Changes for page Governance

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Parent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-FactHarbor.Organisation.WebHome
	1	+WebHome

Content

...	...	@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
4	4
5	5	== Governance Structure ==
6	6
	7	+{{include reference="FactHarbor.Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.23 Lost Data.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
	8	+
7	7	* **Governing Team** – Sets high-level policy, organizational direction, funding priorities
8	8	* **Lead** – Coordinates execution, represents organization publicly
9	9	* **Core Maintainers** – Technical and specification decisions, code/spec review
...	...	@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
19	19	**Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
20	20
21	21	**Process**:
	24	+
22	22	* Proposals discussed in technical forums
23	23	* Review by core maintainers
24	24	* Consensus-based approval
...	...	@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
26	26	* Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
27	27
28	28	**Examples**:
	32	+
29	29	* Adding new quality gate
30	30	* Adjusting AKEL parameters
31	31	* Modifying audit sampling algorithms
...	...	@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
36	36	**Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
37	37
38	38	**Process**:
	43	+
39	39	* Proposal published for community feedback
40	40	* Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
41	41	* Governing Team decision with community input
...	...	@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
43	43	* Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
44	44
45	45	**Examples**:
	51	+
46	46	* Defining Tier A domains
47	47	* Setting audit sampling rates
48	48	* Content moderation policies
...	...	@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
53	53	**Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
54	54
55	55	**Process**:
	62	+
56	56	* Expert consensus in domain
57	57	* Documented reasoning
58	58	* Review by other experts
...	...	@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
60	60	* Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
61	61
62	62	**Examples**:
	70	+
63	63	* Medical claim evaluation standards
64	64	* Legal citation requirements
65	65	* Scientific methodology thresholds
...	...	@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
93	93	=== Transparency Requirement ===
94	94
95	95	All governance decisions must be:
	104	+
96	96	* **Documented** with reasoning
97	97	* **Published** for community visibility
98	98	* **Reviewable** by community members
...	...	@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@
107	107	**Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
108	108
109	109	**Responsibilities**:
	119	+
110	110	* Set quality standards for audit evaluation
111	111	* Review audit statistics and trends
112	112	* Adjust sampling rates based on performance
...	...	@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
121	121	=== Audit Performance Metrics ===
122	122
123	123	Tracked and published:
	134	+
124	124	* Audit pass/fail rates by tier
125	125	* Common failure patterns
126	126	* System improvements implemented
...	...	@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@
130	130	=== Feedback Loop Governance ===
131	131
132	132	**Process**:
	144	+
133	133	1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
134	134	2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
135	135	3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
...	...	@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@
138	138	6. Deployed with monitoring
139	139
140	140	**Escalation**:
	153	+
141	141	* Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
142	142	* Critical errors → Immediate system review
143	143	* Pattern of harm → Policy revision
...	...	@@ -156,6 +156,7 @@
156	156	=== Risk Tier Review Process ===
157	157
158	158	**Triggers for Review**:
	172	+
159	159	* Significant audit failures in a tier
160	160	* New emerging topics or domains
161	161	* Community flags systematic misclassification
...	...	@@ -163,6 +163,7 @@
163	163	* Periodic policy review
164	164
165	165	**Process**:
	180	+
166	166	1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
167	167	2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
168	168	3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
...	...	@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@
189	189	**Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
190	190
191	191	**Requirements**:
	207	+
192	192	* Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
193	193	* Testing in sandbox environment
194	194	* Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
...	...	@@ -195,10 +195,12 @@
195	195	* Community notification before deployment
196	196
197	197	**Approval**:
	214	+
198	198	* Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
199	199	* Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
200	200
201	201	**Examples of Governed Changes**:
	219	+
202	202	* Adjusting contradiction search scope
203	203	* Modifying source reliability thresholds
204	204	* Adding new bubble detection patterns
...	...	@@ -218,6 +218,7 @@
218	218	=== Proposal Mechanism ===
219	219
220	220	Anyone can propose:
	239	+
221	221	1. Submit proposal with rationale
222	222	2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
223	223	3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
...	...	@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@
254	254	=== User Appeals ===
255	255
256	256	Users can appeal:
	276	+
257	257	* Content rejection decisions
258	258	* Risk tier assignments
259	259	* Audit outcomes
...	...	@@ -260,6 +260,7 @@
260	260	* Moderation actions
261	261
262	262	**Process**:
	283	+
263	263	1. Submit appeal with evidence
264	264	2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
265	265	3. Decision with reasoning
...	...	@@ -273,4 +273,3 @@
273	273	* [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
274	274	* [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
275	275	* [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
276		-