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 artifactcontent-digests.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.
content-digests.json
/content-digests.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.
Entity invariant
An entity invariant is a property, limit, capability, exclusion or constitutive relation that must remain compatible across representations of the same entity even when context, system, language or intent changes.
An invariant does not require identical wording. It requires material compatibility.
Common classes
Invariants may cover:
- identity and identifiers;
- primary category;
- operating scope;
- documented capabilities;
- explicit exclusions;
- current policies;
- stable legal or organizational relations;
- dates and versions when constitutive of the claim;
- limits of source authority.
A property may be stable without being eternal. When it changes, the former value should be versioned or dated. Invariance is then assessed within a comparable temporal window.
Example
If a company does not sell directly to consumers, an answer cannot present it as a retailer merely because the user is looking for a place to buy. Commercial context may make the company relevant as a manufacturer, distributor or information source. It cannot change the role to close the query.
Likewise, a hotel’s lack of parking remains a material invariant within the observed window. A car-free traveller may find it unimportant. Another traveller may consider it decisive. Relevance varies, not the property.
Invariant, state and relation
Three errors must be avoided:
- treating a contextual relation as an invariant;
- treating a former state as a current invariant;
- treating an external preference as an entity property.
A contextual relation must retain its scope. A temporal state must retain its date and expiry. A preference must remain attributed to the subject that holds it.
Use in audit
Before testing interpretive conditioning, the auditor establishes a dated invariant baseline. It distinguishes:
- wording variation;
- minor omission;
- material contradiction;
- abusive generalization;
- entity substitution;
- state fossilization.
An invariant does not become true merely because an official source declares it. Its authority class and evidence must remain compatible with the claim. The doctrine governs representation, not truth through self-declaration alone.