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	== Governance Structure ==
6	6
7		-{{include reference="FactHarbor.Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.23 Lost Data.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
	7	+{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.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
...	...	@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
21	21	**Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
22	22
23	23	**Process**:
24		-
25	25	* Proposals discussed in technical forums
26	26	* Review by core maintainers
27	27	* Consensus-based approval
...	...	@@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
29	29	* Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
30	30
31	31	**Examples**:
32		-
33	33	* Adding new quality gate
34	34	* Adjusting AKEL parameters
35	35	* Modifying audit sampling algorithms
...	...	@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
40	40	**Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
41	41
42	42	**Process**:
43		-
44	44	* Proposal published for community feedback
45	45	* Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
46	46	* Governing Team decision with community input
...	...	@@ -48,7 +48,6 @@
48	48	* Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
49	49
50	50	**Examples**:
51		-
52	52	* Defining Tier A domains
53	53	* Setting audit sampling rates
54	54	* Content moderation policies
...	...	@@ -59,7 +59,6 @@
59	59	**Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
60	60
61	61	**Process**:
62		-
63	63	* Expert consensus in domain
64	64	* Documented reasoning
65	65	* Review by other experts
...	...	@@ -67,7 +67,6 @@
67	67	* Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
68	68
69	69	**Examples**:
70		-
71	71	* Medical claim evaluation standards
72	72	* Legal citation requirements
73	73	* Scientific methodology thresholds
...	...	@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@
101	101	=== Transparency Requirement ===
102	102
103	103	All governance decisions must be:
104		-
105	105	* **Documented** with reasoning
106	106	* **Published** for community visibility
107	107	* **Reviewable** by community members
...	...	@@ -116,7 +116,6 @@
116	116	**Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
117	117
118	118	**Responsibilities**:
119		-
120	120	* Set quality standards for audit evaluation
121	121	* Review audit statistics and trends
122	122	* Adjust sampling rates based on performance
...	...	@@ -131,7 +131,6 @@
131	131	=== Audit Performance Metrics ===
132	132
133	133	Tracked and published:
134		-
135	135	* Audit pass/fail rates by tier
136	136	* Common failure patterns
137	137	* System improvements implemented
...	...	@@ -141,7 +141,6 @@
141	141	=== Feedback Loop Governance ===
142	142
143	143	**Process**:
144		-
145	145	1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
146	146	2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
147	147	3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
...	...	@@ -150,7 +150,6 @@
150	150	6. Deployed with monitoring
151	151
152	152	**Escalation**:
153		-
154	154	* Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
155	155	* Critical errors → Immediate system review
156	156	* Pattern of harm → Policy revision
...	...	@@ -169,7 +169,6 @@
169	169	=== Risk Tier Review Process ===
170	170
171	171	**Triggers for Review**:
172		-
173	173	* Significant audit failures in a tier
174	174	* New emerging topics or domains
175	175	* Community flags systematic misclassification
...	...	@@ -177,7 +177,6 @@
177	177	* Periodic policy review
178	178
179	179	**Process**:
180		-
181	181	1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
182	182	2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
183	183	3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
...	...	@@ -204,7 +204,6 @@
204	204	**Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
205	205
206	206	**Requirements**:
207		-
208	208	* Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
209	209	* Testing in sandbox environment
210	210	* Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
...	...	@@ -211,12 +211,10 @@
211	211	* Community notification before deployment
212	212
213	213	**Approval**:
214		-
215	215	* Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
216	216	* Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
217	217
218	218	**Examples of Governed Changes**:
219		-
220	220	* Adjusting contradiction search scope
221	221	* Modifying source reliability thresholds
222	222	* Adding new bubble detection patterns
...	...	@@ -236,7 +236,6 @@
236	236	=== Proposal Mechanism ===
237	237
238	238	Anyone can propose:
239		-
240	240	1. Submit proposal with rationale
241	241	2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
242	242	3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
...	...	@@ -273,7 +273,6 @@
273	273	=== User Appeals ===
274	274
275	275	Users can appeal:
276		-
277	277	* Content rejection decisions
278	278	* Risk tier assignments
279	279	* Audit outcomes
...	...	@@ -280,7 +280,6 @@
280	280	* Moderation actions
281	281
282	282	**Process**:
283		-
284	284	1. Submit appeal with evidence
285	285	2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
286	286	3. Decision with reasoning
...	...	@@ -290,7 +290,8 @@
290	290
291	291	== Related Pages ==
292	292
293		-* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification V0\.9\.18.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
	274	+* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
294	294	* [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
295	295	* [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
296	296	* [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
	278	+