artifacts/incoming

Conversation Ledger & Rendering Specification v0.2

artifacts/incoming/Conversation-Ledger-and-Rendering-Spec-v0.2.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Conversation Ledger & Rendering Specification v0.2

Source Logs, Witnessed Recaps, and Narrative Views

Status: DRAFT Intent: Canonical pause-point / ridge version

---

0. Orientation

This specification defines a two-layer model for multi-party, human–AI conversations:

  1. Source Layer — an append-only conversational ledger (no compression, no rewriting)
  2. Derived Layer — optional, witnessed narrative artifacts (recaps, summaries, views)

The system explicitly distinguishes:

  • what was said
  • what was verified
  • what was agreed
  • what failed to converge

Compression is never automatic and never authoritative unless witnessed.

---

1. Core Design Commitments

  1. Append-Only Source

The source conversation log is immutable.

  1. No Silent Consensus

Agreement must be explicitly witnessed to become referenceable.

  1. Compression Is an Artifact

Summaries are new objects, not mutations of history.

  1. Disagreement Is First-Class

Failure to converge produces a valid outcome: no recap artifact.

  1. Rendering Is a View, Not the Truth

Markdown is used for readability and portability, not authority.

---

2. Source Layer: Conversation Ledger

The source layer is an event stream. It MAY be stored as line-oriented markdown, but MUST be treated as raw ledger data.

2.1 Source Event Types

Each line/event has:

  • stable event ID
  • author (human or agent)
  • timestamp
  • content payload
  • optional references

2.1.1 Utterance Event

[event:m124] **Alice:** Is this number right?

2.1.2 Tool / Output Event

[event:m125] **CalcBot:** subtotal = 12480.23

2.1.3 Witness Injection Event (Additive)

[event:m126] **WitnessProxy:** Ambiguity detected: “this number” → subtotal?

Rules:

  • Source events are never collapsed or removed.
  • New meaning is expressed only by adding events.

---

3. Derived Layer: Narrative Artifacts

Derived artifacts are optional, bounded, and explicitly consented.

They include:

  • Recap Proposals
  • Witnessed Recaps
  • Rendered Narrative Views

---

4. Formal Recap Protocol (Normative)

4.1 Trigger

Any participant may invoke:

“Let’s do a formal recap.”

This freezes no conversation; it merely proposes a convergence attempt.

---

4.2 Recap Proposal

A designated recap agent (human or AI) produces a Recap Proposal:

# Recap Proposal RP-2026-01-21
Scope: events m120–m188

## Decisions
- D1: Subtotal accepted as $12,480.23

## Verifications
- V1: Invoice sum verified (see proof P-014)

## Commitments
- C1: Bob to send revised invoice by Friday

## Open Items
- O1: Tax treatment unresolved

## Dissent
- None recorded

Properties:

  • Must reference exact event ranges
  • Must enumerate open issues explicitly
  • Silence ≠ agreement

---

4.3 Acceptance Phase

Each participant (or proxy) responds with one of:

  • ✅ ACCEPT
  • ✍️ ACCEPT WITH EDITS
  • ❌ REJECT (must cite specific issues)

Responses are logged as source events.

---

4.4 Witness Threshold

A recap becomes a Witnessed Recap Artifact only if it meets the declared threshold:

  • Unanimous
  • Quorum
  • Role-weighted
  • Explicit timeout rule

If threshold is not met:

  • The recap proposal is archived
  • No compression artifact is created

This is a valid, honest outcome.

---

5. Witnessed Recap Artifact

When accepted, a new artifact is created:

# Witnessed Recap WR-2026-01-21
Accepted by: Alice, Bob, WitnessProxy
Scope: m120–m188

This note may be cited as settled context.

Rules:

  • This artifact is citeable
  • It never replaces the source
  • It may itself be reinterpreted later (additively)

---

6. Rendering & Compression (Non-Normative)

Renderers MAY:

  • Collapse resolved sections into markers:
  • [verification ✅]
  • [clarified intent ✅]
  • Tint resolved segments (green / amber / red)
  • Provide progressive disclosure into the ledger

Renderers MUST NOT:

  • Hide unresolved disagreement by default
  • Present unwitnessed recaps as authoritative

---

7. Reference Knowing vs Not Knowing

Downstream systems may say:

  • “Per Witnessed Recap WR-2026-01-21, Decision D1 stands.”
  • “No witnessed recap exists; see events m140–m173.”

This preserves epistemic honesty across time.

---

8. Relationship to FractalIdentity

  • Source events → Expression Events
  • Witness injections → Witness Events
  • Recap acceptance → Conditional / Collective Consent
  • Paradigm shifts → Reinterpretation without mutation

This spec assumes FractalIdentity Extension A semantics.

---

9. What This System Refuses to Do

  • It will not invent agreement
  • It will not overwrite history
  • It will not force coherence
  • It will not compress without consent

---

10. Closing Note

This architecture prefers truth over neatness.

Some conversations end with a clean bundle. Some end with a rich mess.

Both are real outcomes.

---

Draft v0.2 — ridge edition