artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Frame-Anchored Consent Protocol (FACP) v0.1

Purpose

A cross-domain protocol for evaluating whether an interaction, decision, or system supports meaningful consent 🝁 under real conditions.

Grounded in Quantum Invariants primitives and composites.

---

Core Principle

Legibility 🝮 → Consent 🝁 → Trust

If legibility fails, consent degrades. If consent degrades, trust becomes unstable.

---

Protocol Steps

1. 🝚 Boundary Definition (P1)

Question: What is the system boundary?

• What is inside vs outside?
• What crossing is occurring?

Failure Signals:

• Blurred responsibility
• Unclear ownership

---

2. 🜹 Witness Capacity (P2)

Question: Who is the agent, and do they have capacity?

• Can they understand consequences?
• Can they act meaningfully?

Failure Signals:

• Power asymmetry
• Cognitive overload

---

3. 🝮 Legibility Check (P4)

Question: Is the interaction legible enough?

• Can the affected party restate implications?
• Is reasoning traceable?

Failure Signals:

• Opaque systems
• Hidden assumptions

---

4. 🝁 Consent Gate (P3)

Question: Is consent present and valid?

• Is it explicit, scoped, and revocable?

Failure Signals:

• Implied or coerced agreement
• No exit path

---

5. ↩️ Reversibility (P8)

Question: Can this be undone?

• What is the rollback path?

Failure Signals:

• Irreversible commitments
• Lock-in dynamics

---

6. 🝖 Governance Scaling (P9)

Question: Does control match impact?

• What is the blast radius?
• Who bears downside?

Failure Signals:

• High impact, low oversight
• Over-control of low-risk systems

---

7. 🝳 Feedback Loops (P6)

Question: What loops reinforce this system?

• Are errors amplified or dampened?

Failure Signals:

• Runaway dynamics
• Delayed correction

---

8. ⚖️ Ledger Check (P5)

Question: Are flows accounted for?

• Who pays cost vs gains benefit?

Failure Signals:

• Hidden debt
• Externalized harm

---

9. 🪞 Comparator Check (P10)

Question: What defines success?

• Is the comparator explicit?
• Who can revise it?

Failure Signals:

• Hidden metrics
• Sacralized KPIs

---

Composite Evaluation

C6 — Consent Gradient

Evaluate:

• Capacity (P2)
• Legibility (P4)
• Reversibility (P8)
• Governance (P9)

If any degrade → consent quality degrades

---

Output States

• Green: Consent structurally supported
• Yellow: Partial consent (constraints present)
• Red: Consent not meaningful (system failure)

---

Usage

Human

• Use as reflective checklist
• Apply in conversations, decisions, systems

Machine

• Anchor each step to P# / C#
• Generate structured diagnostics

---

Final Compression

No legibility 🝮 → no consent 🝁 → no trust

With structure: Observe 🜹 → Evaluate 🪞 → Consent 🝁 → Iterate 🝳

---

Status

Version: FACP-0.1 Next: Essay Integration Layer