Skip to content

Edition_1_Governance_Publication_Model.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
90 lines (60 loc) · 6.21 KB

Edition_1_Governance_Publication_Model.md

File metadata and controls

90 lines (60 loc) · 6.21 KB
Raw

Edition 1 Governance Publication Model & EV-SAF-002 Operational Baseline

Document ID: SENTINEL-GOV-ED1-PUB
Version: Edition 1.0 (Frozen)
Status: Normative Archival Record
Classification: Public / Regulatory Reference

1. Governance Publication Hierarchy

The Sentinel AI Governance Suite distinguishes between three functional layers of publication to ensure the separation of authority from narrative and historical state.

  • 1.1 Governance Specification (Normative): The frozen, version-controlled set of rules, invariants, and meta-models (e.g., GISS-v1.0). It defines the mandatory "Rules of the System."
  • 1.2 Published Manuscript (Narrative): The human-readable Monograph that provides context, intent, and examples. While it guides interpretation, it is subordinate to the Normative Specification in cases of conflict.
  • 1.3 Archival Record (Immutable): The cryptographically hashed ledger of all Edition 1 artifacts. This includes the frozen specification and all subsequent execution evidence, forming the "Global Merkle Root" of governance state.

Edition Governance acts as the supreme transition authority, responsible for the formal "Design Completion" act that shifts the program from a development phase to an operational execution phase.

2. The Nine Constitutional Principles

The Edition 1 baseline is governed by nine foundational principles that ensure the integrity of the supervisory control plane:

  1. Authority Separation: The body that defines the rules (Governance) must be distinct from the body that executes them (Execution).
  2. Evidence Independence: Observations (EV-) must be recorded without regard for their impact on compliance status.
  3. Semantic Immutability: Once an Edition is frozen, its object models (e.g., EXECOBJ, GOVOBJ) cannot be altered until the next Edition cycle.
  4. Acyclic Traceability: Every decision must trace back to a specialization, which traces back to the kernel, without circular dependencies.
  5. Monotonicity: The governance record only grows; historical evidence or decisions are never deleted or overwritten.
  6. Direct Observability: Evidence must be based on primary data or verifiable system state.
  7. Reproducibility: An independent reviewer must be able to reach the same conclusion given the same Validation Basis.
  8. Design Completion: Architecture is finalized before execution begins; "fixing" the architecture during a campaign is prohibited.
  9. The Interpretive Rule: Semantic ambiguities discovered during execution are recorded as S1 (Semantic Gaps) rather than being resolved by ad-hoc patches to the specification.

3. Operational Lifecycle: Specification to Evolution

The transition from a theoretical framework to a planetary-scale control system follows a rigid five-stage lifecycle:

  1. Specification: Development and freezing of the Edition 1 Normative Kernel.
  2. Execution: Deployment of the Supervisory Control Plane and commencement of Validation Exercises (e.g., VA-001).
  3. Evidence: Collection of empirical observations (EV-) and analytical interpretations (AN-).
  4. Campaign Synthesis: Aggregation of exercise results into a Campaign Findings report, identifying S1/P1/I1 gaps.
  5. Governance Evolution: Formal review of findings by the Governance Authority to authorize the development of Edition 2.

The Phase Boundary: The transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2 represents a "Hard Wall." No modifications to the Kernel are permitted once the first Execution record (EV-) is initialized.

4. Initialization of EV-SAF-002

EV-SAF-002 represents the first governed operational exercise where the system moves beyond structural testing into substantive safety domain validation.

4.1 Governed Operational Execution Plan

  • Objective: Validate the safety-domain specialization DS-SAF-001 against the Edition 1 Semantic Kernel.
  • Provenance Chain: DS-SAF-001 → EV-SAF-002 → AN-SAF-002 → INV-SAF-002.
  • Data Discipline: Raw sensor/log data is ingested into EV-SAF-002. No evaluation logic is applied at this stage.

4.2 Initialization Checklist

  • Process Integrity: Verify that the Reviewer assigned to AN-SAF-002 was not involved in the creation of DS-SAF-001.
  • Artifact Traceability: Confirm EV-SAF-002 references the correct EVENTSTREAM- and EVENTTYPE- identifiers.
  • Authority Domain Alignment: Ensure the execution occurs within the trust boundaries defined in Part II §3 of the GISS.

5. Analysis of Claim Authority & Evidence Sufficiency

Edition 1 is defined as "Closed under Design, Open under Evidence." This means while the rules are fixed, the conclusions the system can reach are limited by the quality and quantity of evidence collected.

  • Meta-Invariant for Claim Authority: An invariant evaluation (INV-) cannot claim a state of "Compliant" or "Non-Compliant" if the Validation Basis (the union of EV- and AN-) is insufficient. In such cases, the result must be INCONCLUSIVE.
  • The Preservation Theorem: This theorem holds that as long as the monotonic provenance model is followed, the integrity of the "Global Merkle Root" is preserved regardless of the outcome of any individual validation exercise.

6. Success Criteria & Roadmap to Edition 2

The success of Edition 1 is not measured by a "Pass" in all safety assessments, but by the completeness of the evidence corpus.

6.1 Completion States

  • Saturated: The evidence corpus is sufficient to confirm or falsify all invariants in the specialization.
  • Exhausted: The current semantic kernel (Edition 1) is unable to process the evidence collected, resulting in a mandatory S1 gap report.

6.2 S1/P1/I1 Diagnostic Findings

  • S1 (Semantic): The Kernel lacks the necessary object types or relationships to model the domain.
  • P1 (Process): The workflow for evidence collection or analysis is flawed.
  • I1 (Infrastructure): Technical failures in the SCP or Digital Twin prevented data capture.

All S1 findings are automatically promoted to the Edition 2 Backlog, ensuring that the governance system evolves based on empirical friction rather than theoretical speculation.