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

...	...	@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
4	4
5	5	== Governance Structure ==
6	6
7		-{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
	7	+{{include reference="FactHarbor.Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.23 Lost Data.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
...	...	@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
21	21	**Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
22	22
23	23	**Process**:
	24	+
24	24	* Proposals discussed in technical forums
25	25	* Review by core maintainers
26	26	* Consensus-based approval
...	...	@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
28	28	* Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
29	29
30	30	**Examples**:
	32	+
31	31	* Adding new quality gate
32	32	* Adjusting AKEL parameters
33	33	* Modifying audit sampling algorithms
...	...	@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
38	38	**Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
39	39
40	40	**Process**:
	43	+
41	41	* Proposal published for community feedback
42	42	* Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
43	43	* Governing Team decision with community input
...	...	@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
45	45	* Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
46	46
47	47	**Examples**:
	51	+
48	48	* Defining Tier A domains
49	49	* Setting audit sampling rates
50	50	* Content moderation policies
...	...	@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
55	55	**Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
56	56
57	57	**Process**:
	62	+
58	58	* Expert consensus in domain
59	59	* Documented reasoning
60	60	* Review by other experts
...	...	@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
62	62	* Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
63	63
64	64	**Examples**:
	70	+
65	65	* Medical claim evaluation standards
66	66	* Legal citation requirements
67	67	* Scientific methodology thresholds
...	...	@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@
95	95	=== Transparency Requirement ===
96	96
97	97	All governance decisions must be:
	104	+
98	98	* **Documented** with reasoning
99	99	* **Published** for community visibility
100	100	* **Reviewable** by community members
...	...	@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@
109	109	**Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
110	110
111	111	**Responsibilities**:
	119	+
112	112	* Set quality standards for audit evaluation
113	113	* Review audit statistics and trends
114	114	* Adjust sampling rates based on performance
...	...	@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@
123	123	=== Audit Performance Metrics ===
124	124
125	125	Tracked and published:
	134	+
126	126	* Audit pass/fail rates by tier
127	127	* Common failure patterns
128	128	* System improvements implemented
...	...	@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
132	132	=== Feedback Loop Governance ===
133	133
134	134	**Process**:
	144	+
135	135	1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
136	136	2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
137	137	3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
...	...	@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@
140	140	6. Deployed with monitoring
141	141
142	142	**Escalation**:
	153	+
143	143	* Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
144	144	* Critical errors → Immediate system review
145	145	* Pattern of harm → Policy revision
...	...	@@ -158,6 +158,7 @@
158	158	=== Risk Tier Review Process ===
159	159
160	160	**Triggers for Review**:
	172	+
161	161	* Significant audit failures in a tier
162	162	* New emerging topics or domains
163	163	* Community flags systematic misclassification
...	...	@@ -165,6 +165,7 @@
165	165	* Periodic policy review
166	166
167	167	**Process**:
	180	+
168	168	1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
169	169	2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
170	170	3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
...	...	@@ -191,6 +191,7 @@
191	191	**Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
192	192
193	193	**Requirements**:
	207	+
194	194	* Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
195	195	* Testing in sandbox environment
196	196	* Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
...	...	@@ -197,10 +197,12 @@
197	197	* Community notification before deployment
198	198
199	199	**Approval**:
	214	+
200	200	* Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
201	201	* Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
202	202
203	203	**Examples of Governed Changes**:
	219	+
204	204	* Adjusting contradiction search scope
205	205	* Modifying source reliability thresholds
206	206	* Adding new bubble detection patterns
...	...	@@ -220,6 +220,7 @@
220	220	=== Proposal Mechanism ===
221	221
222	222	Anyone can propose:
	239	+
223	223	1. Submit proposal with rationale
224	224	2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
225	225	3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
...	...	@@ -256,6 +256,7 @@
256	256	=== User Appeals ===
257	257
258	258	Users can appeal:
	276	+
259	259	* Content rejection decisions
260	260	* Risk tier assignments
261	261	* Audit outcomes
...	...	@@ -262,6 +262,7 @@
262	262	* Moderation actions
263	263
264	264	**Process**:
	283	+
265	265	1. Submit appeal with evidence
266	266	2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
267	267	3. Decision with reasoning
...	...	@@ -275,4 +275,3 @@
275	275	* [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
276	276	* [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
277	277	* [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
278		-