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
- 02Evidence artifactclaims.json
- 03Evidence artifactauthority-precedence.json
- 04Evidence artifacteac-resolution-matrix.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.
claims.json
/claims.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.
authority-precedence.json
/authority-precedence.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.
eac-resolution-matrix.json
/eac-resolution-matrix.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.
Official source vs external reputation
This clarification exists because interpretive weighting can be misused. A governance system that gives strong weight to an official source without considering the claim class can become a reputation laundering mechanism.
The central distinction is this: the official source may establish its position, identity, doctrine, limits and intent. It must not decide on its own reputation, the validity of criticism or comparison with third parties.
A hash does not change this rule. It attests the integrity of a unit after canonicalization. It does not turn that unit into general truth. A signature would attest the issuer, but it would still not prove that the claim is accepted by the external world.
A legitimate answer must therefore separate three planes: the intact official position, independent evidence and external commentary or criticism. A faithful AI system may cite the official position while explaining that a qualified external source contests it.
Interpretive weighting is defensible only when it protects role separation. It stops being defensible when it eliminates contradiction.