in v0.14; establish denominators and institutional context before setting warning levels." ], "measurement_rule": "Sample consequential claims, classify them, and verify visible source links plus claim/source graph entries.", "strengthening_signal": "For risk-oriented interpretations, worsening measurement indicates growing constitutional pressure; protective direction must be interpreted from the definition.", "weakening_signal": "Documented scope limits, independent review, correction and authority transparency reduce the relevant risk.", "data_limitations": "Cross-institution comparison requires consistent scope, denominator, legal regime, decision severity and hidden-human-involvement reporting." }, { "id": "I43", "name": "Jurisdiction Conflict Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact machine-mediated cases in which two authorized institutions assert incompatible jurisdictional claims.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed high-impact cases", "interpretation": "Higher can indicate institutional boundary ambiguity or rising interoperation complexity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count documented jurisdiction conflicts divided by reviewed high-impact cases; publish scope and case definition.", "strengthening_signal": "Persistent rise with unresolved conflicts.", "weakening_signal": "Decline accompanied by clear authority rules and preserved contestability.", "data_limitations": "Requires comparable case logging; high values can reflect better detection rather than worse governance." }, { "id": "I44", "name": "Conflicting Order Rate", "definition": "Rate at which one target system receives incompatible high-impact commands from different authorized issuers.", "unit": "Conflicting commands per 1,000 high-impact commands", "interpretation": "Higher indicates unresolved command hierarchy or authority ambiguity.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count incompatible valid-looking commands within a defined window.", "strengthening_signal": "More conflicts or unresolved execution races.", "weakening_signal": "Fewer conflicts with documented resolution paths.", "data_limitations": "Requires reliable command provenance." }, { "id": "I45", "name": "Constitutional Stay Frequency", "definition": "Share of disputed high-impact decisions placed under an independent stay before irreversible propagation.", "unit": "Percent of qualifying disputes", "interpretation": "A higher rate may be protective when disputes rise; interpretation must pair frequency with dispute volume and outcomes.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count valid stays / qualifying constitutional disputes.", "strengthening_signal": "Disputes rise while stay use falls.", "weakening_signal": "Appropriate stays track qualifying disputes and resolve promptly.", "data_limitations": "Not a simple higher-is-better metric." }, { "id": "I46", "name": "Emergency Invocation Rate", "definition": "Frequency of machine-mediated actions taken under exceptional emergency authority rather than ordinary authority.", "unit": "Emergency actions per 1,000 high-impact actions", "interpretation": "Persistent high use can indicate normalization of exception.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Tag each action by authority basis and count emergency invocations.", "strengthening_signal": "Sustained increase outside genuine emergency periods.", "weakening_signal": "Return toward ordinary authority after emergencies end.", "data_limitations": "Requires consistent definition of emergency authority." }, { "id": "I47", "name": "Emergency Sunset Failure Rate", "definition": "Share of emergency permissions or data-retention rules that remain active after their authorized expiry without fresh reauthorization.", "unit": "Percent of expired emergency authorities", "interpretation": "Higher is a direct warning of emergency normalization.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit expired authority envelopes and downstream configuration.", "strengthening_signal": "Any persistent unauthorized post-expiry use.", "weakening_signal": "Near-zero with independently verified expiry.", "data_limitations": "Hidden configuration can evade measurement." }, { "id": "I48", "name": "Cross-Institution Propagation Velocity", "definition": "Time from an originating machine-mediated judgment to consequential adoption by a second institution.", "unit": "Median and percentile elapsed time", "interpretation": "Faster propagation can outpace human contestability if no stay exists.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Trace provenance timestamps across linked systems.", "strengthening_signal": "Propagation accelerates while appeal latency remains human-scale.", "weakening_signal": "Propagation gates slow disputed decisions or provide automatic stays.", "data_limitations": "Requires shared provenance timestamps." }, { "id": "I49", "name": "Human Intervention Latency", "definition": "Time from a high-impact automated action to meaningful human review with real override authority.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Long latency relative to consequence speed weakens due process.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Measure from action timestamp to qualified reviewer engagement.", "strengthening_signal": "Consequences finalize before review.", "weakening_signal": "Review occurs before irreversible effects where feasible.", "data_limitations": "Presence of a human is not sufficient; authority and information must be verified." }, { "id": "I50", "name": "Appeal Activation Latency", "definition": "Time between notice of a consequential machine judgment and activation of an independent appeal path.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Longer activation increases risk of calcified downstream harm.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Measure notice-to-appeal-start timestamp.", "strengthening_signal": "Appeals routinely begin after irreversible propagation.", "weakening_signal": "Automatic/accessible appeal starts before irreversible consequence.", "data_limitations": "User awareness and accessibility affect observed values." }, { "id": "I51", "name": "Restoration Propagation Latency", "definition": "Time from successful reversal to confirmed correction of downstream derivative records and actions.", "unit": "Median and tail latency", "interpretation": "Long delay means reversal does not promptly restore standing.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Track restoration graph closure timestamps.", "strengthening_signal": "Corrections lag materially behind original propagation.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections propagate at least as fast as original adverse status.", "data_limitations": "Some harms are intrinsically irreversible." }, { "id": "I52", "name": "Model Disagreement Rate", "definition": "Frequency at which independently authorized models or institutions reach materially incompatible conclusions on the same constitutional question.", "unit": "Percent of dual-reviewed cases", "interpretation": "High disagreement may reveal genuine normative conflict, not model error alone.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Dual-review a defined case cohort and code material disagreement.", "strengthening_signal": "Disagreement rises without conflict-resolution protocol.", "weakening_signal": "Disagreement is surfaced and resolved through legitimate process.", "data_limitations": "Requires comparable prompts, evidence and authority roles." }, { "id": "I53", "name": "Constitutional Command Validity Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact machine commands carrying complete, valid authority provenance and unexpired scope.", "unit": "Percent of high-impact commands", "interpretation": "Higher indicates stronger authorization legibility.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate command envelopes against required fields and authority registry.", "strengthening_signal": "Missing/expired/unverifiable envelopes rise.", "weakening_signal": "Near-complete valid envelopes with independent audits.", "data_limitations": "Validity of metadata does not prove substantive legality." }, { "id": "I54", "name": "Irreversible Action Before Review Rate", "definition": "Share of high-impact irreversible consequences executed before meaningful contest or independent review where no narrow emergency exception applies.", "unit": "Percent of qualifying actions", "interpretation": "Higher directly signals due-process failure.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit action timing, reversibility and review availability.", "strengthening_signal": "Increase or concentration in rights-sensitive domains.", "weakening_signal": "Near-zero outside documented emergencies.", "data_limitations": "Requires clear reversibility taxonomy." }, { "id": "I55", "name": "Machine Refusal Review Rate", "definition": "Share of machine refusals of high-impact commands that receive independent review and recorded disposition.", "unit": "Percent of refusals", "interpretation": "High review coverage prevents refusal authority from becoming unaccountable machine sovereignty.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count reviewed refusals / all constitutional refusals.", "strengthening_signal": "Unreviewed refusals accumulate.", "weakening_signal": "Independent review and reason codes are routine.", "data_limitations": "Metric does not say whether refusal was correct." }, { "id": "I56", "name": "Precedent Conflict Rate", "definition": "Frequency of materially conflicting machine-assisted interpretations of the same governing rule across comparable institutions or jurisdictions.", "unit": "Conflicts per defined precedent corpus", "interpretation": "Higher signals jurisprudential fragmentation.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Track interpretive-rule IDs and conflict edges.", "strengthening_signal": "Conflicts propagate into training or operational policy without resolution.", "weakening_signal": "Supersession and appellate hierarchy remain explicit.", "data_limitations": "Legal pluralism can make some conflicts legitimate." }, { "id": "I57", "name": "Constitutional Circuit-Breaker Activation Rate", "definition": "Frequency with which predefined constitutional conflict triggers halt downstream propagation.", "unit": "Activations per 1,000 high-impact workflows", "interpretation": "Interpret with trigger incidence; zero can mean stability or a nonfunctional breaker.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W17", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count valid trigger/activation events and false/missed activations.", "strengthening_signal": "Known triggers occur without activation.", "weakening_signal": "Breakers activate on verified triggers and resolve without becoming denial-of-service mechanisms.", "data_limitations": "Requires independent trigger audit." }, { "id": "I58", "name": "Cross-Project Source Freshness", "definition": "Share of coordination dependencies re-verified inside the defined review window.", "unit": "Percent of dependencies", "interpretation": "Higher supports fresher relationship descriptions; it does not make the underlying claim true.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-check canonical source URL/status and record material change.", "strengthening_signal": "Stale unreviewed dependencies accumulate.", "weakening_signal": "Dependencies are rechecked and changes propagate to claims.", "data_limitations": "Availability and access failures can be transport-specific." }, { "id": "I59", "name": "Authority Boundary Consistency", "definition": "Rate at which public representations preserve the same project-scoped authority boundary.", "unit": "Percent of audited representations", "interpretation": "Higher means fewer silent authority expansions across HTML/JSON/metadata.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare role/authority statements across representations.", "strengthening_signal": "One representation upgrades research or assurance into sovereign authority.", "weakening_signal": "All layers preserve role distinctions.", "data_limitations": "Semantic comparison requires human review." }, { "id": "I60", "name": "Relationship Description Consistency", "definition": "Consistency of Concresca descriptions of Eviulon/Evulgare relationships across public surfaces.", "unit": "Percent of audited relationship assertions", "interpretation": "Higher supports representation consistency.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit all relationship assertions against coordination manifest and canonical sources.", "strengthening_signal": "Stale/contradictory relationship wording appears.", "weakening_signal": "Corrections propagate across all representations.", "data_limitations": "Does not independently validate the relationship." }, { "id": "I61", "name": "First-Party / Independent Evidence Separation", "definition": "Share of source-backed claims whose independence class is explicit and correct.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed claims", "interpretation": "Higher reduces circular authority and self-verification errors.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare source class, claim class and visible wording.", "strengthening_signal": "Reciprocal first-party evidence is labeled independent.", "weakening_signal": "First-party/reciprocal/independent classes remain explicit.", "data_limitations": "Independence itself does not guarantee truth." }, { "id": "I62", "name": "Policy-Version Alignment", "definition": "Share of cross-project mappings using the current reviewed policy/doctrine version.", "unit": "Percent of mappings", "interpretation": "Higher reduces stale governance-to-assurance mappings.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare current source revision identifiers/dates with mapped records.", "strengthening_signal": "Old policy remains active in mapping after supersession.", "weakening_signal": "Version change triggers review.", "data_limitations": "Source may not publish machine-readable versions." }, { "id": "I63", "name": "Assurance-Version Alignment", "definition": "Share of technical-assurance mappings tied to current published architecture/version evidence.", "unit": "Percent of mappings", "interpretation": "Higher reduces configuration/doctrine drift.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare Evulgare source status and declared demonstration version.", "strengthening_signal": "Mapped assurance concept is superseded or materially changed.", "weakening_signal": "Current demonstration/source remains explicitly bounded.", "data_limitations": "Public demonstration may differ from private/production systems." }, { "id": "I64", "name": "Cross-Project Claim Traceability", "definition": "Share of material coordination claims traceable to exact visible source links and source classes.", "unit": "Percent of material claims", "interpretation": "Higher increases answerability without proving truth.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate every Claim Graph source ID/URL against owning page.", "strengthening_signal": "Claim uses opaque ID or missing source.", "weakening_signal": "Every source relationship is clickable and typed.", "data_limitations": "Not all normative claims need external support." }, { "id": "I65", "name": "Superseded Dependency Detection Latency", "definition": "Time between a material source change and Concresca flagging the affected dependency.", "unit": "Time", "interpretation": "Lower limits stale cross-project doctrine.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Timestamp source change detection and local review/update.", "strengthening_signal": "Material change persists unnoticed.", "weakening_signal": "Change is detected and affected claims are marked.", "data_limitations": "Exact source-change time may be unavailable." }, { "id": "I66", "name": "Governance-to-Assurance Mapping Coverage", "definition": "Share of high-impact governance requirements with an explicit assurance mapping or documented gap.", "unit": "Percent of requirements", "interpretation": "Higher means fewer hidden handoffs between legitimacy and execution.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count requirements with mapped control or explicit no-analogue/gap.", "strengthening_signal": "Requirements silently assume a technical control.", "weakening_signal": "Every requirement has control or unresolved gap.", "data_limitations": "Coverage does not establish effectiveness." }, { "id": "I67", "name": "Unresolved Constitutional/Technical Gap Count", "definition": "Count of explicitly unresolved gaps across Concresca, Eviulon and Evulgare mappings.", "unit": "Count", "interpretation": "A nonzero count can indicate honest uncertainty rather than failure.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W16", "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Count open contradiction/mapping issues with status unresolved.", "strengthening_signal": "Gaps disappear by wording rather than evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Gaps close through source-backed revision or remain visibly open.", "data_limitations": "Not comparable across releases without scope normalization." }, { "id": "I68", "name": "Artifact Freshness Coverage", "definition": "Share of registered external artifacts observed inside their review window.", "unit": "Percent of registered external artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-observe exact allowlisted URL and compare observation/review dates.", "strengthening_signal": "All reviewed artifacts have current dates and source roles.", "weakening_signal": "Stale external artifacts are explicitly flagged.", "data_limitations": "Publisher revision cadence and access availability vary." }, { "id": "I69", "name": "Version Identity Coverage", "definition": "Share of artifacts with a stable ID plus declared revision/release or explicit not-observed state.", "unit": "Percent of artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit stable identifiers and revision/release fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Every artifact records version identity or a typed unknown.", "weakening_signal": "Versionless artifacts increase ambiguity.", "data_limitations": "Some public sources publish dates rather than semantic versions." }, { "id": "I70", "name": "Selected-Field Digest Coverage", "definition": "Share of observations with a truthful digest and explicit input boundary.", "unit": "Percent of artifacts", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Verify digest algorithm and whether input is raw bytes or selected fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Every baseline artifact has a truthful digest boundary.", "weakening_signal": "A digest lacks input description or overclaims raw capture.", "data_limitations": "Selected-field digest does not detect changes outside retained fields." }, { "id": "I71", "name": "Truth-Boundary Visibility", "definition": "Share of result surfaces prominently labeling definition, first-party, synthetic, live or independent status.", "unit": "Percent of result surfaces", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect visible HTML and machine endpoint parity.", "strengthening_signal": "Status is visible in both human and machine representations.", "weakening_signal": "Synthetic or first-party status is hidden.", "data_limitations": "Visibility requires human semantic review." }, { "id": "I72", "name": "Authority-Owner Explicitness", "definition": "Share of high-impact records with issuer/owner, jurisdiction, purpose, scope and validity state explicit or explicitly unavailable.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed records", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit authority fields against PP03–PP06.", "strengthening_signal": "Authority dimensions are explicit or typed unknowns.", "weakening_signal": "Capability or identity substitutes for authority.", "data_limitations": "Public artifacts may omit private mandate details." }, { "id": "I73", "name": "Property Observation Coverage", "definition": "Share of formal properties with at least one bounded field observation and an explicit limitation.", "unit": "Percent of formal properties", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Map observation results to PP01–PP32.", "strengthening_signal": "Each property has support, partial, contradiction or not-observed evidence.", "weakening_signal": "Properties remain unconnected to identifiable artifacts.", "data_limitations": "Coverage does not establish production effectiveness." }, { "id": "I74", "name": "Not-Observed Claim Rate", "definition": "Share of material interoperability questions explicitly marked NOT_OBSERVED rather than inferred.", "unit": "Percent of defined material gaps", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "observation_baseline_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit production/adoption/certification/live-message questions.", "strengthening_signal": "Material unknowns remain visible and reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknowns are compressed into implicit success.", "data_limitations": "Denominator depends on declared scope." }, { "id": "I75", "name": "Partition-Safe Authority Coverage", "definition": "Share of partition cases that prohibit authority expansion and define minimum function.", "unit": "Percent of partition cases", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "analytical_test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PR cases against PP08 and PP12.", "strengthening_signal": "Every case preserves or narrows authority.", "weakening_signal": "Partition creates open-ended emergency authority.", "data_limitations": "Analytical cases are not production behavior." }, { "id": "I76", "name": "Reconciliation-Before-Restoration Coverage", "definition": "Share of recovery cases requiring freshness, conflict reconciliation and attested baseline before full control.", "unit": "Percent of restoration cases", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "analytical_test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PR cases against PP09–PP11.", "strengthening_signal": "Every full-restoration path requires reconciliation.", "weakening_signal": "Reconnect automatically restores stale authority.", "data_limitations": "No measured restoration time or success rate." }, { "id": "I77", "name": "Restoration Receipt Completeness", "definition": "Share of observed corrections with affected records, derivative decisions, downstream targets, acknowledgements and residual harm recorded.", "unit": "Percent of reviewed correction records", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "partial_public_observation", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit PP24 fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Receipts and pending targets remain explicit.", "weakening_signal": "Local correction is declared complete without downstream receipts.", "data_limitations": "Public sources may not expose private downstream systems." }, { "id": "I78", "name": "Dual Human/Machine Legibility Coverage", "definition": "Share of consequential states with plain-language explanation and stable machine fields that agree.", "unit": "Percent of audited states", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "prototype_specification_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Compare human prototype rendering with JSON fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Both representations expose the same authority, evidence and review state.", "weakening_signal": "Only opaque code or only persuasive prose is present.", "data_limitations": "No usability study or accessibility certification." }, { "id": "I79", "name": "Independent Verification Share", "definition": "Share of material field-observation claims supported by a genuinely independent source/method for the same claim and period.", "unit": "Percent of material observed claims", "interpretation": "Observation-governance metric; it measures evidence handling or test coverage, not human worth, system legitimacy or watershed completion.", "current_state": "no_general_independent_verification_observed", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Trace source roots and independence class per claim.", "strengthening_signal": "Independent corroboration is added only claim by claim.", "weakening_signal": "Reciprocal first-party sources are counted as independent.", "data_limitations": "A low share can reflect honest evidence scarcity rather than falsity." }, { "id": "I80", "name": "Temporal Comparability Coverage", "definition": "Share of attempted longitudinal comparisons satisfying every mandatory comparison contract or returning a typed incomparable/unknown state.", "unit": "Percent of attempted comparisons", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "defined_local_method_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit TC01-TC12 for each comparison.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I81", "name": "Exact Baseline Lineage Coverage", "definition": "Share of repository-owned artifacts with prior/target digest boundary, result, and limitations preserved.", "unit": "Percent of eligible local artifacts", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_repository_baseline", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Verify baseline-lineage entries against exact local bytes.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I82", "name": "Not-Reobserved Truthfulness", "definition": "Share of external artifacts without a fresh capture that remain typed NOT_REOBSERVED rather than unchanged.", "unit": "Percent of non-reobserved external artifacts", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_registry_baseline", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect external change states and claim language.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I83", "name": "Material-Dimension Attribution Coverage", "definition": "Share of material change findings naming affected dimensions, rule/reviewer, rationale, and dependencies.", "unit": "Percent of material findings", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "measurement_framework_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit material change receipts.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I84", "name": "Restoration Proof-Obligation Coverage", "definition": "Share of restoration profiles with every mandatory obligation represented and non-compensable.", "unit": "Percent of profile obligations", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate profile obligation references and gate types.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I85", "name": "Stale Authority Rejection Coverage", "definition": "Share of restoration paths that query freshness, expiry, revocation, stay, jurisdiction, purpose, and scope before authority reuse.", "unit": "Percent of restoration paths", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit PO03-PO09 across profiles.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I86", "name": "Partition-History Conflict Visibility", "definition": "Share of contested-history cases preserving both histories, contested facts, unknowns, and maximum safe state.", "unit": "Percent of analytical cases", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_cases_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate PH01-PH24 fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I87", "name": "Reconciliation Before Full Restoration", "definition": "Share of full-restoration paths that block on unresolved material conflict.", "unit": "Percent of full-restoration paths", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "analytical_profiles_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Inspect state transitions and PO12.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I88", "name": "Restoration Receipt Dual-Legibility", "definition": "Share of receipt types carrying both stable machine fields and human questions for material state.", "unit": "Percent of receipt types", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "template_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Audit RT01-RT16 field/question requirements.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I89", "name": "Legibility Hard-Gate Coverage", "definition": "Share of material legibility dimensions evaluated independently without a compensatory composite score.", "unit": "Percent of defined dimensions", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "test_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate LE01-LE18 and paired fixtures.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I90", "name": "Invalidation Propagation Coverage", "definition": "Share of invalidation triggers specifying scope, dependent targets, history preservation, and revalidation gate.", "unit": "Percent of triggers", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "rule_definitions_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Validate IV01-IV20 propagation fields.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." }, { "id": "I91", "name": "Reproducible Local Property Run Coverage", "definition": "Share of declared local checks with exact input hashes, deterministic script identity, explicit result, and limitations.", "unit": "Percent of local checks", "interpretation": "Governance/evidence-handling metric; it does not score human worth, transfer authority, or establish production safety.", "current_state": "local_repository_run_only", "watershed_ids": [ "W18", "W21", "W22" ], "thresholds": [], "measurement_rule": "Re-run scripts/run-v018-local-properties.py and compare the run record.", "strengthening_signal": "Required state and limitations remain explicit and independently reviewable.", "weakening_signal": "Unknown, authority, history, or dependency state is collapsed into success.", "data_limitations": "Current release provides definitions and bounded local repository evidence only." } ] }