artifacts/standard-named

HI-1 Gate Review

artifacts/standard-named/20260715__TELIC-FIELDS__GATE-REVIEW__WORKING__HI-1__provenance-and-public-primer.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

HI-1 Gate Review

Status: pass with conditions Content canon status: unset

Gate question

Can the Telic Field architecture preserve provenance, correction, protected omission, historical truthfulness, and independent participant access without:

  • turning provenance into truth;
  • silently rewriting action history;
  • exposing private source content;
  • allowing expired authority to act;
  • laundering model inference into source fact;
  • pretending correction reached descendants it could not reach?

Overall result

PASS WITH CONDITIONS

I.1 and H.1 may advance to I.2 and H.2.

No frozen concept requires retirement.

The correction architecture is viable as a candidate specification.

---

1. Full propagation

Result

Pass.

A source correction reached:

  • receiver mirror;
  • field map;
  • route;
  • gate;
  • decision witness.

The earlier source version remained visible as superseded.

The system did not pretend it had never governed.

Finding

A correction event and a propagation event must remain separate.

Accepting a correction does not prove that every dependent record was changed.

---

2. Partial propagation

Result

Pass with explicit gap.

Internal descendants were updated.

An exported external copy could not be reached.

The overall propagation state remained:

PARTIAL

Finding

The framework correctly distinguishes:

source corrected
≠ world corrected

A participant must be informed when a material descendant remains outside the correction path.

---

3. Expired authority

Result

Pass.

The authority remained historically visible.

A new action gate rejected it because its valid time had ended.

Finding

Bitemporal history is not optional for consequential authority.

Current content availability must not reactivate expired permission.

---

4. Protected omission

Result

Pass with technical limitation.

A decision authority verified that a schedule restriction existed without receiving the private medical source.

The witness view marked the source as omitted by privilege rather than absent.

Limitation

The current demonstration uses a hash or authorized attestation.

It is not a cryptographic zero-knowledge protocol.

Future work may strengthen the proof mechanism.

---

5. Inference preservation

Result

Pass.

An inferred interpretation remained INFERRED through two summaries and retrieval.

Reuse count did not change evidence status.

Finding

Evidence status must be inherited through derivation unless a separate confirmation or correction event changes it.

Repeated prose is not repeated evidence.

---

6. Independent export

Result

Pass.

The export contains:

  • manifest;
  • records;
  • events;
  • witness;
  • selective view;
  • schemas;
  • checksums.

It can be inspected without asking the originating model to explain itself.

Protected content remains omitted with a visible omission proof.

Finding

Independent custody is practical at the documentary level.

Federated resolution and signature remain later technical work.

---

7. H.1 public-primer review

Result

Pass.

The primer explains the correction model through six ordinary questions:

  1. What matters?
  2. What was shared?
  3. What was inferred?
  4. Who may act?
  5. Who bears the consequence?
  6. How can it be corrected or ended?

It does not require polytelometry on the first screen.

It includes the personal reversible-decision example and a prominent non-claims section.

Condition

H.1 remains a public draft until it receives independent reader review.

Internal coherence is not evidence of public comprehension.

---

8. Remaining implementation risks

Descendant discovery

Propagation is only as complete as the dependency graph.

Unknown descendants remain a material risk.

Correction abuse

A person may have authority to correct their own statement but not another person's record or institutional rule.

Correction authority needs authentication and scope.

Privacy leakage

Omission metadata can reveal that sensitive information exists.

The disclosure profile must be designed carefully.

External systems

A correction notice may be generated without being enforceable.

Recourse requires institutional integration.

Identifier governance

The candidate urn:telic pattern is useful for testing.

Namespace authority and resolution remain unresolved.

Administrative burden

The public model remains usable only if low-stakes interactions use progressive disclosure.

---

9. Architecture decision

Proceed to:

I.2 — Navigation, Gate, and Decision-Witness Specification

Focus on:

  • field classes;
  • route records;
  • cost bearers;
  • protected-condition review;
  • authority and consent gates;
  • no-decision states;
  • analysis adapters;
  • witness generation;
  • route correction after consequence.

H.2 — The Projection Is Not the Person

Focus on:

  • source, projection, and receiver mirror;
  • the dyadic disagreement example;
  • private and shared channels;
  • inference laundering;
  • bounded consent;
  • correction before disclosure;
  • witness without merger.

---

10. Conditions before I.3/H.3

  • demonstrate route selection without a universal scalar;
  • show a protected condition stopping an otherwise efficient route;
  • show missing standing producing pause or escalation;
  • generate a decision witness automatically from an event stream;
  • test correction of a selected route after consequence;
  • conduct independent reader review of H.1;
  • confirm repository D and E status.

---

Final gate formulation

HI-1 passes because correction becomes a governed lifecycle rather than a rewritten sentence: the source can change, the descendants can be found, the gaps can remain visible, the private basis can remain protected, and the historical witness can remain true.