The foundation of the specification language: what must be expressible for a specification's completeness to be decidable, and — when it lands — the criterion by which someone else's language can be checked against it.
The name is locally scoped. This is the foundation of the specification language, not of the
framework. The framework's root is
actor-indexed-determination, which holds
actor, capability, accountability and the index. Everything here projects from that root; nothing
here is foundational to it, and a reader must not infer otherwise from the repository's name.
Status of the contents. Everything canonical in this repository is [PROPOSED] unless its own
record says otherwise. A well-organised repository reads as more settled than its contents are;
this sentence exists to counteract that. In particular, the resolution condition has no
falsifier: the closure pre-registration filed as evidence tests a different claim (per ruling
R-1), and nothing in this repository may present its result as a test of the resolution condition.
This repository stands in three relations, and they have different rules and different failure meanings. Confusing them is the most likely structural error, because downstream reads as projection by default.
| Relation | Requirement | Violation |
|---|---|---|
| projects from | must not contradict upstream; derivation forward only | defect; requires a supersession record |
| conforms to | must satisfy the criterion, with evidence published | admissible outcome; the instance is non-conforming |
| governed by | must comply | defect; not a variant |
- Projects from
actor-indexed-determination. Determinations are added, never contradicted, forward only. A projection cannot be a legitimate variant of its upstream while contradicting it. - Peer of
decision-driven-design. Neither depends on the other; both project from the same root. Nothing is borrowed sideways. The accepted cost of the peer relation: two projections mean two term registries, and drift between them is a real risk (seeterms/). - Conformed to by
specification-languages(not yet created), which also holds the engineering process for now, per ruling R-5.
Conformance is not projection. Read the violation column: rows 1 and 3 are defects — something
went wrong and must be repaired. Row 2 is an admissible outcome: a conforming instance
genuinely may fail the criterion, and the criterion exists in order to be able to return that
verdict. No validator in this repository may ever be pointed at the conformance relation; the
ordering validator governs projection only. The conformance relation has no validator at all,
and will not acquire one in the seeding session — a recorded gap, discovered here rather than when
specification-languages is created.
Governance is orthogonal — a third axis. Not up, not sideways. Nothing is projected from
canon-governance; everything complies with it.
Whether this repository is governed is asserted from that repository's registry, never declared
here — this README deliberately carries no such declaration, and none should be added. At the
commit cited below, that registry asserts nothing operationally: the rules bind as rules, and no
instrument evaluates this repository.
Canon: the foundation (the construct list), the resolution condition, the boundary
declarations, and the conformance criterion when it lands. Filed under canon/.
Not canon: bindings, tooling, the falsifier material (evidence about canon, under
evidence/), and session records (meta/sessions/).
The rules under which content here is produced, corrected and ratified are held in
Hafeok/canon-governance, read at commit
ad6d1b0b861306561364cc8d3a3e554cfb92d90c. They are cited, not restated: restating them
here would recreate the two-sources-one-rule state that repository exists to end. Per CG-R-10,
this citation records what was read and complied with, not what is current: it advances only by a
deliberate act that states what changed between the refs, and going stale is its correct
behaviour. Two of the ten
(CG-rule-08, CG-rule-10) are provisional in their own records — in force, not citable as
established.
What is stated here is only what is local to this repository:
- Claim ID prefix:
SF-. A prefix names a programme, not a repository; the prefix choice is a local naming convention, and what binds it is identifier stability (CG-rule-07): never reused, never renumbered, unique across the programme. - Sessions propose; Emil ratifies. Gates hold until an explicit ratification message. Rulings
are issued only from the
CG-R-series held incanon-governance; nothing here issues one. - Session records live under
meta/sessions/, perCG-rule-06, inherited — not native here, not borrowed from the peer. - The term registry is at
terms/registry.mdand is the repository's vocabulary of record for its own structural terms.
Three validators live in scripts/ and run in CI on every push, each failing the build on
violation: a claim validator for SF- records (falsifier presence at every live status among
its checks), an ordering validator governing the projection relation only — it refuses to
evaluate any other relation, and is never pointed at conformance, which has no validator by
recorded design — and a governance-pin check asserting the citation above matches the value
recorded in meta/canon-governance-ref.yaml (CG-R-10), so neither can advance silently alone.
A green run means well formed, not correct: every reference can resolve and every
determination be wrong. These validators issue verdicts where canon-governance's instrument
measures; both are right, the distinction is ruled (CG-R-13), and it is recorded in
scripts/README.md.
LICENSE— Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, for the canon and prose.LICENSE-code— Apache License 2.0, for scripts.CITATION.cff— the citation form, fixed at seed so downstream reuse cites consistently.
Attribution is to the founding author personally. The editorial role — which is what makes ratification mean anything — is intended to transfer to a custodial body; the authorship attribution is not affected by that transfer.