Consolidation F-5: one canonical-home (anti-drift) discipline (P-077, Session 27)#88
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… Session 27) Consolidation follow-up F-5: the four near-identical drift rules the program itself created (status spine, appeal spine, evidence template, data doctrine) collapse into ONE canonical-home discipline in the P-073 gate of Acceptance_Protocol.md. The drift principle — what drift is, how the stricter-text exception resolves — is now stated once, centrally; the four leaves are reduced to pure pointers (home-declaration + own enforcement + cite), each keeping its specific teeth (status build-fail; gates-nothing; spine-governs; stricter-data-wins) so a captured central paragraph cannot disable a home's enforcement. The consolidated exception is STRONGER than the four it replaced: a domain claiming a 'more protective' variant now bears the burden of showing it stronger on every dimension a person relies on (coverage, retention, revocability, speed, accessibility), records the claim with reasoning, and the claim is appealable on the spine — an unrecorded divergence is drift by default. Three of the four prior versions had no burden at all. The known-homes index is marked a convenience record (a home is canonical from creation, not from being listed). Panel: four parallel single-role reviewers. The minimalist caught that the first draft left the leaves restating the principle (true count 5, not 1) — fixed: leaves are now pure pointers, claim corrected. The adversarial supplied the burden-and-appealability clause. Christ-centered (Session 27, 9/10) and corpus-fit approved without required fixes. Validators green (114 docs). 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: 5694ea157f
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".
|
|
||
| **The simplicity presumption.** The burden of proof rests on addition, never on deletion. A proposal that consolidates or deletes mechanisms while preserving the protected function may not be rejected solely because it reduces institutional count. Two limits bind the presumption: (a) it attaches to mechanism count, never to independence count — a consolidation that reduces the number of independent checks bearing on any single actor or body, including merging detection, audit, attestation, or appeal functions under one body's control, loses the presumption and is reviewed as a power-concentration proposal (INV-006 is the floor of this principle, not its ceiling); and (b) a consolidation must demonstrate, with the same specificity demanded of additions, that every protected person retains an equivalent or better path to the protection — especially the person on the survival floor, the person mid-appeal, and the person whose only remedy runs through the mechanism being merged. Simplicity that costs the most burdened person their protection is not simplicity; it is cost transferred downward. The standing intake question for every proposal: *which existing rule already covers this, and what could this proposal delete?* | ||
|
|
||
| **Canonical-home discipline (the anti-drift rule).** This is the single statement of the rule that the status, appeal, evidence, and data homes each enforce locally; those documents declare their home and their own enforcement and cite here, and do not restate this rule. The framework-first rule produces, for each protective function, a single **canonical home** — the spine, template, standard, or register that performs it. Once a home exists, domain documents cite it and keep only their domain-specific substance (data, thresholds, bodies, boundaries); a domain document that restates the shared rule is **in drift**, and where the restatement diverges the home governs and the divergence is corrected. One exception runs only one way: a domain's text that is **strictly more protective of the affected person** governs and is recorded as a deliberate protection, never as drift — but the burden rests on the domain to show the variant is stronger on *every* dimension a person relies on (coverage, retention, revocability, speed, accessibility), not merely on net; a variant stronger on one axis and weaker on another is drift, the claim is recorded with its reasoning and is itself appealable on the spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](../annexes/ANNEX_L.md)), and an unrecorded divergence is drift by default. The exception does not reach a **uniform procedural rule** (an appeal clock, a filing window) where uniformity is itself the protection a person relies on. Each home names its own enforcement, and the discipline cannot be disabled centrally: a contradicting status assertion fails the consistency build; a non-conforming evidence package gates nothing; a divergent appeal procedure yields to the spine; a weaker data rule yields to the stricter. A domain may not invent a new home for a function a home already serves. For convenience the current homes are indexed here — **status:** [Claims and Evidence Register](../governance/Claims_Evidence_Register.md); **appeals and remedy:** [ANNEX_L §L7](../annexes/ANNEX_L.md); **evidence-package structure:** the Test Package Template in the [Evidence Ladder](../governance/Evidence_Ladder.md); **data minimization and purpose limitation:** the [Monitoring Administrative Safety Packet](../governance/Monitoring_Administrative_Safety_Packet.md) — but a home is canonical from its framework-first creation, not from appearing in this list; a lag in updating the index is a documentation defect to correct, never a denial of the home. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This adds new text to docs/constitution/Acceptance_Protocol.md, but the repo-level AGENTS.md File Constraints say, “Do not modify docs/constitution/Humane_Constitution.md, docs/constitution/Acceptance_Protocol.md, or docs/constitution/INVARIANTS.md without explicit instruction.” I don't see such authorization carried with this change, so landing this constitutional edit as-is violates the protected-file rule; remove it or land it only with explicit authorization recorded.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| | structural — no threat row (appeal spine) | P-074 | **ACTIVE** | ANNEX_L §L7 | | ||
| | structural — no threat row (evidence framework + data stewardship) | P-075 | **ACTIVE** | Evidence_Ladder.md Test Package Template · Monitoring Administrative Safety Packet | | ||
| | structural — no threat row (institution merger audit) | P-076 | **ACTIVE** | ANNEX_AQ · ANNEX_AL · ANNEX_AM · Capacity Measurement Evidence Test Package · SPECIFICATIONS | | ||
| | structural — no threat row (canonical-home discipline) | P-077 | **ACTIVE** | Acceptance_Protocol.md P-073 gate · Claims_Evidence_Register · ANNEX_L §L7 · Evidence_Ladder · Monitoring Administrative Safety Packet | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new P-077 linkage is added only to Patch_Log.md, while docs/annexes/ANNEX_AH.md §AH8 remains unchanged even though the repo-level AGENTS.md identifies AH8 as the master threat/patch/annex linkage table. Any reader or tooling using that master table will miss the new ACTIVE canonical-home patch, creating traceability drift; add the matching AH8 entry when introducing P-077.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
The named follow-up F-5 from the consolidation program: the four drift rules the program itself wrote —
status spine,appeal spine,evidence template,data doctrine, each ending with its own "domains cite the home; a divergent restatement is drift; the home governs" — collapse into one canonical-home discipline in the P-073 gate. This is the program turning its own anti-accretion rule on its own largest leftover restatement.Ceremony (and an honest course-correction)
Four parallel single-role panelists. This one earned its dissent:
Validators: 0 errors; status consistency OK (114 docs); linkage tables OK.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code