Skip to Content

Changes for page Governance

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 21:21
From version 1.3
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/24 20:29
Change comment: Update document after refactoring.
To version 1.4
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2026/01/20 20:19
Change comment: Renamed back-links.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
4 4  
5 5  == 1. Governance Structure ==
6 6  
7 -{{include reference="FactHarbor.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
7 +{{include reference="Archive.FactHarbor.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
8 8  
9 9  * **Governing Team** – Sets high-level policy, organizational direction, funding priorities
10 10  * **Lead** – Coordinates execution, represents organization publicly
... ... @@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
12 12  * **Domain Experts** – Subject-matter authority in specialized areas
13 13  * **Community Contributors** – Feedback, proposals, and participation in decision-making
14 14  
15 -
16 16  == 2. Decision-Making Levels ==
17 17  
18 18  === 2.1 Technical Decisions (Maintainers) ===
... ... @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
20 20  **Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
21 21  
22 22  **Process**:
22 +
23 23  * Proposals discussed in technical forums
24 24  * Review by core maintainers
25 25  * Consensus-based approval
... ... @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
27 27  * Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
28 28  
29 29  **Examples**:
30 +
30 30  * Adding new quality gate
31 31  * Adjusting AKEL parameters
32 32  * Modifying audit sampling algorithms
... ... @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
37 37  **Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
38 38  
39 39  **Process**:
41 +
40 40  * Proposal published for community feedback
41 41  * Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
42 42  * Governing Team decision with community input
... ... @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
44 44  * Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
45 45  
46 46  **Examples**:
49 +
47 47  * Defining Tier A domains
48 48  * Setting audit sampling rates
49 49  * Content moderation policies
... ... @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
54 54  **Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
55 55  
56 56  **Process**:
60 +
57 57  * Expert consensus in domain
58 58  * Documented reasoning
59 59  * Review by other experts
... ... @@ -61,12 +61,12 @@
61 61  * Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
62 62  
63 63  **Examples**:
68 +
64 64  * Medical claim evaluation standards
65 65  * Legal citation requirements
66 66  * Scientific methodology thresholds
67 67  * Tier A approval criteria by domain
68 68  
69 -
70 70  == 3. AI and Human Roles in Governance ==
71 71  
72 72  === 3.1 Human-Only Governance Decisions ===
... ... @@ -93,12 +93,12 @@
93 93  === 3.3 Transparency Requirement ===
94 94  
95 95  All governance decisions must be:
100 +
96 96  * **Documented** with reasoning
97 97  * **Published** for community visibility
98 98  * **Reviewable** by community members
99 99  * **Reversible** if evidence of error or harm
100 100  
101 -
102 102  == 4. Audit System Governance ==
103 103  
104 104  === 4.1 Audit Oversight Committee ===
... ... @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@
106 106  **Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
107 107  
108 108  **Responsibilities**:
113 +
109 109  * Set quality standards for audit evaluation
110 110  * Review audit statistics and trends
111 111  * Adjust sampling rates based on performance
... ... @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@
120 120  === 4.2 Audit Performance Metrics ===
121 121  
122 122  Tracked and published:
128 +
123 123  * Audit pass/fail rates by tier
124 124  * Common failure patterns
125 125  * System improvements implemented
... ... @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@
129 129  === 4.3 Feedback Loop Governance ===
130 130  
131 131  **Process**:
138 +
132 132  1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
133 133  2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
134 134  3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
... ... @@ -137,11 +137,11 @@
137 137  6. Deployed with monitoring
138 138  
139 139  **Escalation**:
147 +
140 140  * Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
141 141  * Critical errors → Immediate system review
142 142  * Pattern of harm → Policy revision
143 143  
144 -
145 145  == 5. Risk tier Policy Governance ==
146 146  
147 147  === 5.1 Risk Tier Assignment Authority ===
... ... @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@
154 154  === 5.2 Risk Tier Review Process ===
155 155  
156 156  **Triggers for Review**:
164 +
157 157  * Significant audit failures in a tier
158 158  * New emerging topics or domains
159 159  * Community flags systematic misclassification
... ... @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@
161 161  * Periodic policy review
162 162  
163 163  **Process**:
172 +
164 164  1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
165 165  2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
166 166  3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
... ... @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@
186 186  **Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
187 187  
188 188  **Requirements**:
198 +
189 189  * Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
190 190  * Testing in sandbox environment
191 191  * Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
... ... @@ -192,16 +192,17 @@
192 192  * Community notification before deployment
193 193  
194 194  **Approval**:
205 +
195 195  * Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
196 196  * Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
197 197  
198 198  **Examples of Governed Changes**:
210 +
199 199  * Adjusting contradiction search scope
200 200  * Modifying source reliability thresholds
201 201  * Adding new bubble detection patterns
202 202  * Changing uncertainty quantification formulas
203 203  
204 -
205 205  == 7. Community Participation ==
206 206  
207 207  === 7.1 Open Discussion Forums ===
... ... @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@
214 214  === 7.2 Proposal Mechanism ===
215 215  
216 216  Anyone can propose:
228 +
217 217  1. Submit proposal with rationale
218 218  2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
219 219  3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
... ... @@ -228,7 +228,6 @@
228 228  * Expert recommendations documented
229 229  * Community feedback acknowledged
230 230  
231 -
232 232  == 8. Dispute Resolution ==
233 233  
234 234  === 8.1 Conflict Between Experts ===
... ... @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@
249 249  === 8.3 User Appeals ===
250 250  
251 251  Users can appeal:
263 +
252 252  * Content rejection decisions
253 253  * Risk tier assignments
254 254  * Audit outcomes
... ... @@ -255,12 +255,12 @@
255 255  * Moderation actions
256 256  
257 257  **Process**:
270 +
258 258  1. Submit appeal with evidence
259 259  2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
260 260  3. Decision with reasoning
261 261  4. Final appeal to Governing Team (if warranted)
262 262  
263 -
264 264  == 9. Related Pages ==
265 265  
266 266  * [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
... ... @@ -267,4 +267,3 @@
267 267  * [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
268 268  * [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
269 269  * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
270 -