Evidence layer
Probative surfaces brought into scope by this page
This page does more than point to governance files. It is also anchored to surfaces that make observation, traceability, fidelity, and audit more reconstructible. Their order below makes the minimal evidence chain explicit.
- 01Canon and scopeDefinitions canon
- 02Response authorizationQ-Layer: response legitimacy
- 03Evidence artifactinterpretation-policy.json
Definitions canon
/canon.md
Opposable base for identity, scope, roles, and negations that must survive synthesis.
- Makes provable
- The reference corpus against which fidelity can be evaluated.
- Does not prove
- Neither that a system already consults it nor that an observed response stays faithful to it.
- Use when
- Before any observation, test, audit, or correction.
Q-Layer: response legitimacy
/response-legitimacy.md
Surface that explains when to answer, when to suspend, and when to switch to legitimate non-response.
- Makes provable
- The legitimacy regime to apply before treating an output as receivable.
- Does not prove
- Neither that a given response actually followed this regime nor that an agent applied it at runtime.
- Use when
- When a page deals with authority, non-response, execution, or restraint.
interpretation-policy.json
/.well-known/interpretation-policy.json
Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.
- Makes provable
- Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
- Does not prove
- Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
- Use when
- When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.
Interpretive authority vs affective sovereignty
This clarification distinguishes a useful external development from the doctrine of this site.
The Springer Nature Communities post on interpretive authority in AI governance frames a specific problem: conversational systems may influence how people interpret their own emotions, intentions, and internal states. That is an affective and psychological case of interpretive authority: who has the final authority to say what a person feels?
GautierDorval.com uses interpretive authority more broadly. The site focuses on how AI systems reconstruct the meaning of statements, entities, doctrines, public claims, sources, and response conditions.
Affective sovereignty
Affective sovereignty protects the person from being over-interpreted by AI.
Its central question is:
Who has authority over the meaning of an internal state?
That question matters because a generated interpretation can become persuasive even when it should remain subordinate to the person’s own account.
Interpretive authority on this site
Interpretive authority on this site concerns another set of objects:
- definitions;
- public statements;
- canonical sources;
- institutional claims;
- doctrinal perimeters;
- machine-first governance files;
- AI answers that reuse fragments.
Its central question is:
Who has authority over the meaning of a source, claim, entity, doctrine, or response?
What must not be flattened
Affective sovereignty is not the whole of interpretive authority. It is one case where authority over meaning may be displaced.
The doctrine of this site does not import affective sovereignty as a root framework. It treats it as an adjacent example showing why accuracy is not enough when a system becomes an interpreter.
Practical distinction
Affective sovereignty protects inner meaning.
Interpretive governance protects declared meaning.
Statement-level authority protects extracted meaning.
Response legitimacy tests whether the final answer preserved the right authority.