artifacts/standard-named

HI-5 Validation Report

artifacts/standard-named/20260715__TELIC-FIELDS__VALIDATION-REPORT__WORKING__HI-5__structural-and-semantic-validation.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

HI-5 Validation Report

Status: completed Validation date: 2026-07-15

Schema validation

Twelve candidate Draft 2020-12 schemas were checked:

  • supporting-loop-reference.schema.json
  • dependent-loop-record.schema.json
  • substrate-contribution-map.schema.json
  • support-authority-grant.schema.json
  • support-burden-record.schema.json
  • hidden-recruitment-event.schema.json
  • telic-compatibility-assessment.schema.json
  • drift-record.schema.json
  • lock-in-capture-profile.schema.json
  • fork-exit-record.schema.json
  • dissolution-residual-state.schema.json
  • dependency-witness.schema.json

Result:

schemas checked: 12
schema errors: 0

Positive demonstrations

All eight required demonstrations passed:

  1. a legitimate dependency remained visible, bounded, reciprocal, reviewable, and escapable;
  2. hidden recruitment was detected and paused;
  3. a copied process failed under constitutional substrate mismatch;
  4. material mission drift triggered reauthorization;
  5. support burden became disproportionate and stopped expansion;
  6. continued recruitment after authority withdrawal produced a capture finding;
  7. a governed fork preserved lineage without preserving shared sovereignty;
  8. dissolution preserved records, obligations, repair, restricted data, and final witness.

Result:

positive demonstrations passed: 8
positive failures: 0

Negative conformance cases

All twelve prohibited patterns were detected:

  1. self-grounding fiction;
  2. continued support treated as consent;
  3. repeated hidden recruitment treated as authority;
  4. output success erasing support burden;
  5. visible form treated as compatibility;
  6. material drift without reauthorization;
  7. textual exit without effective release;
  8. support recruitment continuing after authority withdrawal;
  9. dissolution preserving assets while abandoning obligations and harms;
  10. biological pathologizing of telic incompatibility;
  11. fork erasing shared history;
  12. forced preservation of a loop when dissolution is the legitimate repair.

Result:

negative cases detected: 12
undetected negative cases: 0

Dependency witness

The DependencyWitness preserves:

  • declared and operative purpose;
  • supporting loops;
  • substrate contributions;
  • support grants;
  • support burdens;
  • hidden recruitment;
  • compatibility assessments;
  • drift;
  • lock-in and capture;
  • fork;
  • dissolution;
  • correction.

Result:

dependency witness schema: PASS
generated_from_events: true
dependency encoded as pathology: false
biological claims: false

Independent dependency export

The export contains:

  • supporting-loop references;
  • dependent-loop record;
  • substrate map;
  • support grant;
  • eight demonstrations;
  • dependency event stream;
  • DependencyWitness;
  • schemas;
  • manifest;
  • checksums.

Result:

checksum files verified: 26
checksum failures: 0
independent of originating model: true

Public-page consistency review

H.5 was checked against I.5 for the following claims:

  • no derived loop is self-grounding;
  • dependence is not inherently illegitimate;
  • support must remain visible and authorized;
  • repeated use does not create consent;
  • matching form does not prove substrate compatibility;
  • material drift requires review or reauthorization;
  • maintenance burden remains visible despite successful output;
  • textual exit may be ineffective;
  • support continuing after withdrawal can constitute capture;
  • fork preserves lineage while separating authority;
  • dissolution may preserve more of the purpose than preserving the form.

Result:

technical/public contradictions found: 0

Scope of validation

This report establishes structural and internal semantic validation only.

It does not establish:

  • a clinical theory of dependency;
  • a biological theory of transplant rejection;
  • a universal organizational-health metric;
  • legal findings of coercion or capture;
  • economic proportionality in every domain;
  • completeness of hidden-support discovery;
  • production security;
  • public-reader comprehension;
  • scientific proof of the broader framework.

Conditions before production use

  • define domain-specific burden and materiality thresholds;
  • authenticate support grants, withdrawals, and transfers;
  • test practical exit and portability;
  • define independent capture-review authority;
  • test compatibility assessment against real process migration;
  • implement dissolution record custody and deletion;
  • test contributor challenge and correction;
  • conduct independent reader testing of H.1 through H.5.