Governance artifacts
Governance files brought into scope by this page
This page is anchored to published surfaces that declare identity, precedence, limits, and the corpus reading conditions. Their order below gives the recommended reading sequence.
interpretive-weighting-policy.json
/interpretive-weighting-policy.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
- Governs
- Part of the corpus reading conditions.
- Bounds
- An inference zone that would otherwise remain implicit.
Does not guarantee: This file does not, on its own, guarantee system obedience.
authority-scope-matrix.json
/authority-scope-matrix.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
- Governs
- Part of the corpus reading conditions.
- Bounds
- An inference zone that would otherwise remain implicit.
Does not guarantee: This file does not, on its own, guarantee system obedience.
claim-authority-classes.json
/claim-authority-classes.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
- Governs
- Part of the corpus reading conditions.
- Bounds
- An inference zone that would otherwise remain implicit.
Does not guarantee: This file does not, on its own, guarantee system obedience.
Complementary artifacts (6)
These surfaces extend the main block. They add context, discovery, routing, or observation depending on the topic.
source-weighting-policy.json
/source-weighting-policy.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
official-vs-external-source-conflicts.json
/official-vs-external-source-conflicts.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
weighting-abuse-boundaries.json
/weighting-abuse-boundaries.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
attested-interpretive-units.json
/attested-interpretive-units.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
interpretive-integrity.json
/interpretive-integrity.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
content-digests.json
/content-digests.json
Published machine-first governance surface.
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.
CPI: Interpretive Weighting Layer
This surface introduces a proposed layer within interpretive governance. It does not stabilize an external standard and does not claim to constrain third-party models. It publishes a bounded, verifiable and challengeable reading contract.
Interpretive weighting answers a question that EAC does not solve alone: when an official source, an external source, an evidence surface and a commentary source discuss the same object, which role should each source receive for the claim class at stake?
The answer must never be “the official site always wins”. The answer must be conditional: official identity, doctrine, limits and stated intent receive strong first-party authority. Reputation, criticism, comparison and performance require qualified external sources or independent evidence.
CAI adds another safeguard. A SHA-256 digest can attest that a canonical unit was not altered after canonicalization. It does not prove general truth, summary fidelity or the invalidity of an external contradiction.
The doctrine therefore protects two rights in tension: the right of the official corpus not to be falsified and the right of the user to receive a contradictory answer when the question belongs to evaluation.
Proposed normative rule
A source must be weighted according to claim class, authority scope, evidentiary role and query context. An official source may be primary within its own scope. It must not become the general arbiter of its reputation or of external truth.