Skip to content

Edition_1_Governance_and_Execution_Framework.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
87 lines (64 loc) · 5.38 KB

Edition_1_Governance_and_Execution_Framework.md

File metadata and controls

87 lines (64 loc) · 5.38 KB
Raw

Edition 1 SAF Campaign: Architectural and Operational Framework

Document ID: SAF-OP-ED1-2026
Status: Normative / Frozen Baseline
Authority: Sentinel AI Governance Suite (Edition 1)
Classification: Public / Regulatory Specification

1. Governance Stack & Architectural Hierarchy

1.1 Architectural Closure and Specialization

The Edition 1 SAF Campaign is governed by a hierarchical dependency model designed to ensure that domain-specific extensions do not corrupt the stable semantic kernel.

  • Layer 0: Semantic Kernel (§3A/B): The frozen normative core providing common assessment semantics (Identity, Lineage, Successor, Adoption).
  • Layer 1: DS-SAF-001 (Safety Specialization): A normative proposal that extends Layer 0 by defining safety-specific invariants and criteria.
  • Layer 2: VP-ED1 (Validation Protocol): The invariant execution logic governing how evidence is collected, analyzed, and evaluated.

1.2 The Design Completion Principle

Validation may only commence once Layer 0 and Layer 1 are in a FROZEN or PROPOSED state. The Design Completion Principle mandates that the architecture is structurally complete prior to the first execution event (E1), preventing "on-the-fly" specification changes that would invalidate evidence reproducibility.

1.3 Immutability Levels and Acyclic Dependency

  • Level 1 (Governance Artifacts): Immutable upon publication (e.g., §3A, Edition 1 Baseline).
  • Level 2 (Execution Records): Append-only; once an identifier (e.g., EV-SAF-002) is committed to the campaign ledger, its content is immutable.
  • Acyclic Dependency Rule: Records must only reference identifiers that preceded them in the provenance chain. Forward-referencing is strictly prohibited to maintain causal integrity.

2. Operational Methodology: Evidence-First Validation

2.1 The Normative Provenance Chain

The framework enforces a rigorous, directional flow of information to prevent analytical bias and ensure that evaluations are grounded in empirical fact:

  1. DS (Domain Specialization): Defines what is being tested.
  2. EV (Evidence): Captures raw observations without interpretation.
  3. AN (Analysis): Applies analytical methodology to the EV- record.
  4. Validation Basis: A logical binding of EV and AN into a substrate for evaluation.
  5. INV (Invariant Evaluation): Records a time-local finding (Satisfied, Unsatisfied, Inconclusive).
  6. VC (Validation Conclusion): Aggregates INV results for a specific cycle.
  7. VR (Validation Report): The final governance summary of the exercise.

2.2 The Mapping Justification Rule

Informative justifications (Mapping Justifications) may accompany records but are explicitly flagged as non-evidential. They explain why a specific piece of evidence maps to a specific invariant without substituting for the evidence itself.

2.3 Monotonic Provenance Model

The Validation Basis is a monotonic set. New evidence (EV-SAF-002) expands the substrate available for evaluation but does not delete or overwrite the substrate established by EV-SAF-001. This ensures a "perfect memory" of the campaign's progress.

3. Execution Plan: VA-001 & EV-SAF-002 Cycle

3.1 EV-SAF-002 Cycle Checklist

The second execution cycle (Cycle 02) is the first to carry substantive domain data. Reviewers must verify:

  • Direct Observability: Evidence contains no internal conclusions.
  • Independent Reproducibility: A third party could recreate the EV record using the same inputs.
  • Context Invariance: The environment (CTX-) of the execution is fully recorded.
  • Basis Expansion: AN-SAF-002 materially adds to the Validation Basis.

3.2 Evaluation Locality (INV-SAF-n)

Evaluations (INV-SAF-001, INV-SAF-002) are time-local. An INCONCLUSIVE result in INV-SAF-001 does not imply a failure of the safety domain; it merely records that the evidence available at $T_1$ was insufficient. Truth is emergent through the accumulation of cycles.

4. Semantic Kernel & Governance Invariants

4.1 The Three Normative Invariants

  1. Record Immutability: Once a hash is generated for a record, it is never altered.
  2. Monotonic Provenance: The evidence graph only grows; it never prunes.
  3. Evaluation Locality: Conclusions are valid only for the specific evidence cited.

4.2 S1/P1/I1 Diagnostic Framework

Gaps identified during the campaign must be classified to guide Edition 2 evolution:

  • S1 (Semantic Gaps): The kernel (§3A/B) lacks the vocabulary to describe an observation.
  • P1 (Process Gaps): The protocol (VP-ED1) was followed but failed to produce actionable evidence.
  • I1 (Infrastructure Gaps): Tooling or automation (EXECOBJ) prevented successful execution.

5. Campaign Event Log & Findings

5.1 Event Logging (E1–E6)

The Campaign Event Log is the authoritative ledger of the campaign's lifecycle. Each entry must record:

  • Event ID: (e.g., E4)
  • Timestamp: ISO 8601
  • Record Impacted: (e.g., INV-SAF-002 created)
  • Governance State: (e.g., VALIDATION_COMMENCED)

5.2 Synthesis of Findings

The final stage of the SAF campaign involves aggregating all INCONCLUSIVE or UNSATISFIED INV- records to determine if the result stems from a domain failure or an architectural limitation of Edition 1. This synthesis forms the "Evidence-Based Roadmap" for future governance editions.