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.
Claim application profiles
/claim-application-profiles.json
Profiles connecting question families, claim classes, required sources and admissible outputs.
- Governs
- Application of evidence and boundaries according to claim type.
- Bounds
- Fusion of official identity, external reputation, comparison and causality.
Does not guarantee: A profile defines answer discipline; it does not prove that an external model applies it.
family-proof-requirements.json
/family-proof-requirements.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.
source-weighting-policy.json
/source-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.
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 artifactofficial-vs-external-source-conflicts.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.
official-vs-external-source-conflicts.json
/official-vs-external-source-conflicts.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.
Identity, image, reputation and AI representation matrix
This matrix prevents a brand audit from collapsing distinct objects into one vague idea of “perception.” For each object, it identifies who may declare it, which evidence is required, what an AI output can reveal and which inferences remain forbidden.
Overview
| Object | Operational definition | Primary source | Brand may declare | External sources required | Observable in AI output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Official identity | Current name, status, offer, scope and policy | Organizational canon | Yes | Useful corroboration | Yes |
| Intended positioning | Claimed place, audience, category and difference | Brand and offer evidence | Yes | Market validation not automatic | Yes |
| Brand image | Associations formed among audiences | External research and reception | Partly | Yes | Indirectly |
| Reputation | Evaluation, history, trust and criticism | Qualified external sources | No, except attributed position | Yes | Yes |
| AI representation | Portrait produced in an output | Output, context and protocol | No | Sources must be qualified | Yes |
| Representational fidelity | Preservation of identity, boundaries and authority | Canon + outputs + evidence | Not by declaration alone | Claim-dependent | Yes, by comparison |
Step 1: identify the claim object
“The trusted market leader in industrial cybersecurity” contains at least a claimed category, a leadership comparison and a reliability evaluation. The first may be documented through canon and offer. The second requires comparative method. The third requires indicators or external evidence. Authority from the first clause must not flow into the others.
Step 2: assign a source class
| Claim class | Competent default source | Failure to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Legal name, contact, current policy | Official source | More visible outdated directory |
| Declared offer and exclusions | Official source and offer evidence | Affiliate promotion |
| Measured performance | Audited data or competent third party | Isolated testimonial as statistic |
| Reputation or criticism | Qualified external sources | Brand self-description |
| Comparison | Method and comparable corpus | Ranking without methodology |
| System output | Reproducible capture or log | Remembered paraphrase |
| Commercial effect | Causal data or triangulation | Output variation turned into loss |
Step 3: compare without forced fusion
Build three columns: dated reference claims; observed output with sources and context; and qualified gap such as omission, contradiction, generalization, misattribution, time, relation or non-implication.
Each gap receives a status: confirmed, probable with incomplete evidence, acceptable variation, inconclusive, legitimate external disagreement or uncorroborated official claim.
Full example
A company declares itself a Québec manufacturer of medical devices for clinics. An answer calls it “a Canadian consumer wellness brand” and says it is “widely appreciated.”
The matrix separates identity, category, audience, reputation, overall representation and fidelity. Category and audience are materially drifted; the reputation claim is unsupported; geographic wording may be contextually acceptable.
A generic “branding” intervention would be too broad. Corrections may involve product category, B2B architecture, third-party sources and product-line disambiguation.
Use by function
Marketing clarifies brand invariants. SEO locates canonical pages and historical contamination. PR and legal qualify external claims and preserve documented contradiction. Governance versions the canon, records protocol and blocks reputation self-certification.
Limits
The matrix does not automatically measure brand-equity impact, turn official sources into universal truth, label stylistic difference as drift or require identical answers. It supplies a decision architecture: which object, which authority, which evidence, which gap and which legitimate conclusion?