Skip to Content

Changes for page Governance

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 21:21
From version 1.4
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2026/01/20 20:19
Change comment: Renamed back-links.
To version 1.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/17 13:57
Change comment: Imported from XAR

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Archive.FactHarbor 0\.9\.40.Organisation.WebHome
1 +Test.FactHarbor.Organisation.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
4 4  
5 5  == 1. Governance Structure ==
6 6  
7 -{{include reference="Archive.FactHarbor.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
7 +{{include reference="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
... ... @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
12 12  * **Domain Experts** – Subject-matter authority in specialized areas
13 13  * **Community Contributors** – Feedback, proposals, and participation in decision-making
14 14  
15 +
15 15  == 2. Decision-Making Levels ==
16 16  
17 17  === 2.1 Technical Decisions (Maintainers) ===
... ... @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
19 19  **Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
20 20  
21 21  **Process**:
22 -
23 23  * Proposals discussed in technical forums
24 24  * Review by core maintainers
25 25  * Consensus-based approval
... ... @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
27 27  * Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
28 28  
29 29  **Examples**:
30 -
31 31  * Adding new quality gate
32 32  * Adjusting AKEL parameters
33 33  * Modifying audit sampling algorithms
... ... @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@
38 38  **Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
39 39  
40 40  **Process**:
41 -
42 42  * Proposal published for community feedback
43 43  * Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
44 44  * Governing Team decision with community input
... ... @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
46 46  * Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
47 47  
48 48  **Examples**:
49 -
50 50  * Defining Tier A domains
51 51  * Setting audit sampling rates
52 52  * Content moderation policies
... ... @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@
57 57  **Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
58 58  
59 59  **Process**:
60 -
61 61  * Expert consensus in domain
62 62  * Documented reasoning
63 63  * Review by other experts
... ... @@ -65,12 +65,12 @@
65 65  * Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
66 66  
67 67  **Examples**:
68 -
69 69  * Medical claim evaluation standards
70 70  * Legal citation requirements
71 71  * Scientific methodology thresholds
72 72  * Tier A approval criteria by domain
73 73  
69 +
74 74  == 3. AI and Human Roles in Governance ==
75 75  
76 76  === 3.1 Human-Only Governance Decisions ===
... ... @@ -97,12 +97,12 @@
97 97  === 3.3 Transparency Requirement ===
98 98  
99 99  All governance decisions must be:
100 -
101 101  * **Documented** with reasoning
102 102  * **Published** for community visibility
103 103  * **Reviewable** by community members
104 104  * **Reversible** if evidence of error or harm
105 105  
101 +
106 106  == 4. Audit System Governance ==
107 107  
108 108  === 4.1 Audit Oversight Committee ===
... ... @@ -110,7 +110,6 @@
110 110  **Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
111 111  
112 112  **Responsibilities**:
113 -
114 114  * Set quality standards for audit evaluation
115 115  * Review audit statistics and trends
116 116  * Adjust sampling rates based on performance
... ... @@ -125,7 +125,6 @@
125 125  === 4.2 Audit Performance Metrics ===
126 126  
127 127  Tracked and published:
128 -
129 129  * Audit pass/fail rates by tier
130 130  * Common failure patterns
131 131  * System improvements implemented
... ... @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@
135 135  === 4.3 Feedback Loop Governance ===
136 136  
137 137  **Process**:
138 -
139 139  1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
140 140  2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
141 141  3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
... ... @@ -144,11 +144,11 @@
144 144  6. Deployed with monitoring
145 145  
146 146  **Escalation**:
147 -
148 148  * Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
149 149  * Critical errors → Immediate system review
150 150  * Pattern of harm → Policy revision
151 151  
144 +
152 152  == 5. Risk tier Policy Governance ==
153 153  
154 154  === 5.1 Risk Tier Assignment Authority ===
... ... @@ -161,7 +161,6 @@
161 161  === 5.2 Risk Tier Review Process ===
162 162  
163 163  **Triggers for Review**:
164 -
165 165  * Significant audit failures in a tier
166 166  * New emerging topics or domains
167 167  * Community flags systematic misclassification
... ... @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@
169 169  * Periodic policy review
170 170  
171 171  **Process**:
172 -
173 173  1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
174 174  2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
175 175  3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
... ... @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@
195 195  **Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
196 196  
197 197  **Requirements**:
198 -
199 199  * Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
200 200  * Testing in sandbox environment
201 201  * Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
... ... @@ -202,17 +202,16 @@
202 202  * Community notification before deployment
203 203  
204 204  **Approval**:
205 -
206 206  * Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
207 207  * Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
208 208  
209 209  **Examples of Governed Changes**:
210 -
211 211  * Adjusting contradiction search scope
212 212  * Modifying source reliability thresholds
213 213  * Adding new bubble detection patterns
214 214  * Changing uncertainty quantification formulas
215 215  
204 +
216 216  == 7. Community Participation ==
217 217  
218 218  === 7.1 Open Discussion Forums ===
... ... @@ -225,7 +225,6 @@
225 225  === 7.2 Proposal Mechanism ===
226 226  
227 227  Anyone can propose:
228 -
229 229  1. Submit proposal with rationale
230 230  2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
231 231  3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
... ... @@ -240,6 +240,7 @@
240 240  * Expert recommendations documented
241 241  * Community feedback acknowledged
242 242  
231 +
243 243  == 8. Dispute Resolution ==
244 244  
245 245  === 8.1 Conflict Between Experts ===
... ... @@ -260,7 +260,6 @@
260 260  === 8.3 User Appeals ===
261 261  
262 262  Users can appeal:
263 -
264 264  * Content rejection decisions
265 265  * Risk tier assignments
266 266  * Audit outcomes
... ... @@ -267,12 +267,12 @@
267 267  * Moderation actions
268 268  
269 269  **Process**:
270 -
271 271  1. Submit appeal with evidence
272 272  2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
273 273  3. Decision with reasoning
274 274  4. Final appeal to Governing Team (if warranted)
275 275  
263 +
276 276  == 9. Related Pages ==
277 277  
278 278  * [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
... ... @@ -279,3 +279,4 @@
279 279  * [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
280 280  * [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
281 281  * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
270 +