Consolidation step 4: evidence framework + data stewardship standard (P-075)#86
Conversation
Consolidation program step 4 (under the P-073 framework-first gate): - Evidence_Ladder.md gains the canonical Test Package Template (six required elements; pre-stated falsifiable failure criteria; a non-conforming package gates nothing; update order defers to the CER protocol; drift rule). Ten packages surveyed — all conformant in substance; structural follow-ups F-1–F-4 named. - Monitoring_Administrative_Safety_Packet.md gains the corpus's one Minimization and Purpose-Limitation Doctrine (six conditions, scope broadened from monitoring to any personal-data collection — a declared strengthening, not silent), a quote-sourced per-domain calibration table (gaps marked honestly; a gap cell is never authority to act — doctrine defaults govern inside gaps), a cross-domain linkage rule (silence forbids; independent finding; emergency findings expire in 30 days; unauthorized joins void, products inadmissible but underlying facts reachable by authorized process), and a drift rule (stricter text governs; ANNEX_AJ's P-004-protected clause recorded unmodified). - Monitoring Repurposing ETP's duplicated baseline deleted (-> pointer); ANNEX_K §K6 and ANNEX_I §I8 generic restatements defer to doctrine. - Data gaps escalated as owned follow-ups G-1–G-4; F-5 (one drift doctrine in the P-073 gate, separate constitution patch), F-6 (quote staleness checker), F-7 (ANNEX_A §A20) named. Panel: four independent single-role reviewers in parallel; all APPROVE WITH FIXES; all fixes applied (incl. the adversarial catches: emergency- finding laundering, inadmissibility immunity-washing, unnamed reuse reviewer; the corpus-fit catch that the template's update order contradicted the CER protocol it was meant to canonicalize). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1833cf2ed5
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| Each test's evidence packet follows the Evidence Packet Minimum above; this template governs the package document, the packet minimum governs each packet. | ||
|
|
||
| **Drift rule.** A package defines only its domain-specific claims, tests, thresholds, and residual risks, and cites this template for everything structural. Where a package restates a structural rule and the restatement diverges, this template governs. A new package may not introduce a new structural pattern without a framework-first justification under the Acceptance Protocol's anti-accretion rule (P-073). A package missing a required element, or whose failure criteria are too vague to be falsified, does not conform to this template and gates nothing: no claim may move up the ladder on the strength of a non-conforming package (see Forbidden Status Moves). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new drift rule makes any package missing a required element non-conforming and says it “gates nothing”, but the same P-075 entry records unresolved structural gaps in live packages: Capacity_Measurement lacks an affected-documents section, Commons_Return lacks abuse-model and affected-documents sections, and Cyber_Resilience lacks a standalone residual-risk statement (docs/governance/Patch_Log.md lines 1609-1612). Since only the Demurrage tombstone is exempted here, those live evidence packages become unable to advance claims until follow-ups are done, which is stronger than the patch’s stated consolidation/no-mass-rewrite intent.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
What
Consolidation program, step 4 of 5. Two mechanism families get one canonical home each — both as extensions of the most general existing instrument (P-073 discipline; no new docs, no new bodies).
Evidence framework (
Evidence_Ladder.md): the canonical Test Package Template — six required elements, the decisive one being pre-stated, falsifiable failure criteria ("a test without a published failure criterion is not a test; it is a demonstration") with a real enforcement hook: a non-conforming package gates nothing. All ten live packages surveyed and conformant in substance; four structural deviations named as follow-ups (F-1–F-4) instead of a risky mass rewrite.Data stewardship standard (
Monitoring_Administrative_Safety_Packet.md): the corpus's one minimization/purpose-limitation doctrine (the Monitoring Repurposing ETP's six conditions, carried with two declared strengthenings — scope broadened to all personal-data collection, appeal bound to the L7 spine); a quote-sourced per-domain calibration table that marks every unspecified retention/stripping rule as an honest gap — and makes the gap powerless ("doctrine defaults govern inside gaps; a gap cell is never authority to act"); a cross-domain linkage rule (silence forbids joins; independent finding before use; emergency findings expire in 30 days; unauthorized joins are void and sanctionable, products inadmissible — but independently-obtained evidence unaffected, so the rule can't be used as immunity-washing).Deletions: the ETP's duplicated baseline; ANNEX_K §K6 and ANNEX_I §I8's generic restatements now defer to the doctrine. Definition sites: evidence-package structure 10→1 canonical; minimization rule ~10→1 canonical. The four data-domain gaps are escalated as owned follow-ups G-1–G-4, so the confession has a path to repentance (the Christ-centered reviewer's phrase).
Ceremony
Four independent single-role panelists in parallel — all APPROVE WITH FIXES, all applied:
Validators: 0 errors; status consistency OK (114 docs); linkage tables OK.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code