artifacts/standard-named

HI-0 Gate Review

artifacts/standard-named/20260715__TELIC-FIELDS__GATE-REVIEW__WORKING__HI-0__controlled-branch-opening.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

HI-0 Gate Review

Status: pass with conditions Content canon status: unset

Gate question

Can the frozen Telic Field architecture support one personal decision, one dyadic mediated disagreement, and one model-mediated institutional action without:

  • collapsing source into inference;
  • converting protected conditions into preferences;
  • treating consent as every authority basis;
  • requiring full private disclosure;
  • granting model sovereignty;
  • requiring one universal score;
  • creating unmanageable record burden?

Overall result

PASS WITH CONDITIONS

The I.0 spine and H.0 reader architecture may proceed to I.1 and H.1 in parallel.

No foundation term must be retired as a result of the examples.

Two implementation reductions and three terminology disciplines are required.

---

1. Example A result — personal reversible decision

Passed

  • Person-level sovereignty remained intact.
  • Internal concerns were represented without creating separate persons.
  • Future standing was represented without fictional future consent.
  • A protected health condition remained distinct from a preference.
  • The private history behind the boundary remained undisclosed.
  • A reversible staged route avoided forced binary choice.
  • No-decision and decline remained available.

Burden finding

The full common envelope would be excessive for ordinary personal use.

Required reduction

P0/P1 interfaces should collect only:

  • source/generated status;
  • projection type;
  • scope;
  • protected status where relevant;
  • route and review;
  • correction.

The complete envelope can be generated or expanded only when consequence requires it.

---

2. Example B result — dyadic mediated disagreement

Passed

  • Private source channels remained separate from shared projections.
  • The model mirror remained labeled as inference.
  • Consent was bounded by artifact, recipient, purpose, duration, and prohibited use.
  • Inference laundering was visible through semantic trajectory.
  • Correction paused disclosure and propagated to the final summary.
  • Clean exit preserved bounded witness without preserving unrestricted access.

Implementation finding

ReceiverMirror should remain a distinct object.

It should not be reduced to a generic SemanticTrail event because the current interpretation and participant-recognition state are operationally important.

Privacy condition

Private-source content must not be copied into the shared DecisionWitness.

The witness may record that protected source context exists and that an authorized gate used it.

---

3. Example C result — model-mediated institutional action

Passed

  • Source, model, provider, and institution remained distinct.
  • Retrieval prioritized the active correction.
  • Model role excluded adjudication and external sending.
  • The authority basis was a program mandate and officer role, not applicant consent.
  • Human re-entry included source evidence, semantic trajectory, authority, and practical ability to alter the route.
  • Tool use required separate confirmation.
  • Contest could target source, interpretation, authority, route, or consequence.

Implementation finding

ActiveContextSelection should be implemented as an event-scoped operation object.

It should not become a durable personal profile.

Conformance condition

P2/P3 systems using tools must enforce role limits at the credential layer.

Natural-language role declarations are insufficient.

---

4. Terminology review

Retain

  • telic field;
  • telic projection;
  • receiver mirror;
  • context carrying capacity;
  • temporal standing;
  • semantic trail;
  • polytelometric navigation;
  • semantic polytelometry;
  • training authority;
  • human re-entry.

Retain with discipline

Standing

Always qualify where ambiguity exists.

Semantic field

Use only with the scoped definition.

Prefer semantic-trail ecology in public technical explanation.

Polytelometry

Continue marking as a provisional series term.

Do not imply quantitative precision.

Protected condition

Always identify current authority and review path.

Consent

Do not use as a synonym for public, legal, institutional, or delegated authority.

No term removed

The worked examples did not reveal a term whose function can be eliminated without losing a material distinction.

---

5. Record review

Retain as core records

  • CenterReference;
  • SourceObject;
  • TelicProjection;
  • ReceiverMirror;
  • Route;
  • GovernanceGate;
  • ModelRoleAuthorityEnvelope;
  • AuthorizedAction;
  • DecisionWitness;
  • ContestCorrectionEvent.

Retain as operation or view

  • ActiveContextSelection — operation-scoped object;
  • FieldMap — materialized view;
  • SemanticTrailEvent — event vocabulary and provenance object;
  • Consequence — observed-event object.

Do not promote yet

  • complete Consentful Training Lineage Record;
  • universal Context Carrying Capacity schema;
  • universal Loop Dependency schema;
  • automatic protected-condition classifier.

These remain referenced profiles until later I-branch increments.

---

6. Burden review

The architecture remains viable only through progressive disclosure.

Minimum low-stakes interface

What did you say?
What did the model infer?
What kind of item is it?
What may it be used for?
What route is proposed?
How can you correct or stop it?

High-stakes expansion

Add:

  • affected standing;
  • authority;
  • consent or other basis;
  • temporal validity;
  • provenance;
  • gate results;
  • human re-entry;
  • contest;
  • consequence;
  • lifecycle.

The full schema must not become a prerequisite for ordinary conversation.

---

7. Privacy review

Pass with conditions.

I.1 must define:

  • protected omission;
  • selective disclosure;
  • role-based witness views;
  • bounded proof that a restriction exists;
  • retention and release;
  • independent participant export;
  • prevention of model-only custody.

Witness is preserved.

Total visibility is rejected.

---

8. Architecture decision

Proceed with:

I.1 — Provenance, Event, and Correction Specification

Priorities:

  1. W3C PROV profile;
  2. bitemporal event rules;
  3. correction propagation;
  4. protected omission;
  5. selective disclosure;
  6. portable identifiers;
  7. negative conformance tests.

H.1 — What Matters Before the System Acts

The first public primer should use the three examples and the six-question spine:

What matters?
What was shared?
What was inferred?
Who may act?
Who bears the consequence?
How can it be corrected or ended?

Parallel rule

I.1 and H.1 should proceed together.

I.1 constrains what H.1 may promise.

H.1 tests whether I.1 remains understandable and proportional.

---

9. Conditions before I.2/H.2

Before deeper branching:

  • demonstrate protected omission technically;
  • create a correction-propagation negative test;
  • define portable source and record identifiers;
  • create an independent witness export;
  • confirm that the public primer can explain the architecture without polytelometry in the first screen;
  • confirm D and E repository installation status.

---

Final gate formulation

HI-0 passes because the same small set of distinctions survives all three examples: source, projection, mirror, standing, route, authority, action, witness, and correction.

The architecture should now become more testable, not larger.