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.
Q-Metrics JSON
/.well-known/q-metrics.json
Descriptive metrics surface for observing gaps, snapshots, and comparisons.
- Governs
- The description of gaps, drifts, snapshots, and comparisons.
- Bounds
- Confusion between observed signal, fidelity proof, and actual steering.
Does not guarantee: An observation surface documents an effect; it does not, on its own, guarantee representation.
Q-Metrics YAML
/.well-known/q-metrics.yml
YAML projection of Q-Metrics for instrumentation and structured reading.
- Governs
- The description of gaps, drifts, snapshots, and comparisons.
- Bounds
- Confusion between observed signal, fidelity proof, and actual steering.
Does not guarantee: An observation surface documents an effect; it does not, on its own, guarantee representation.
Q-Ledger JSON
/.well-known/q-ledger.json
Machine-first journal of observations, baselines, and versioned gaps.
- Governs
- The description of gaps, drifts, snapshots, and comparisons.
- Bounds
- Confusion between observed signal, fidelity proof, and actual steering.
Does not guarantee: An observation surface documents an effect; it does not, on its own, guarantee representation.
Complementary artifacts (3)
These surfaces extend the main block. They add context, discovery, routing, or observation depending on the topic.
Q-Ledger YAML
/.well-known/q-ledger.yml
YAML projection of the Q-Ledger journal for procedural reading or tooling.
Definitions canon
/canon.md
Canonical surface that fixes identity, roles, negations, and divergence rules.
Claims registry
/claims.json
Registry of published claims, their scope, and their declarative status.
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
- 03Weak observationQ-Ledger
- 04AttestationQ-Attest protocol
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.
Q-Ledger
/.well-known/q-ledger.json
Public ledger of inferred sessions that makes some observed consultations and sequences visible.
- Makes provable
- That a behavior was observed as weak, dated, contextualized trace evidence.
- Does not prove
- Neither actor identity, system obedience, nor strong proof of activation.
- Use when
- When it is necessary to distinguish descriptive observation from strong attestation.
Q-Attest protocol
/.well-known/q-attest-protocol.md
Optional specification that cleanly separates inferred sessions from validated attestations.
- Makes provable
- The minimal frame required to elevate an observation toward a verifiable attestation.
- Does not prove
- Neither that an attestation endpoint exists nor that an attestation has already been received.
- Use when
- When a page deals with strong proof, operational validation, or separation between evidence levels.
Complementary probative surfaces (2)
These artifacts extend the main chain. They help qualify an audit, an evidence level, a citation, or a version trajectory.
IIP report schema
/iip-report.schema.json
Public interface for an interpretation integrity report: scope, metrics, and drift taxonomy.
Citations
/citations.md
Minimal external reference surface used to contextualize some concepts without delegating canonical authority to them.
Canon vs inference mechanics (traceability and proof of fidelity)
In AI systems, an answer is not only a retrieval. It is a construction. When no explicit distinction exists between what the canon states and what the model infers, inference becomes invisible and therefore ungovernable.
This framework formalizes a simple mechanic: separate, bound, trace, and prove. Its objective is to reduce the canon-to-output gap and to make meaning production contestable.
Operational definition
“Canon vs inference” names the discipline by which a system distinguishes explicit canonical statements from model-derived additions, and treats the latter as bounded interpretive operations rather than silent truth.
Why it is critical
Without this separation:
- summaries look canonical when they are only plausible;
- sensitive attributes are added without proof;
- the authority perimeter shifts from declared source to generated fluency;
- correction becomes difficult because the source of the drift is no longer visible.
Application surfaces
This framework applies to definitions, doctrine, entity pages, recommendation systems, RAG outputs, and any surface where a system might transform a bounded canon into a broader claim.
Associated concepts
The framework directly relates to interpretation trace, proof of fidelity, canon-to-output gap, legitimate non-response, and authority conflict governance.
Framework rules (CVI-1 to CVI-8)
CVI-1: explicit separation
Every high-stakes answer should preserve a visible distinction between declared canon and generated inference.
CVI-2: bounded inference
Inference may exist, but only as a bounded extension. It cannot silently become a canonical statement.
CVI-3: prohibition on normative extrapolation
The system must not convert descriptive context into normative conclusion without an explicit authority basis.
CVI-4: proof condition for critical attributes
Identity, authority, legal status, eligibility, or high-impact claims require proof conditions stronger than plausibility.
CVI-5: traceability of the jump
When the answer goes beyond the canon, the interpretive jump must be reconstructible.
CVI-6: unresolved conflict stays unresolved
Where canonical signals conflict, the system must expose the conflict rather than hide it under a smooth synthesis.
CVI-7: legitimate abstention
If the canon is insufficient to authorize the output, clarification or non-response is preferable to speculative completion.
CVI-8: correction path
When the gap is excessive, the environment must provide a correction path: canon revision, structure change, signal reinforcement, or stricter gating.
What counts as proof of fidelity
Proof of fidelity does not require full internal model explainability. It requires enough evidence to show that the output remains tied to the canon, the authority boundary, and the declared response conditions.
Why this mechanic is central
The point is not to suppress all inference. The point is to prevent inference from impersonating authority.
Read also
- Interpretation trace
- Interpretation integrity audit
- Authority conflict governance
- Q-Layer
Why this remains a foundational mechanic
Most interpretive failures become harder to diagnose once canon and inference are blended. Keeping them separate is therefore not a stylistic preference. It is the precondition for proof, correction, and legitimate disagreement.
Practical consequence for audit
An audit becomes stronger as soon as it can say, with evidence, which part of an answer came from the canon and which part remained a bounded inference. That is why this framework is so closely tied to proof of fidelity and interpretation trace.
Closing note
Whenever the boundary between canon and inference stays visible, later disagreement, proof, and correction remain possible. Once the boundary disappears, governance becomes much harder.
Final doctrinal consequence
Every durable integrity regime eventually depends on this distinction. If canon and inference are not separable, fidelity cannot be proven with confidence.
Summary
The framework keeps one essential line visible: what the canon authorizes, what inference extends, and what proof must justify.