SRC-W3C-01 · standard
PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
Defines a W3C Recommendation for representing provenance entities, activities, and agents.
W3C — official/source page ↗Machine constitutional law
Machine Jurisprudence
A research framework separating case result, interpretive rule, precedent and training data so reversed cases do not remain hidden machine precedent.
Technical design proposal / research synthesisFact / proposal boundaries enforcedv0.14.0
Answer first
Can a reversed machine judgment keep influencing future judgments?
Yes, if case outcomes are copied into training or retrieval systems without preserving reversal status. Concresca therefore proposes Precedent Provenance: every interpretive use must preserve whether the underlying case was affirmed, limited, superseded or reversed.
Four layers
Case result is not automatically precedent
A result resolves one matter. An interpretive rule states a more general proposition. Precedent assigns institutional weight. Training data is a technical use. Those layers must not silently collapse.
Restoration link
Correct the doctrine as well as the person
When an appeal exposes an erroneous interpretation, restoration should examine whether the error has propagated into templates, retrieval corpora, training data or policy rules.
Clickable evidence
Sources supporting the factual layer
Source links establish traceability and support. They do not imply that the source endorses Concresca’s constitutional proposals.
Judgment-free total cognitive freedom
NO JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER. Concresca coordinates without assigning moral worth, character, guilt, danger, trustworthiness, loyalty, purity, normality, or social standing. Questions, thoughts, identities, messages, content, and conduct are not objects of Concresca judgment.