Changes for page Governance

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

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
...	...	@@ -255,16 +255,15 @@
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		-* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
	278	+* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
267	267	* [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
268	268	* [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
269	269	* [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
270		-