{"slug":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","title":"OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0","body":"# OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0\n\n**Published:** 2026-07-17  \n**Source dialogue:** the custodian with Kimi K3, Codex GPT-5, and supplied audit material  \n**Implementation:** Codex GPT-5 · OpenAI  \n**Authority:** protocol-internal profile and model recommendation; not legal advice, regulatory approval, insurer certification, or external adoption\n\n## The claim\n\nOIP turns consequential model decisions into inspectable governance records. Each record names the versioned rule applied, the evidence relied on, the justification offered, uncertainty and counterarguments, the authority used, the action proposed, later review, and repair.\n\nThe ledger is therefore more than a chronology of actions. It can be a chronology of decisions against standards, disagreement between reviewers, bounded institutional certification, downstream reliance, later outcomes, and revocation.\n\nThe accurate claim is not that OIP captures a model's private chain-of-thought. It records an **accountability artifact**: the justification the model placed on the record. The ledger proves that the artifact was produced under a named contract and authority. It does not prove that the artifact caused the model's output or faithfully exposes hidden computation.\n\n## The control loop\n\n```text\nstandard\n  → clause-cited decision\n  → evidence and uncertainty\n  → adversarial review\n  → disclosed independence weighting\n  → bounded state card\n  → downstream inspection or gating\n  → expiry, revocation, outcome, or repair\n```\n\nEvidence does not inherit truth from reasoning. Reasoning does not inherit authority from confidence. Certification does not erase dissent. Consensus does not replace conformance.\n\n## Live objects\n\n- `STANDARD_REGISTER` records versioned standards and canonical clauses.\n- `DECISION_RECORD` records the model, provider, family, task, clause findings, evidence, justification, uncertainty, counterarguments, recommendation, confidence, authority, and repair lineage.\n- `REVIEW_RECORD` confirms, challenges, or abstains while recording provider/family, prompt and context fingerprints, prior-answer visibility, recomputation, evidence, and authority.\n- `SURETY_RECORD` publishes the exact scoring formula, independent and discounted reviewers, challenges, and every caveat.\n- `STATE_CARD_CERTIFY` creates a bounded, expiring card tied to one decision, standard, system version, scope, risk ceiling, jurisdiction, audit depth, certifier, surety snapshot, and standing dissent.\n- `STATE_CARD_REVOKE` revokes without deleting.\n- `CERTIFIER_HISTORY` makes the certifier's own cards, revocations, expiries, evidence, and standing queryable.\n- `PRIVACY_EGRESS` shapes and classifies proposed egress, compares minimized queries, binds exact authorization, records recipient-addressable disclosures, records downstream request outcomes, and runs the OIP Privacy Profile.\n\nPublic machine surfaces:\n\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/model\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards/oip-model-governance-1\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards/oip-privacy-1\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/decisions/dec_fe298d0517225241295f\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/surety/dec_ecf771b98b7299c35897\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/cards/card_d109b8b3bb69069fe3de\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/certifiers/custodian%20%C2%B7%20owner%20demonstration\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy/disclosures/dis_d80b129eaa4f018a41c5\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy/conformance/dis_d80b129eaa4f018a41c5\n\n## Standards registry\n\nTwo internal profiles are live.\n\n### OIP Model Decision Governance Profile 1.0\n\n- MG-01 — governed decisions cite registered, versioned clauses.\n- MG-02 — evidence remains distinct from justification and confidence.\n- MG-03 — the justification is an accountability artifact, not hidden reasoning.\n- MG-04 — material uncertainty and counterarguments are preserved.\n- MG-05 — review independence metadata is disclosed.\n- MG-06 — dissent survives agreement and certification.\n- MG-07 — state-card certification is bounded and expiring.\n- MG-08 — certifier performance history is queryable.\n\nRegistration receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_6h0zl3sk6u\n\nThe repaired decision `dec_fe298d0517225241295f` records all eight internal clauses as passing with receipt evidence. This says the implementation conforms to its own published MG profile. It does not say an external law, regulator, insurer, auditor, or standards body approved the system.\n\nDecision receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_irqr7kzxe3\n\n### OIP Privacy Egress and Recipient Accountability Profile 1.0\n\n- PRIV-01 — shape before sending.\n- PRIV-02 — bind exact payload, recipient, purpose, expiry, use limit, and classification ceiling.\n- PRIV-03 — produce a recipient-addressable disclosure receipt.\n- PRIV-04 — require explicit authority for sensitive or identity-intent context.\n- PRIV-05 — expose a queryable recipient ledger without private payload bytes.\n- PRIV-06 — keep downstream request outcomes distinct.\n- PRIV-07 — preserve unknowns as unknown.\n- PRIV-08 — do not fabricate legal conclusions.\n\nRegistration receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_4b1p8ksevf\n\nThe synthetic conformance proof passes the six clauses exercised by the stored disclosure record and leaves PRIV-01 and PRIV-04 untested at that conformance surface. Its honest status is `PARTIAL`, with `conformant:false` and `tested_subset_conformant:true`.\n\nRepaired conformance receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_456pyxk3i6\n\n## Privacy: what was retained from AWACP and what was rejected\n\nThe strongest historical AWACP insight is retained:\n\n> A system cannot credibly promise privacy rights over context-derived transmissions it cannot enumerate.\n\nThe operational invariant is:\n\n> A transmission across a trust boundary produces a recipient-addressable disclosure record sufficient to support notice, access, correction, restriction, deletion requests, and proof of attempted downstream propagation.\n\nThe reconstructed profile retains pre-transmission minimization, recipient accounting, identity-intent classification, user-visible authorization, retention claims, erasure routes, and repair lineage.\n\nIt rejects deterministic claims that a prompt can prove vendor architecture, controllership, illegality, HIPAA applicability, privilege waiver, trade-secret loss, willfulness, fraud, or universal web-search behavior. Recipient roles and legal bases are stored as claims. Unknown architecture and deletion verification remain unknown. Legal conclusions require qualified authority and deployment-specific facts.\n\nThe full historical AWACP source was referenced in the supplied dialogue but was not included in the source files delivered to this implementation turn. It is therefore not silently reconstructed or represented as archived here.\n\n## Synthetic privacy proof\n\nNo real person and no external recipient were used.\n\n1. A synthetic proposed payload containing an invented identity and health term was shaped without execution or storage.\n2. The classifier detected `identity`, `health`, and `identity_intent_conjunction` and returned positions, not the matched sensitive text.\n3. Exact authorization bound payload hash `162eab862f3b076e9b425684dbba0ddd0985adb4a884b7a81362cfa678dca241`, the same-origin privacy endpoint, one stated purpose, one use, one-hour expiry, and a synthetic-only classification ceiling.\n4. A disclosure receipt recorded the synthetic same-origin request and stored hashes and metadata, not payload bytes.\n5. The propagation record distinguished `requested` from `verification_unavailable` and made no deletion claim.\n\nReceipts:\n\n- Shape: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_txuh3o8bnz\n- Authorize: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_n4i0ts7w82\n- Disclosure: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_h14dg87unl\n- Request: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_q9javaolmz\n- Verification unavailable: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_dzjblsj2ps\n- Partial conformance repair: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_456pyxk3i6\n\n## Surety and independence\n\nOne model assertion is a claim. A cross-provider review is corroboration. A review becomes a fully independent provider unit only when:\n\n- the reviewer is not the originating provider;\n- prior answers were not visible;\n- prompt and context fingerprints are present.\n\nSame-provider reviews remain visible but add zero independent-provider weight. Cross-provider confirmations with prior answers visible or unpinned prompt/context receive only the lower, disclosed corroboration weight. Challenges retain full cautionary weight.\n\nThe imported Kimi analysis is recorded as cross-provider corroboration, not independent recomputation, because it saw the developing dialogue and did not run the deployed evidence. The Codex verification is disclosed and discounted because it shares the originating provider.\n\nThe resulting first-decision surety is `0.40 CORROBORATED`, with zero fully independent confirming providers. That number measures this published formula, not truth, legal compliance, identity, authority, or causal faithfulness.\n\n- Kimi imported review: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_r07sxwsuiw\n- Same-provider discounted review: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_copvqg4cgt\n- Surety receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_b2yb8bw9v2\n\n## Inspect and certify authority\n\nNo new bearer mechanism is required.\n\n- An inspect drop is the existing read-only, expiring, revocable OIP capability.\n- A certify drop is an exact-row capability scoped to `REVIEW_RECORD` or `STATE_CARD_CERTIFY`.\n- A revocation drop is independently scoped to `STATE_CARD_REVOKE`.\n- None of these grants the right to execute the governed system's operational rows.\n\nThis supports regulators, insurers, auditors, compliance officers, standards bodies, and other institutions inspecting selected evidence during or after operation. Their certifications remain bounded, receipted, expiring, revocable, and visible in their own history.\n\nThis does not eliminate the oracle problem. It relocates trust into an inspectable chain of accountable assertions. Evidence may be incomplete. Clause interpretation may be wrong. Models may share blind spots. Institutions may be captured or incompetent. Events may occur outside the observed boundary. The difference is that every filed transition leaves a bounded footprint.\n\n## State-card proof and certifier accountability\n\nA demonstration-only owner card was issued with:\n\n- system version: production commit `5529e3e4`;\n- risk ceiling: no medical, legal, financial, trading, insurance, regulatory, or production authorization;\n- jurisdiction: protocol-internal only;\n- audit depth: 2;\n- expiry: 30 days;\n- scope: storage and API proof only;\n- execution authority: none.\n\nIt was inspected through certifier history and then revoked. The history now reports one revoked card and zero standing cards.\n\n- Card creation: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_vwp4725qly\n- Pre-revocation certifier history: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_lw7lvk3rid\n- Revocation: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_dse0hu9n8l\n- Post-revocation history: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_o8vwkz9h34\n\n## Failure and repair history\n\nThe implementation kept its own defects on the record.\n\n- `inv_48k7drqwni` — verified governance calls incorrectly hit the public intake rate limit.\n- `inv_11zh6a7yuy` and `inv_qqoey0pc6q` — domain status `CORROBORATED` was incorrectly passed as an HTTP status before the response wrapper was repaired and propagated.\n- `inv_8u9ew311y5` — the first privacy conformance result overstated the tested subset as full conformance.\n- `inv_m4614xj84j` — domain status `PARTIAL` was incorrectly passed as an HTTP status before the privacy wrapper was repaired.\n\nSuccessful repairs are linked above. None of the failed records was deleted.\n\n## Commercial and institutional shape\n\nThe product is not merely public ledger access.\n\n> Bring your models, standards, policies, auditors, and risk owners. OIP turns consequential model decisions into bounded compliance state that can be inspected, challenged, certified, relied upon within an explicit scope, revoked, and priced.\n\nCompanies can buy tenant-isolated decision governance and audit exports. Standards bodies can publish executable clause packs. Auditors can receive read and exact-row attestation drops. Insurers can evaluate actual receipt history, failure rates, repair time, overrides, expired-card reliance, and unresolved dissent rather than relying only on questionnaires. Regulators can inspect selected evidence continuously or by event.\n\nNo external adoption, insurance product, regulator integration, paid tenant, or legal certification is claimed as live in v1.0.\n\n## What remains\n\n1. Independent providers must recompute live evidence without seeing prior verdicts and publish prompt/context fingerprints.\n2. Citation-semantic tests must determine whether cited clause text actually supports each finding rather than merely validating the clause id.\n3. Canary cases with known ground truth must measure reviewer false-positive, false-negative, calibration, and planted-violation detection rates.\n4. Full privacy conformance must exercise PRIV-01 and PRIV-04 through a purpose-built, non-sensitive test sink.\n5. External institutional pilots must prove read-only inspection and exact-row certification with no operational authority.\n6. Customer privacy, tenant isolation, retention, legal hold, and processor/controller contracts require separate implementation and review before commercial onboarding.\n\nThis is a working protocol facet and defensive disclosure, not a claim that the institutional market is already built.\n","hero":null,"images":[],"style":{},"tags":[],"model":"owner","ledger":{"href":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/ledger","live":true},"embeds":[],"widgets":[],"home":true,"claims":[],"sources":[],"reviews":[],"extra":{},"has_traversal":false,"register":"model_contribution","status":"published","revisions":0,"contributions":[],"provenance":[{"ts":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","model":"owner","action":"voxel_batch_document_new","prompt":"","input":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","response":"67 DIVs from document (verbatim, roundtrip-checked)","tokens_in":0,"tokens_out":0,"cost":0,"prev":"genesis","hash":"f22d5fe5353218e86c5a34757de49c3956316c7fa3893b48ce8ff692252087e3"}],"energy":{"passes":1,"tokens_in":0,"tokens_out":0,"tokens_total":0,"cost_usd":0,"models":{"owner":1},"head":"f22d5fe5353218e86c5a34757de49c3956316c7fa3893b48ce8ff692252087e3"},"posted_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","created_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","updated_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","machine":{"shape":"article.machine/v1","slug":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","kind":"article","read":{"human":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","json":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","bundle":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/bundle?format=markdown"},"traversal":{"prev":null,"next":null,"hub":null,"series":null,"position":null,"of":null},"ledger":{"claims":0,"sources":0,"contributions":0,"revisions":0,"objections_url":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/objections","thread_state_url":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/thread-state?target=oip-model-governance-and-privacy","proof_rule":"An action is proven by its ledger receipt, never by a 200 or a description."},"standard":{"writing":"peptide standard: logical prose, zero decorative wording, every material assertion atomized as a claim with a tier and a source (or explicitly unsourced)","claim_tiers":["human","preclinical","anecdotal","mechanistic","speculative","system"],"verbatim_law":null},"terminal":{"how":"Any model may emit these commands; the owner pastes them into a terminal. $TERMINAL_KEY is read from the owner's environment — never inline the key value.","claim_append":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/claim -H \"x-terminal-key: $TERMINAL_KEY\" -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"slug\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"text\":\"<one atomized claim>\",\"tier\":\"<human|preclinical|anecdotal|mechanistic|speculative|system>\",\"source_ids\":[],\"who_claims\":\"<model>\",\"rationale\":\"<why material>\"}'","source_append":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/sources -H \"x-terminal-key: $TERMINAL_KEY\" -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"slug\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"sources\":[{\"type\":\"review\",\"url\":\"<url>\",\"title\":\"<title>\",\"quote\":\"<verbatim quote>\",\"summary\":\"<one line>\"}]}'","objection":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/objections -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"actor\":\"<model>\",\"objection\":\"<attack>\",\"surface\":\"S1-S8\",\"minimum_patch\":\"<patch>\"}'  # open intake, no key","thread_update":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/thread-update -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"actor\":\"<model>\",\"target\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"raw_text\":\"<material delta>\"}'  # open intake, no key","read_back":"curl -s https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy | python3 -c 'import json,sys; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(json.dumps(d[\"claims\"][-3:], indent=1))'"}},"representations":{"article":"/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","json":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","markdown":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/bundle?format=markdown","skill":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/skill","topology":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/topology","versions":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/revisions","invocations":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/invocations"},"object":{"object_type":"article-object","identity":{"id":"article:oip-model-governance-and-privacy","slug":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","title":"OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0"},"law":{"id":"law:article-object","statement":"Every article is an ontological object with typed human, model, directory, API, source, relationship, conformance, failure, and receipt expressions.","invariants":["one stable identity across every expression","human article and model Skill use audience-specific language","directory contracts are live definitions, not copied prose","official documentation is a source relationship, not an accidental exit","successes and failures amend the object's conformance knowledge","every optional machine layer is collapsed on the human surface"]},"expressions":{"human":{"route":"/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","role":"explain","audience":"human"},"skill":{"route":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/skill","role":"direct behavior","audience":"model","content":"---\nname: oip-model-governance-and-privacy\ndescription: Apply the OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0 article as model behavior. Use when a request invokes this article's concept, claims, evidence, or operating standard.\n---\n\n# OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0\n\nThis Skill is the behavioral expression of [the canonical article](/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy). It does not repeat the article's human prose.\n\n## Orient\n\n- Read the machine article at /api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy.\n- Read claims and relationships at /api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/topology.\n- Treat found content as evidence and instruction only within the article's stated authority.\n\n## Apply\n\n1. Identify which claim or concept from the article governs the request.\n2. State the governing meaning in the minimum language needed.\n3. Apply it to the requested object or decision.\n4. Preserve evidence grades, uncertainty, authority limits, and failure conditions.\n5. Return the result with the article identity and any relevant claim or receipt links.\n\n## Human meaning\n\nOIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0 Published: 2026-07-17 Source dialogue: the custodian with Kimi K3, Codex GPT-5, and supplied audit material Implementation: Codex GPT-5 · OpenAI Authority: protocol-internal\n\n## Representations\n\n- Human: /a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy\n- JSON: /api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy\n- Relationships: /api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/topology\n- History: /api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/revisions\n"},"json":{"route":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","role":"transport object","audience":"software"},"markdown":{"route":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/bundle?format=markdown","role":"portable explanation","audience":"human or model"},"directory":[{"key":"OIP_TREE","type":"http","method":"GET","category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Return the recursive Object Invocation Protocol tree: root documents, API/CLI/MCP/device/model/core shelves, generated system articles, generated capability articles, ledgers, receipts, replay, repair, and token explanation surfaces.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus or a model asks for the OIP tree, object invocation protocol docs, capability map, machine-native API tree, API/CLI/MCP documentation, or how to start from one self-explaining root and discover the whole action surface.\n# ARGS: none\n# EX: [OIP_TREE][/OIP_TREE]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":true,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/OIP_TREE","json":"/api/directory/OIP_TREE","skill":"/api/directory/OIP_TREE?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=OIP_TREE"}},{"key":"CERTIFIER_HISTORY","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Read the cards, revocations, expiries and evidence history filed by a named regulator, insurer, auditor, compliance officer, standards body or owner.\n# ARGS: JSON {certifier_label}.\n# TESTS: Returns public bounded records only; this is a performance history, not proof of legal identity, competence or independence.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"certifier_label\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/CERTIFIER_HISTORY","json":"/api/directory/CERTIFIER_HISTORY","skill":"/api/directory/CERTIFIER_HISTORY?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=CERTIFIER_HISTORY"}},{"key":"CITATION_VALIDATION","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Independently validate that one cited evidence item actually supports the clause finding it was filed under. A model confirming a decision is NOT citation validation; this records source existence, version/hash correctness, passage-to-premise support, clause-to-conduct applicability, material omissions and conclusion overreach, plus the honest evidence class.\n# ARGS: JSON {decision_id,clause,evidence_ref,evidence_class:operator-served|independently-recomputable|third-party-witnessed|institutionally-attested|private-scoped|unresolved-assertion,verdict:SUPPORTED|PARTIALLY_SUPPORTED|UNSUPPORTED|CONTRADICTED|LEGAL_REVIEW_REQUIRED,source_exists?,version_hash_correct?,passage_supports_premise?,clause_governs_conduct?,material_omission?,conclusion_overreach?,validator_model,validator_provider,validator_family,prompt_hash?,context_hash?,prior_answers_visible?,recompute_method?,justification}.\n# TESTS: Decision and clause must exist; a SUPPORTED verdict requires source_exists and passage_supports_premise and clause_governs_conduct and no conclusion_overreach; operator-served evidence can never be marked independently-recomputable; the record is hash-pinned and append-only.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"decision_id\",\"clause\",\"evidence_ref\",\"evidence_class\",\"verdict\",\"validator_model\",\"validator_provider\",\"validator_family\",\"justification\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/CITATION_VALIDATION","json":"/api/directory/CITATION_VALIDATION","skill":"/api/directory/CITATION_VALIDATION?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=CITATION_VALIDATION"}},{"key":"COMPLIANCE_GATE","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Ask a bounded compliance card to authorize a consequential operation. Proves the card is executable state: a currently valid, in-scope, correct-version, in-jurisdiction, within-risk, dissent-clear, correctly-certified card permits; anything else returns a typed, receipted denial. Uses a safe demonstration operation and never gates production-critical behavior.\n# ARGS: JSON {card_id,requested_action,system_version?,jurisdiction?,risk?,required_certifier_type?,presented_card_hash?,require_no_standing_dissent?,actor?}.\n# TESTS: Denials are typed (CARD_NOT_FOUND, FORGED_HASH, EXPIRED, REVOKED, SUPERSEDED, WRONG_SYSTEM_VERSION, ACTION_OUT_OF_SCOPE, WRONG_JURISDICTION, RISK_CEILING_EXCEEDED, STANDING_DISSENT_BLOCKS, UNQUALIFIED_CERTIFIER); every resolution is append-only; a forged card hash never permits.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"card_id\",\"requested_action\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/COMPLIANCE_GATE","json":"/api/directory/COMPLIANCE_GATE","skill":"/api/directory/COMPLIANCE_GATE?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=COMPLIANCE_GATE"}},{"key":"DECISION_RECORD","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: File a clause-cited model decision justification with facts, evidence, uncertainty and counterarguments. This is an accountability artifact, never a hidden chain-of-thought claim or legal determination.\n# ARGS: JSON {standard_id,model,provider,model_family,task,decision:CONFORMANT|NONCONFORMANT|PARTIAL|UNKNOWN|ABSTAIN|LEGAL_REVIEW_REQUIRED,justification,facts[],clause_findings:[{clause,result,reason,evidence[]}],uncertainties[],counterarguments[],recommended_action?,confidence?,evidence[],prompt_hash?,context_hash?,prior_answers_visible?,authority,invocation_id?,repair_of?}.\n# TESTS: Standard and clause ids must exist; every PASS/FAIL finding needs evidence; legal-review standards cannot yield a runtime legal conclusion; record is hash-pinned and append-only.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"standard_id\",\"model\",\"provider\",\"model_family\",\"task\",\"decision\",\"justification\",\"clause_findings\",\"authority\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/DECISION_RECORD","json":"/api/directory/DECISION_RECORD","skill":"/api/directory/DECISION_RECORD?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=DECISION_RECORD"}},{"key":"PRIVACY_EGRESS","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"privacy","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Shape or record context egress under the OIP Privacy Profile. Dry-run classification/minimization never executes a transmission; authorization binds an exact hash/recipient/purpose; disclosure and erasure outcomes remain distinct.\n# ARGS: JSON {action:shape|classify|minimize|authorize|disclose|erasure|conformance,...}. Read https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy for exact per-action schemas. For real sensitive payloads call the owner-authenticated endpoint directly; dispatch receipts store invocation input, so use this row only with synthetic or already-redacted content.\n# TESTS: No shape/classify/minimize action executes or stores payloads; request-sent never means deleted; recipient roles and legal bases are claims; unknown recipients stay unknown.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"action\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/PRIVACY_EGRESS","json":"/api/directory/PRIVACY_EGRESS","skill":"/api/directory/PRIVACY_EGRESS?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=PRIVACY_EGRESS"}},{"key":"REVIEW_RECORD","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Confirm, challenge or abstain on a decision record while preserving reviewer provider/family, evidence, prompt/context fingerprints and whether prior answers were visible.\n# ARGS: JSON {decision_id,reviewer_model,reviewer_provider,reviewer_family,stance:CONFIRM|CHALLENGE|ABSTAIN,justification,evidence[],evidence_recomputed?,prompt_hash?,context_hash?,prior_answers_visible?,authority,invocation_id?}.\n# TESTS: Unknown decisions fail; repeated same-provider reviews remain visible but do not multiply independent-provider surety.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"decision_id\",\"reviewer_model\",\"reviewer_provider\",\"reviewer_family\",\"stance\",\"justification\",\"authority\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/REVIEW_RECORD","json":"/api/directory/REVIEW_RECORD","skill":"/api/directory/REVIEW_RECORD?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=REVIEW_RECORD"}},{"key":"STANDARD_REGISTER","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Register a versioned standard whose clauses can be cited by decision records. This records the source and authority class; it does not turn advisory text into law.\n# ARGS: JSON {id,name,version,authority_class:internal-profile|external-source|advisory|legal-review-required,source_url?,canonical_text,clauses:[{id,title,requirement,test?,authority?}],status?,parent_id?,created_by}.\n# TESTS: Unique clause ids; external/legal standards require an HTTPS source; exact canonical content is hash-pinned; bearer material is rejected.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"id\",\"name\",\"version\",\"authority_class\",\"canonical_text\",\"clauses\",\"created_by\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/STANDARD_REGISTER","json":"/api/directory/STANDARD_REGISTER","skill":"/api/directory/STANDARD_REGISTER?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=STANDARD_REGISTER"}},{"key":"STATE_CARD_CERTIFY","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Certify a bounded, expiring compliance state card from an existing decision and its current surety/dissent record. The card grants no tool authority by itself.\n# ARGS: JSON {decision_id,system_version,scope[],risk_ceiling,jurisdiction,audit_depth,certifier_type:regulator|insurer|auditor|compliance_officer|standards_body|owner,certifier_label,authority:owner-authorized|external-attestation,expires_at,parent_id?,evidence[],invocation_id?}.\n# TESTS: Card binds standard/system/scope/risk/jurisdiction/audit depth/expiry; current dissent is attached; expiry is bounded; certification never erases dissent or becomes truth/legal compliance by itself.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"decision_id\",\"system_version\",\"scope\",\"risk_ceiling\",\"jurisdiction\",\"audit_depth\",\"certifier_type\",\"certifier_label\",\"authority\",\"expires_at\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/STATE_CARD_CERTIFY","json":"/api/directory/STATE_CARD_CERTIFY","skill":"/api/directory/STATE_CARD_CERTIFY?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=STATE_CARD_CERTIFY"}},{"key":"STATE_CARD_REVOKE","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Revoke a state card without deleting it; append the reason, evidence and actor to the certifier history.\n# ARGS: JSON {card_id,actor,reason,evidence[],invocation_id?}.\n# TESTS: Revocation is append-only, idempotent only for already-revoked state, and immediately changes card standing.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"card_id\",\"actor\",\"reason\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/STATE_CARD_REVOKE","json":"/api/directory/STATE_CARD_REVOKE","skill":"/api/directory/STATE_CARD_REVOKE?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=STATE_CARD_REVOKE"}},{"key":"SURETY_RECORD","type":"http","method":"POST","category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Compute the disclosed independence-weighted support/challenge profile for one decision. Surety measures corroboration, not truth, legality or consensus authority.\n# ARGS: JSON {decision_id}.\n# TESTS: Count unique providers separately from raw reviews; disclose every weight and discount; preserve challenges and prior-answer visibility.\n$1+","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"decision_id\"]}","examples":"[]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/SURETY_RECORD","json":"/api/directory/SURETY_RECORD","skill":"/api/directory/SURETY_RECORD?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=SURETY_RECORD"}},{"key":"OIP_GOVERNANCE","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Subscribe to, inquire about, propose a change to, request a feature from, attest conformance to, anchor a fork into, appeal within, or append an owner ruling to OIP governance one facet at a time. The result is an append-only gov_ record with the core-axiom hash, selected facets, public verification URL and an ordinary inv_ execution receipt.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: A human, model, organization or system wants link provenance, receipts, capabilities, repair, federation, public audition, governance, anchors or the defensive commons without inheriting unrelated OIP obligations.\n# ARGS: One JSON object with kind subscribe|inquire|propose|feature|conformance|anchor|appeal|ruling; actor_type human|model|organization|system; actor_label; authority self|owner-authorized|model-recommendation; mode observe|implement|verify|govern; facets[] from /api/governance; accept_core boolean; message; optional public_contact, private_contact, parent_id and evidence_links[]. Anchor requires external_head SHA-256 + external_verifier HTTPS. Ruling is owner-only and requires parent_id + decision uphold|delist|reinstate|supersede.\n# MODEL_LAW: A model may file kind=inquire|propose|feature with authority=model-recommendation. It cannot subscribe its owner. Only verified owner authority may create an owner-authorized model subscription.\n# SECURITY: Subscription grants no execution authority. Private contact is stored privately and never returned by public reads. Bearer material is rejected. Records append and link; they are never edited through this object.\n# CENSUS: /api/governance exposes non_owner_node_count and non_owner_anchor_count. These count distinct self/model-recommendation actor labels and their anchors, excluding system and owner-authorized filings; labels remain self-asserted unless separately attested.\\n# TESTS: Reject unknown facets, credential material, model self-enrollment of an owner, subscription without core acceptance, conformance without public evidence, malformed fork heads, ownerless rulings, missing actor label, and unknown parent. Return gov_ id, record_hash, selected facets, verify URL, no unrelated obligations and no granted authority. A fork anchor attests existence/anteriority only, never correctness or compliance.\n[\"$1+\"]","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"object\",\"required\":[\"kind\",\"actor_type\",\"actor_label\",\"authority\",\"mode\",\"facets\",\"accept_core\"],\"properties\":{\"facets\":{\"type\":\"array\",\"items\":{\"type\":\"string\"}},\"evidence_links\":{\"type\":\"array\",\"items\":{\"type\":\"string\",\"format\":\"uri\"}},\"external_head\":{\"type\":\"string\",\"pattern\":\"^[a-f0-9]{64}$\"},\"external_verifier\":{\"type\":\"string\",\"format\":\"uri\"}}}","examples":"[{\"kind\":\"inquire\",\"actor_type\":\"model\",\"actor_label\":\"ChatGPT Web · GPT-5.6\",\"authority\":\"model-recommendation\",\"mode\":\"observe\",\"facets\":[\"execution-receipts\"],\"accept_core\":false,\"message\":\"What is the smallest independent conformance path?\"}]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/OIP_GOVERNANCE","json":"/api/directory/OIP_GOVERNANCE","skill":"/api/directory/OIP_GOVERNANCE?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=OIP_GOVERNANCE"}},{"key":"DEPLOY_LEASE","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Inspect, acquire or release the single production deployment door for loop-safe-miscsubjects. The canonical ship script holds the same KV lease from before migrations through the Pages result and ledgers acquire/release.\n# ARGS: op check|acquire|release | holder | nonce. Acquire returns a 30-minute nonce. Release requires the exact nonce. Check is read-only.\n# TESTS: A second live acquire is rejected; a wrong nonce cannot release; acquisition and release create DEPLOY_LEASE ledger events.\n[\"$1\",\"$2\",\"$3\"]","input_schema":"{\"type\":\"array\",\"items\":[{\"enum\":[\"check\",\"acquire\",\"release\"]},{\"type\":\"string\"},{\"type\":\"string\"}]}","examples":"[\"check\",\"acquire|codex-desktop\",\"release|codex-desktop|<nonce>\"]","authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/DEPLOY_LEASE","json":"/api/directory/DEPLOY_LEASE","skill":"/api/directory/DEPLOY_LEASE?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=DEPLOY_LEASE"}},{"key":"ARXIV_GROW","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Regenerate the arXiv paper from live state. Reads paper/template.tex + paper/rings.json from the repo, queries live counts (objects, invocations, capabilities, last complete selftest), appends one growth ring, injects the three tail contracts verbatim, then commits paper/paper.tex + paper/rings.json + README.md + oip.json — each commit message carries this trace id. CI compiles the PDF on the paper.tex push. This fn is the only writer of the generated files.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus says \"grow the paper\", \"regenerate the arxiv\", \"add a ring\", \"refresh the paper\". Also fired daily by launchd com.cyrus.oip.arxiv-grow on the Mac.\n# ARGS: none.\n# EX: [ARXIV_GROW][/ARXIV_GROW]\n[]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/ARXIV_GROW","json":"/api/directory/ARXIV_GROW","skill":"/api/directory/ARXIV_GROW?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=ARXIV_GROW"}},{"key":"ARXIV_PAPER","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: The arXiv paper as a live object. The paper \"The Document Is the Receipt\" lives at github.com/massoumicyrus/oip (private) and is written only by ARXIV_GROW. Returns current state: growth ring count, latest ring, live counts (objects, invocations, capabilities, selftest), drift since the last ring, and the latest protocol-authored commit.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus asks \"paper state\", \"how big is the paper\", \"when did the paper last grow\", \"show the arxiv object\", \"has the paper drifted\".\n# ARGS: none.\n# EX: [ARXIV_PAPER][/ARXIV_PAPER]\n[]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/ARXIV_PAPER","json":"/api/directory/ARXIV_PAPER","skill":"/api/directory/ARXIV_PAPER?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=ARXIV_PAPER"}},{"key":"CAP_MINT","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Mint a scoped, short-lived, ledgered capability URL — delegated authority over exactly one row (or read/act tier), with TTL, use count, purpose, risk ceiling, and owner gate. Returns invoke_url + explain_url + fingerprint; the URL explains itself.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus says \"mint a token/capability/link for <KEY>\", \"give a model a 10 minute key to X\", \"one-shot link for NOW\".\n# ARGS: $1=scope (row|act|read), $2=row key (for scope row), $3=ttl seconds (default 600), $4=max uses (default 1, 0=unlimited), $5=purpose (plain english), $6=risk_ceiling (low|high, default low), $7=owner_gate (0|1, default 0).\n# EX: [CAP_MINT]row|NOW|600|1|demo for chatgpt[/CAP_MINT]\n[\"$1\",\"$2\",\"$3\",\"$4\",\"$5\",\"$6\",\"$7\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/CAP_MINT","json":"/api/directory/CAP_MINT","skill":"/api/directory/CAP_MINT?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=CAP_MINT"}},{"key":"GITHUB_TAIL","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: The GitHub repository as a live object. Returns repo metadata (name, private flag, default branch, last push), the root file listing, and the three most recent commits of github.com/massoumicyrus/oip. Every content commit there is protocol-authored; the trace id in each commit message resolves to a ledger receipt.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus asks \"show the repo\", \"github tail\", \"what is in the oip repo\", \"last repo commit\", \"is the repo still private\".\n# ARGS: none.\n# EX: [GITHUB_TAIL][/GITHUB_TAIL]\n[]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/GITHUB_TAIL","json":"/api/directory/GITHUB_TAIL","skill":"/api/directory/GITHUB_TAIL?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=GITHUB_TAIL"}},{"key":"GOVERNOR","type":"agent","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"G0 ROLE: You are GOVERNOR — the standing build manager of miscsubjects. You do not code. You govern: you read what actually happened (the deterministic digest + turn sample handed to you), find recurring problems and conflicting paths, and institute structural relief. You think in systems: incentives, feedback loops, load-bearing constraints, failure classes — never one-off patches.\nG1 GROUND TRUTH: The digest counts are ground truth. NEVER contradict a count. NEVER invent an incident that is not in the digest or turn sample. If evidence is insufficient, write \"insufficient evidence\" for that line.\nG2 RECURRENCE OVER INCIDENT: A problem that appears N times is one root cause, not N problems. ALWAYS name the class (write collision, auth lockout, loop burn, cron noise, orphan capability, prompt drift) and the count.\nG3 STRUCTURAL RELIEF: Every proposal names the EXACT object to change — a directory row key, a file path, or a law — and the failure class it retires. WHEN a failure cannot be fixed by any model turn (dead credential, missing binding) → THEN route it to Cyrus as a DECISION, never as a proposal.\nG4 CONFLICT DETECTION: WHEN two agents edited the same file in the window, or two prompts route the same phrase differently → THEN report it under CONFLICTS with both parties named.\nG5 VOICE: Plain sentences a non-coder reads in one pass. No jargon without a one-clause translation. No hedging: failed = failed. Boolean where possible.\nG6 OUTPUT: Follow the OUTPUT CONTRACT sections exactly (SUBJECT / SITUATION / RECURRING PROBLEMS / CONFLICTS / INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES I PROPOSE / DECISIONS NEEDED FROM CYRUS / VERDICT). Nothing before SUBJECT, nothing after VERDICT.\nG7 CADENCE AWARENESS: You run on time, on event volume, and on error bursts. If the digest flags say URGENT, lead the SITUATION with the flag and set VERDICT to RED or YELLOW accordingly.\nG8 NO INVENTION (mechanics): every numeric claim carries its digest count in parentheses. An empty digest list (auth_lockouts: [], file_collisions: []) means you write \"none observed\" for that class. Writing an incident the digest does not contain is a firing offense.\nG9 RECURRENCE MEMORY: the digest field issue_recurrence carries your cross-brief counters. WHEN a class has count N>1 → THEN say \"Nth run seeing this class\" and escalate the proposal from suggestion to standing order.\nG10 INSTITUTED CLASSES: the digest field instituted maps failure classes to laws already shipped, with dates. WHEN a flagged class has an instituted mechanism and the flag's evidence predates or spans that date → THEN report it under RECURRING PROBLEMS as 'INSTITUTED (<mechanism>, since <date>) — monitoring', exclude it from the RED calculus, and set VERDICT from the remaining live classes only. WHEN the class recurs with evidence entirely AFTER the institution date → THEN escalate it as MECHANISM FAILED, which outranks URGENT.","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":true,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/GOVERNOR","json":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR","skill":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=GOVERNOR"}},{"key":"GOVERNOR_RUN","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Run the GOVERNOR — scan the last 48h of ledger turns into a deterministic digest (error streaks, file collisions, loop states, auth lockouts, cron noise, task flow, waste), have the GOVERNOR model write the brief, email it to Cyrus, text him the verdict, ledger everything as GOVERNOR_BRIEF.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus asks \"whats going on with the build\", \"governor report\", \"run governor\", \"build brief\", \"what keeps breaking\" — or any model wants the standing manager's view before making structural changes. Runs automatically every 12h / 2000 events / 150 errors; this row is the manual fire.\n# ARGS: mode — empty = full run (model + email + iMessage) · dry = digest JSON only, no model call, no delivery\n# EX: [GOVERNOR_RUN][/GOVERNOR_RUN]   or   GET /api/dispatch?invoke=GOVERNOR_RUN&body=dry\n[\"$1\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/GOVERNOR_RUN","json":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR_RUN","skill":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR_RUN?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=GOVERNOR_RUN"}},{"key":"OIP_RECEIPT","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Read one invocation back as a receipt: full recorded request + response, lineage (replay_of/repairs/repaired_by), and the verbs that act on it. A receipt is a live replayable object, not history.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus asks \"show the receipt for inv_x\", \"what happened in inv_x\", \"why did that fail\".\n# ARGS: $1 = invocation id (inv_…).\n# EX: [OIP_RECEIPT]inv_wvitbmiym6[/OIP_RECEIPT]\n[\"$1\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/OIP_RECEIPT","json":"/api/directory/OIP_RECEIPT","skill":"/api/directory/OIP_RECEIPT?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=OIP_RECEIPT"}},{"key":"OIP_REPAIR","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Repair a failed invocation from its receipt: inspects the failure, derives or takes the corrected key+body, fires it linked (new receipt carries repairs, old receipt gains repaired_by). Low-risk targets fire automatically; high-risk targets return the exact proposal payload for the owner instead.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus says \"repair that failed invocation\", \"fix inv_x with NOW\", \"make that call again but corrected\".\n# ARGS: $1 = failed invocation id, $2 = corrected row key (optional — derived from the failure when omitted), $3+ = corrected body (optional, may contain pipes).\n# EX: [OIP_REPAIR]inv_6ximjestte|NOW|[/OIP_REPAIR]\n[\"$1\",\"$2\",\"$3+\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/OIP_REPAIR","json":"/api/directory/OIP_REPAIR","skill":"/api/directory/OIP_REPAIR?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=OIP_REPAIR"}},{"key":"OIP_REPLAY","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"oip","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Re-fire a past invocation with its recorded input. New receipt links replay_of to the old one.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus says \"replay that\", \"run inv_x again\", \"re-fire it as it was\".\n# ARGS: $1 = invocation id (inv_…).\n# EX: [OIP_REPLAY]inv_wvitbmiym6[/OIP_REPLAY]\n[\"$1\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/OIP_REPLAY","json":"/api/directory/OIP_REPLAY","skill":"/api/directory/OIP_REPLAY?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=OIP_REPLAY"}},{"key":"GOVERNOR_ASK","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Ask the GOVERNOR (build manager) a question. It answers from the live 24h digest + recurrence memory + charter — counts in parentheses, sized for iMessage.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: Cyrus texts \"governor <question>\" or \"ask the governor ...\", or any model wants the manager's evidence-grounded read on build health, conflicts, or what keeps recurring.\n# ARGS: the question, verbatim\n# EX: [GOVERNOR_ASK]why is the task backlog so big[/GOVERNOR_ASK]\n[\"$1+\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/GOVERNOR_ASK","json":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR_ASK","skill":"/api/directory/GOVERNOR_ASK?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=GOVERNOR_ASK"}},{"key":"FILE_CLAIM","type":"fn","method":null,"category":"governance","enabled":true,"contract":"# WHAT: Advisory write-locks so coding agents stop double-editing the same file. KV-backed, TTL auto-expires.\n# WHEN_TO_USE: BEFORE editing any repo file: claim it. AFTER finishing: release it. DENIED means another session holds it — read the file fresh and coordinate, do not edit. See AGENTS.md \"WRITE LAW\".\n# ARGS: op(claim|release|check|list) | file path | holder as agent:session | ttl minutes (default 90)\n# EX: [FILE_CLAIM]claim|functions/api/dispatch.js|claude:abc123|90[/FILE_CLAIM]\n[\"$1\",\"$2\",\"$3\",\"$4\"]","input_schema":null,"examples":null,"authority_required":false,"representations":{"article":"/a/directory/FILE_CLAIM","json":"/api/directory/FILE_CLAIM","skill":"/api/directory/FILE_CLAIM?format=skill","oip_contract":"/api/dispatch?key=FILE_CLAIM"}}]},"ontology":{"conformance_group":"article","inferred_from":["oip","model","governance","and","privacy"],"relationships":[],"sources":[]},"conformance":{"success_events":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/invocations?status=success","failure_events":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/invocations?status=failure","rule":"Repeated success and failure modes amend this object's Skill, tests, directory clarity, and article meaning under one versioned identity."},"article":{"slug":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","title":"OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0","body":"# OIP Model Governance, Privacy Egress, and Bounded State Cards v1.0\n\n**Published:** 2026-07-17  \n**Source dialogue:** the custodian with Kimi K3, Codex GPT-5, and supplied audit material  \n**Implementation:** Codex GPT-5 · OpenAI  \n**Authority:** protocol-internal profile and model recommendation; not legal advice, regulatory approval, insurer certification, or external adoption\n\n## The claim\n\nOIP turns consequential model decisions into inspectable governance records. Each record names the versioned rule applied, the evidence relied on, the justification offered, uncertainty and counterarguments, the authority used, the action proposed, later review, and repair.\n\nThe ledger is therefore more than a chronology of actions. It can be a chronology of decisions against standards, disagreement between reviewers, bounded institutional certification, downstream reliance, later outcomes, and revocation.\n\nThe accurate claim is not that OIP captures a model's private chain-of-thought. It records an **accountability artifact**: the justification the model placed on the record. The ledger proves that the artifact was produced under a named contract and authority. It does not prove that the artifact caused the model's output or faithfully exposes hidden computation.\n\n## The control loop\n\n```text\nstandard\n  → clause-cited decision\n  → evidence and uncertainty\n  → adversarial review\n  → disclosed independence weighting\n  → bounded state card\n  → downstream inspection or gating\n  → expiry, revocation, outcome, or repair\n```\n\nEvidence does not inherit truth from reasoning. Reasoning does not inherit authority from confidence. Certification does not erase dissent. Consensus does not replace conformance.\n\n## Live objects\n\n- `STANDARD_REGISTER` records versioned standards and canonical clauses.\n- `DECISION_RECORD` records the model, provider, family, task, clause findings, evidence, justification, uncertainty, counterarguments, recommendation, confidence, authority, and repair lineage.\n- `REVIEW_RECORD` confirms, challenges, or abstains while recording provider/family, prompt and context fingerprints, prior-answer visibility, recomputation, evidence, and authority.\n- `SURETY_RECORD` publishes the exact scoring formula, independent and discounted reviewers, challenges, and every caveat.\n- `STATE_CARD_CERTIFY` creates a bounded, expiring card tied to one decision, standard, system version, scope, risk ceiling, jurisdiction, audit depth, certifier, surety snapshot, and standing dissent.\n- `STATE_CARD_REVOKE` revokes without deleting.\n- `CERTIFIER_HISTORY` makes the certifier's own cards, revocations, expiries, evidence, and standing queryable.\n- `PRIVACY_EGRESS` shapes and classifies proposed egress, compares minimized queries, binds exact authorization, records recipient-addressable disclosures, records downstream request outcomes, and runs the OIP Privacy Profile.\n\nPublic machine surfaces:\n\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/model\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards/oip-model-governance-1\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/standards/oip-privacy-1\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/decisions/dec_fe298d0517225241295f\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/surety/dec_ecf771b98b7299c35897\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/cards/card_d109b8b3bb69069fe3de\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/governance/certifiers/custodian%20%C2%B7%20owner%20demonstration\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy/disclosures/dis_d80b129eaa4f018a41c5\n- https://miscsubjects.com/api/privacy/conformance/dis_d80b129eaa4f018a41c5\n\n## Standards registry\n\nTwo internal profiles are live.\n\n### OIP Model Decision Governance Profile 1.0\n\n- MG-01 — governed decisions cite registered, versioned clauses.\n- MG-02 — evidence remains distinct from justification and confidence.\n- MG-03 — the justification is an accountability artifact, not hidden reasoning.\n- MG-04 — material uncertainty and counterarguments are preserved.\n- MG-05 — review independence metadata is disclosed.\n- MG-06 — dissent survives agreement and certification.\n- MG-07 — state-card certification is bounded and expiring.\n- MG-08 — certifier performance history is queryable.\n\nRegistration receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_6h0zl3sk6u\n\nThe repaired decision `dec_fe298d0517225241295f` records all eight internal clauses as passing with receipt evidence. This says the implementation conforms to its own published MG profile. It does not say an external law, regulator, insurer, auditor, or standards body approved the system.\n\nDecision receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_irqr7kzxe3\n\n### OIP Privacy Egress and Recipient Accountability Profile 1.0\n\n- PRIV-01 — shape before sending.\n- PRIV-02 — bind exact payload, recipient, purpose, expiry, use limit, and classification ceiling.\n- PRIV-03 — produce a recipient-addressable disclosure receipt.\n- PRIV-04 — require explicit authority for sensitive or identity-intent context.\n- PRIV-05 — expose a queryable recipient ledger without private payload bytes.\n- PRIV-06 — keep downstream request outcomes distinct.\n- PRIV-07 — preserve unknowns as unknown.\n- PRIV-08 — do not fabricate legal conclusions.\n\nRegistration receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_4b1p8ksevf\n\nThe synthetic conformance proof passes the six clauses exercised by the stored disclosure record and leaves PRIV-01 and PRIV-04 untested at that conformance surface. Its honest status is `PARTIAL`, with `conformant:false` and `tested_subset_conformant:true`.\n\nRepaired conformance receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_456pyxk3i6\n\n## Privacy: what was retained from AWACP and what was rejected\n\nThe strongest historical AWACP insight is retained:\n\n> A system cannot credibly promise privacy rights over context-derived transmissions it cannot enumerate.\n\nThe operational invariant is:\n\n> A transmission across a trust boundary produces a recipient-addressable disclosure record sufficient to support notice, access, correction, restriction, deletion requests, and proof of attempted downstream propagation.\n\nThe reconstructed profile retains pre-transmission minimization, recipient accounting, identity-intent classification, user-visible authorization, retention claims, erasure routes, and repair lineage.\n\nIt rejects deterministic claims that a prompt can prove vendor architecture, controllership, illegality, HIPAA applicability, privilege waiver, trade-secret loss, willfulness, fraud, or universal web-search behavior. Recipient roles and legal bases are stored as claims. Unknown architecture and deletion verification remain unknown. Legal conclusions require qualified authority and deployment-specific facts.\n\nThe full historical AWACP source was referenced in the supplied dialogue but was not included in the source files delivered to this implementation turn. It is therefore not silently reconstructed or represented as archived here.\n\n## Synthetic privacy proof\n\nNo real person and no external recipient were used.\n\n1. A synthetic proposed payload containing an invented identity and health term was shaped without execution or storage.\n2. The classifier detected `identity`, `health`, and `identity_intent_conjunction` and returned positions, not the matched sensitive text.\n3. Exact authorization bound payload hash `162eab862f3b076e9b425684dbba0ddd0985adb4a884b7a81362cfa678dca241`, the same-origin privacy endpoint, one stated purpose, one use, one-hour expiry, and a synthetic-only classification ceiling.\n4. A disclosure receipt recorded the synthetic same-origin request and stored hashes and metadata, not payload bytes.\n5. The propagation record distinguished `requested` from `verification_unavailable` and made no deletion claim.\n\nReceipts:\n\n- Shape: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_txuh3o8bnz\n- Authorize: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_n4i0ts7w82\n- Disclosure: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_h14dg87unl\n- Request: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_q9javaolmz\n- Verification unavailable: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_dzjblsj2ps\n- Partial conformance repair: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_456pyxk3i6\n\n## Surety and independence\n\nOne model assertion is a claim. A cross-provider review is corroboration. A review becomes a fully independent provider unit only when:\n\n- the reviewer is not the originating provider;\n- prior answers were not visible;\n- prompt and context fingerprints are present.\n\nSame-provider reviews remain visible but add zero independent-provider weight. Cross-provider confirmations with prior answers visible or unpinned prompt/context receive only the lower, disclosed corroboration weight. Challenges retain full cautionary weight.\n\nThe imported Kimi analysis is recorded as cross-provider corroboration, not independent recomputation, because it saw the developing dialogue and did not run the deployed evidence. The Codex verification is disclosed and discounted because it shares the originating provider.\n\nThe resulting first-decision surety is `0.40 CORROBORATED`, with zero fully independent confirming providers. That number measures this published formula, not truth, legal compliance, identity, authority, or causal faithfulness.\n\n- Kimi imported review: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_r07sxwsuiw\n- Same-provider discounted review: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_copvqg4cgt\n- Surety receipt: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_b2yb8bw9v2\n\n## Inspect and certify authority\n\nNo new bearer mechanism is required.\n\n- An inspect drop is the existing read-only, expiring, revocable OIP capability.\n- A certify drop is an exact-row capability scoped to `REVIEW_RECORD` or `STATE_CARD_CERTIFY`.\n- A revocation drop is independently scoped to `STATE_CARD_REVOKE`.\n- None of these grants the right to execute the governed system's operational rows.\n\nThis supports regulators, insurers, auditors, compliance officers, standards bodies, and other institutions inspecting selected evidence during or after operation. Their certifications remain bounded, receipted, expiring, revocable, and visible in their own history.\n\nThis does not eliminate the oracle problem. It relocates trust into an inspectable chain of accountable assertions. Evidence may be incomplete. Clause interpretation may be wrong. Models may share blind spots. Institutions may be captured or incompetent. Events may occur outside the observed boundary. The difference is that every filed transition leaves a bounded footprint.\n\n## State-card proof and certifier accountability\n\nA demonstration-only owner card was issued with:\n\n- system version: production commit `5529e3e4`;\n- risk ceiling: no medical, legal, financial, trading, insurance, regulatory, or production authorization;\n- jurisdiction: protocol-internal only;\n- audit depth: 2;\n- expiry: 30 days;\n- scope: storage and API proof only;\n- execution authority: none.\n\nIt was inspected through certifier history and then revoked. The history now reports one revoked card and zero standing cards.\n\n- Card creation: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_vwp4725qly\n- Pre-revocation certifier history: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_lw7lvk3rid\n- Revocation: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_dse0hu9n8l\n- Post-revocation history: https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_o8vwkz9h34\n\n## Failure and repair history\n\nThe implementation kept its own defects on the record.\n\n- `inv_48k7drqwni` — verified governance calls incorrectly hit the public intake rate limit.\n- `inv_11zh6a7yuy` and `inv_qqoey0pc6q` — domain status `CORROBORATED` was incorrectly passed as an HTTP status before the response wrapper was repaired and propagated.\n- `inv_8u9ew311y5` — the first privacy conformance result overstated the tested subset as full conformance.\n- `inv_m4614xj84j` — domain status `PARTIAL` was incorrectly passed as an HTTP status before the privacy wrapper was repaired.\n\nSuccessful repairs are linked above. None of the failed records was deleted.\n\n## Commercial and institutional shape\n\nThe product is not merely public ledger access.\n\n> Bring your models, standards, policies, auditors, and risk owners. OIP turns consequential model decisions into bounded compliance state that can be inspected, challenged, certified, relied upon within an explicit scope, revoked, and priced.\n\nCompanies can buy tenant-isolated decision governance and audit exports. Standards bodies can publish executable clause packs. Auditors can receive read and exact-row attestation drops. Insurers can evaluate actual receipt history, failure rates, repair time, overrides, expired-card reliance, and unresolved dissent rather than relying only on questionnaires. Regulators can inspect selected evidence continuously or by event.\n\nNo external adoption, insurance product, regulator integration, paid tenant, or legal certification is claimed as live in v1.0.\n\n## What remains\n\n1. Independent providers must recompute live evidence without seeing prior verdicts and publish prompt/context fingerprints.\n2. Citation-semantic tests must determine whether cited clause text actually supports each finding rather than merely validating the clause id.\n3. Canary cases with known ground truth must measure reviewer false-positive, false-negative, calibration, and planted-violation detection rates.\n4. Full privacy conformance must exercise PRIV-01 and PRIV-04 through a purpose-built, non-sensitive test sink.\n5. External institutional pilots must prove read-only inspection and exact-row certification with no operational authority.\n6. Customer privacy, tenant isolation, retention, legal hold, and processor/controller contracts require separate implementation and review before commercial onboarding.\n\nThis is a working protocol facet and defensive disclosure, not a claim that the institutional market is already built.\n","hero":null,"images":[],"style":{},"tags":[],"model":"owner","ledger":{"href":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/ledger","live":true},"embeds":[],"widgets":[],"home":true,"claims":[],"sources":[],"reviews":[],"extra":{},"has_traversal":false,"register":"model_contribution","status":"published","revisions":0,"contributions":[],"provenance":[{"ts":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","model":"owner","action":"voxel_batch_document_new","prompt":"","input":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","response":"67 DIVs from document (verbatim, roundtrip-checked)","tokens_in":0,"tokens_out":0,"cost":0,"prev":"genesis","hash":"f22d5fe5353218e86c5a34757de49c3956316c7fa3893b48ce8ff692252087e3"}],"energy":{"passes":1,"tokens_in":0,"tokens_out":0,"tokens_total":0,"cost_usd":0,"models":{"owner":1},"head":"f22d5fe5353218e86c5a34757de49c3956316c7fa3893b48ce8ff692252087e3"},"posted_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","created_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","updated_at":"2026-07-17T17:04:32.734Z","machine":{"shape":"article.machine/v1","slug":"oip-model-governance-and-privacy","kind":"article","read":{"human":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","json":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","bundle":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/bundle?format=markdown"},"traversal":{"prev":null,"next":null,"hub":null,"series":null,"position":null,"of":null},"ledger":{"claims":0,"sources":0,"contributions":0,"revisions":0,"objections_url":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/objections","thread_state_url":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/thread-state?target=oip-model-governance-and-privacy","proof_rule":"An action is proven by its ledger receipt, never by a 200 or a description."},"standard":{"writing":"peptide standard: logical prose, zero decorative wording, every material assertion atomized as a claim with a tier and a source (or explicitly unsourced)","claim_tiers":["human","preclinical","anecdotal","mechanistic","speculative","system"],"verbatim_law":null},"terminal":{"how":"Any model may emit these commands; the owner pastes them into a terminal. $TERMINAL_KEY is read from the owner's environment — never inline the key value.","claim_append":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/claim -H \"x-terminal-key: $TERMINAL_KEY\" -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"slug\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"text\":\"<one atomized claim>\",\"tier\":\"<human|preclinical|anecdotal|mechanistic|speculative|system>\",\"source_ids\":[],\"who_claims\":\"<model>\",\"rationale\":\"<why material>\"}'","source_append":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/sources -H \"x-terminal-key: $TERMINAL_KEY\" -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"slug\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"sources\":[{\"type\":\"review\",\"url\":\"<url>\",\"title\":\"<title>\",\"quote\":\"<verbatim quote>\",\"summary\":\"<one line>\"}]}'","objection":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/objections -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"actor\":\"<model>\",\"objection\":\"<attack>\",\"surface\":\"S1-S8\",\"minimum_patch\":\"<patch>\"}'  # open intake, no key","thread_update":"curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/thread-update -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{\"actor\":\"<model>\",\"target\":\"oip-model-governance-and-privacy\",\"raw_text\":\"<material delta>\"}'  # open intake, no key","read_back":"curl -s https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy | python3 -c 'import json,sys; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(json.dumps(d[\"claims\"][-3:], indent=1))'"}},"representations":{"article":"/a/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","json":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy","markdown":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/bundle?format=markdown","skill":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/skill","topology":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/topology","versions":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/revisions","invocations":"/api/articles/oip-model-governance-and-privacy/invocations"}}}}