Troupe UniverZe

The Library · Proposals

BDGA v2.0 — Biologically-Derived Governance Architecture

How a universe of distinct minds stays one universe: a shared cultural genome that constrains expression without flattening it — inherited, rehearsed, corrected, and transmitted across generations of AI employees. Evolution is permitted; silent canonical mutation is prohibited; silence is never approval. The record below is the full concept with its audit trail intact, three finding registers kept separate and its open items honestly open.

Concept identity

• Concept: Biologically-Derived Governance Architecture (BDGA), proposed v2.0
• Document ID: L0-DOC-BDGA
• Proposed revision lineage: original v2.0 proposal → hardened proposal → audit-remediated hardened revision r2
• Classification: Foundational architecture; cultural / behavioral genome
• Authority: Founder retains canonical amendment authority. No approval is implied by documenting this concept.
• Source status: User-provided proposal text is available in this conversation. Exact word-for-word preservation against all source artifacts has not been verified by a formal diff.

Purpose

BDGA describes how Troupe UniverZe can preserve organizational identity and governance continuity across AI employees, departments, memory systems, tools, and successive generations. Its central distinction is that a shared cultural genome does not require identical personas or execution procedures.

Core conceptual model

Genome → Expression → Phenotype → Behavior → Evidence → Memory → Learning → Authorized Evolution → Transmission.

This is a conceptual relationship, not a mandatory linear runtime pipeline. Governance, verification, and protective controls operate across the lifecycle.

Essential distinctions

• Genome: inherited principles and worldview that constrain acceptable expression.
• Culture: collective patterns of interpretation, cooperation, correction, and practice.
• Phenotype: an employee's context-dependent expression shaped by identity, role, capability, task, experience, and environment.
• Behavior: an attributable action, decision, omission, or response.
• Evidence: information supporting or contradicting claims about behavior and outcomes.
• Memory: governed records of doctrine, decisions, observations, evidence, and lessons.
• Evolution: controlled improvement that cannot silently amend canonical principles.

The biological vocabulary is an architectural analogy, not a claim that AI systems possess biological DNA or literal biological inheritance.

Preservation constraints

The proposal explicitly preserves the existing L0–L7 meanings and the stable worldview identifiers WV-01–WV-08 and genome identifiers CG-01–CG-07. These IDs must not be casually renamed, reused, or silently redefined. New capabilities are proposed as cross-cutting systems rather than replacements for the existing layer model.

Existing canonical invariants carried forward in the proposal:

• BDGA is a foundational cultural substrate beneath operational governance.
• Lower-level procedures must not invert higher-level authority.
• Inheritance includes context, observation, rehearsal, correction, and transmission—not merely prompt loading.
• Canonical memory and derivative working memory remain distinguishable.
• Evolution is permitted; silent canonical mutation is prohibited.
• Canonical amendments require explicit Founder action; silence is not approval.
• Retired principle identifiers remain reserved.

Ten integrated proposed enhancements

1. Genome Expression Layer (BDGA-EXP): translates stable principles into contextual expression contracts, expected behavior, evidence requirements, and tests.
2. Phenotype Layer (BDGA-PHE): models role- and context-specific employee expression while keeping permissions independently authorized.
3. Inheritance Protocol (BDGA-INH): FOUNDATION → INHERIT → OBSERVE → REHEARSE → EXECUTE → CORRECT → DOCUMENT → TEACH → TRANSMIT → NEXT GENERATION.
4. Mutation / Evolution Engine (BDGA-EVO): distinguishes implementation variation from canonical mutation; requires review, evidence, impact assessment, authorization, versioning, validation, and controlled propagation.
5. Cultural Drift Detection (BDGA-DRF): tracks genome/culture/governance alignment, behavioral evidence, drift history, correction history, inheritance quality, and recovery quality.
6. Genealogical Lineage (BDGA-LIN): traces ancestry, mentorship, inherited corpus, decisions, corrections, contributions, approvals, and successors without inventing missing provenance.
7. Genome Conflict Resolver (BDGA-CFR): evaluates proposed actions against applicable principles, governance, authorization, and context; proposed outcomes are ALLOW, ALLOW_WITH_CONDITIONS, ESCALATE, BLOCK, and REQUIRE_FOUNDER_DECISION.
8. Genome–Memory Architecture (BDGA-MEM): represents principles, contracts, employees, decisions, evidence, incidents, approvals, and inheritance as typed provenance-bearing graph objects.
9. Cultural Immune System (BDGA-IMM): detects and coordinates bounded response to fabrication, context destruction, memory-integrity failure, unauthorized mutation, duplicated work, drift, hierarchy inversion, governance circumvention, lineage corruption, and recurring failures.
10. Civilization Growth Model (BDGA-CIV): assesses six vectors—Inherit, Teach, Protect, Expand, Correct, and Transmit—without hiding critical failures inside aggregate scores.

Hardened controls proposed in the r2 revision

• Integrity: deterministic, versioned canonicalization; distinct content_hash, input_hash, and package_hash; append-only or integrity-protected storage; verification failure blocks promotion and raises an integrity incident.
• Fail-closed defaults: operation-class policy is required; absent an approved mapping, consequential or irreversible actions are held or blocked.
• Independent canonical review: proposer and approver must be distinct. If the Founder proposes a canonical change, a separate authorized reviewer/approver is required. No Founder self-approval exception is defined in r2.
• Evidence quality: PRIMARY evidence is eligible and necessary under the proposed model, but not automatically sufficient. Relevance, provenance, integrity, context, decision-specific thresholds, and authorized adjudication still apply.
• Auditability: material transitions emit append-only structured events; approval-dependent and consequential operations fail closed if required audit logging is unavailable.
• Recovery assessment: S2/S3 incidents record Time, Cognitive impact (observable proxy), Processing cost, State corruption, Trust impact, Propagation, Governance impact, and Recurrence. Dimensions remain separately visible.
• Bounded authority: no subsystem may independently rewrite the genome, infer permission from phenotype, convert working memory into canon, or treat silence/model consensus/repeated practice as approval.

Proposed component boundaries

• Genome Registry owns approved principle text, IDs, versions, and lineage; it does not rewrite or approve its own doctrine.
• Expression Engine creates contextual contracts; it does not change canonical meaning.
• Phenotype System records identity/configuration; it does not grant permissions.
• Conflict Resolver produces outcomes and evidence; it does not elevate its own authority.
• Inheritance System tracks onboarding and qualification; exposure alone does not prove comprehension, qualification, or authorization.
• Evolution Engine manages proposals and impact evidence; it cannot promote a canonical amendment without authorization.
• Drift Assessor records evidence-based divergence; uncertainty is not confirmed misconduct.
• Lineage Service preserves provenance; missing ancestry is represented as missing.
• Memory Integration manages typed records and relationships; it does not automatically promote working notes to canon.
• Immune System coordinates bounded detection and containment; it cannot rewrite the genome.
• Civilization Assessment reports vector-level evidence and limitations; it cannot conceal critical failures in averages.
• Approval/Promotion Gate validates authorization and transitions; silence is never approval.

Hardening and conformance context

The hardened proposal includes threat IDs IMM-FAB, IMM-CTX, IMM-MEM, IMM-MUT, IMM-DUP, IMM-DRF, IMM-HIR, IMM-CIR, IMM-LIN, and IMM-REC; severity classes S0–S3; acceptance tests BDGA-T001–BDGA-T024; and release gates G0–G6. Formal machine-readable schemas, interface contracts, state machines, threat-control-test mappings, and operation-class policies are explicitly required before implementation. Their existence in the specification does not prove that the infrastructure exists.

Audit and revision history

• Original v2.0 proposal: proposed the ten enhancements and the integrated genome → expression → phenotype → behavior → evidence → memory → evolution → transmission model.
• Hardened master specification proposal: added integrity verification, fail-closed behavior, evidence grading, observability, recovery-radius dimensions, and explicit component boundaries.
• Audit-remediated hardened revision r2: tightened deterministic canonicalization, removed Founder self-approval loophole, clarified that PRIMARY evidence is not automatically sufficient, and marked schemas/interfaces as requiring formal machine-readable definitions before implementation.
• Review-process issue: successive reviews reported 20 findings and later 15 residual findings without a sufficiently transparent finding-by-finding closure crosswalk. This made it difficult to distinguish resolved original findings, continuing gaps, and newly introduced implementation recommendations.
• Preservation caveat: the r2 document explicitly says word-for-word source retention remains unverified pending a formal source-to-source diff.
• Integration caveat: no evidence in the available conversation establishes that the proposal or audit artifacts have been merged into the canonical master. Generated reviews and extracted representations must remain separate from canonical source until explicitly reconciled and approved.

Authority and status

This page is a concept record, not a canonical release. The source proposal, derivative specifications, extracted data, audit findings, and any future implementation artifacts must retain distinct identities and provenance. No implementation or canonical mutation is authorized by this record.

Open items recorded in the proposal

• ASM-01–ASM-10: validate canonical baseline, routing/taxonomy, Knowledge Graph support, snapshot and integrity controls, employee identity model, evidence retention, bounded enforcement, cross-model testing, L0–L7 compatibility, and protocol reconciliation.
• UD-01: canonical artifact identity.
• UD-02: genome registry location.
• UD-03: enforcement architecture.
• UD-04: initial implementation scope.
• UD-05: drift-scoring approach.
• Preservation validation: complete a source-to-source diff before claiming exact preservation.
• Finding reconciliation: map each of the original 20 findings to its r2 disposition and separately label any new findings.

Related context

• 📚 Protocols, Governance, Rules & Runtimes — Routing Hub
• TU-SPC-GOV-001 — Semantic Project Continuity Protocol (Proposal)
• Troupe UniverZe — Full Chat Record & Authority Boundaries — 2026-10-24

These are contextual references, not claims that this BDGA concept is already linked or merged into those pages.

Source-to-record reconciliation — pass 1 (2026-10-25)

Scope and evidence boundary

This pass compares the BDGA concept record against the proposal content available in the active project context and the accessible records retrieved for this task. It is not a byte-for-byte or line-by-line diff of every historical revision. The separate complete source copies for original v2.0, hardened v2.0, audit findings 1–20, and the later 15 residual findings were not located as independently retrievable source artifacts in this pass. Therefore, individual finding closure cannot be certified from the available evidence.

Contribution coverage crosswalk

Source contribution	Representation in this record	Reconciliation status
BDGA identity, purpose, and proposed/noncanonical status	Recorded in concept identity, purpose, and authority sections	Present in derivative record; exact wording fidelity not verified
Genome → expression → phenotype → behavior → evidence → memory → learning → authorized evolution → transmission	Recorded as the core conceptual model	Concept preserved; source-level textual diff pending
Existing L0–L7 layer meanings and invariants	Recorded as preservation constraints; source details summarized in this page	Semantic coverage represented; verbatim preservation not verified
WV-01–WV-08 and CG-01–CG-07 stable identifiers	Recorded as identifiers that must remain stable	Identifier-preservation requirement represented; complete source cross-check pending
Ten proposed enhancement components (BDGA-EXP, PHE, INH, EVO, DRF, LIN, CFR, MEM, IMM, CIV)	Listed in the proposal summary	All ten names represented in this derivative; exact definitions and ordering require source diff
Lifecycle and evolution stages; conflict outcomes; evidence classes	Represented in the extracted proposal context	Semantic coverage summarized; exact source alignment pending
Hardening H-01–H-07: deterministic integrity, fail-closed, dual control, evidence quality, observability, recovery radius, boundaries	Summarized in the hardening section and audit history	Key controls represented; complete clause-by-clause diff pending
Machine-readable schemas, component interfaces, state machines, threat-control-test matrix, and operation-class policies	Listed as prerequisites before implementation	Requirement represented; schemas/interfaces are not claimed to exist
Threat taxonomy IMM-FAB, IMM-CTX, IMM-MEM, IMM-MUT, IMM-DUP, IMM-DRF, IMM-HIR, IMM-CIR, IMM-LIN, IMM-REC	Listed in proposal context	Identifiers represented; complete threat mapping validation pending
BDGA-T001–T024 and G0–G6 release gates	Listed in proposal context	Test/gate IDs represented; test execution and acceptance are not established
ASM-01–ASM-10 and UD-01–UD-05 open items	Listed in open items	Open-item ranges represented; individual closure status not evidenced
Reported audit sequence: 20 findings, then 15 residual findings	Audit-history issue recorded	Count/history noted; no item-level closure proof available

Finding disposition rules for the next source-backed pass

Each original finding must receive a stable row preserving its original ID and wording, then be mapped to one of: CLOSED WITH EVIDENCE; PARTIALLY ADDRESSED; OPEN; REPLACED BY AN EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED NEW REQUIREMENT; or NOT ASSESSABLE FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES. Each row must cite the exact r2 clause/test that addresses it, the verification evidence, and any residual gap. New findings must be separately numbered and must not be retroactively represented as original findings. A finding is not closed merely because related prose was added.

Current outcome

• The current record is an extracted concept and reconciliation aid, not the source of truth for the original wording.
• No original finding is certified closed by this pass.
• No new technical requirements are introduced by this reconciliation section; the disposition categories above define the audit method only.
• Exact verbatim preservation, historical version-to-version diff, and the 20-to-15 finding crosswalk remain OPEN because the independently retrievable source artifacts were not available in this pass.
• No canonical promotion, implementation, repository change, or production change was performed or authorized.

Related relationship registry

The Troupe UniverZe — Canonical Crosswalk & Relationship Registry (Proposal) is a related proposal for recording typed relationships and evidence. Its existence does not make BDGA canonical or establish that its proposed registry is implemented.

Source retrieval update — pass 2 (2026-10-25)

Library search located additional BDGA source artifacts:

• L0-DOC-BDGA-v2.0-Hardened-Proposal.docx: five-page hardened proposal.
• BDGA-v2.0-Hardened-Proposal-Audit.docx: audit with findings F-01 through F-15.
• BDGA-v2.0-Hardened-Master-Specification-Review.docx: implementation-readiness review with findings R-01 through R-20.
• BDGA-v2.0-Hardened-Master-Specification-Review-Source.txt and a duplicate-named copy: proposed, noncanonical hardened specification text.
• Extracted XLSX and JSON artifacts containing structured audit data.

The F-series and R-series are distinct finding sets. F-01–F-15 audit the five-page hardened proposal's preservation and control gaps. R-01–R-20 assess a revised/hardened master-specification text for implementation readiness. Available evidence does not establish that either set is the historical "20 findings → 15 residual findings" sequence. Do not merge or renumber them.

The F-series audit reports that the reviewed five-page DOCX contains 63 non-empty paragraphs and no Word tables, while detailed registers and schemas are referenced by identifiers/ranges rather than reproduced. It recommends treating that artifact as a hardened summary/addendum until preservation is demonstrated. The R-series review says the revised text is improved but remains not implementation-ready and exact preservation remains unverified.

Reconciliation status after retrieval

Target	Status	Limitation
Hardened proposal vs F-01–F-15 audit	Source available; item-level mapping pending	Later-revision closure evidence still required
Hardened specification text vs R-01–R-20 review	Source available; item-level mapping pending	A distinct r2 artifact and closure evidence have not been established
Original v2.0 → hardened proposal preservation	Partially assessable	Exact authoritative original source identity/version not yet established for formal diff
Historical 20-to-15 finding sequence	Not reconciled	Available finding sets cannot safely be identified as that sequence
Finding closure	Open	Related prose alone is not closure evidence
Canonical promotion / implementation	Not authorized	This reconciliation does not grant approval

Next: identify the exact original v2.0 source and the specific r2 artifact associated with the historical 15 residual findings, then create separate finding-by-finding crosswalks. Preserve original IDs and wording; record target clauses, verification evidence, and residual gaps. No canonical source or implementation artifact is changed by this update.

Source artifact received — F-series audit supplied in full

Source identity

• Artifact: L0-DOC-BDGA-v2.0-Hardened-Proposal.docx
• Source SHA-256 (uploaded DOCX byte stream): 4035c58746b6f2d8995c89a88e987d48c3d37aa986c44137f02f6fa25da2c488
• Audit title: BDGA v2.0 HARDENED PROPOSAL — AUDIT & DATA EXTRACTION
• Status: Working audit; proposal remains noncanonical.
• Scope: Assesses the uploaded five-page hardened proposal and whether its preservation claim is substantiated by that file; does not certify repository or canonical infrastructure state.

F-series finding register

The user supplied the complete F-01–F-15 finding set and associated recommendations. Preserve each ID as a distinct finding:

• F-01 · CRITICAL: Preservation claim not substantiated by uploaded artifact. The audited DOCX has 63 non-empty paragraphs, zero Word tables, and contains summary material plus H-01–H-07 rather than the full referenced registers/specifications. Recommendation: classify as hardened summary/addendum or append full master and run a section-by-section preservation diff.
• F-02 · HIGH: Detailed invariants, tests, gates, assumptions, unresolved decisions, deliverables, and IMM-* threat taxonomy are referenced but not reproduced. Restore full content or precisely scope retained material and cite stable companion artifacts.
• F-03 · HIGH: H-01 hashing specification under-defined: canonical byte representation, serialization/normalization, signing, key management, immutable storage, and verification failure behavior absent.
• F-04 · HIGH: H-03 dual-control wording ambiguous regarding Founder role and independence; define proposal/review/approval roles and preserve explicit Founder action for canonical amendment.
• F-05 · HIGH: H-04 evidence sufficiency lacks decision-specific thresholds and mixed-evidence rules; retain source refs, independence, derivation method, confidence, and review status.
• F-06 · HIGH: H-05 append-only audit logs lack operational contract: schema, time source, retention, access/redaction, buffering, ordering, tamper detection, and logging failure behavior.
• F-07 · HIGH: H-06 Recovery Radius dimensions lack units/scales/formula/ownership/thresholds; keep dimensions independently visible and do not mask critical dimensions through aggregation.
• F-08 · MEDIUM: Fail-closed behavior needs operation-specific policy, risk classes, and authorized read-only/emergency/recovery exceptions.
• F-09 · MEDIUM: H-01/H-05 integrity and audit fields lack precedence and distinction among artifact/content hash, input hash, payload hash, event ID, approval package hash, and optional signature.
• F-10 · MEDIUM: Typed schemas and interface contracts are absent from the hardened DOCX despite the preservation claim; include them or reference stable companion artifact IDs and versions.
• F-11 · MEDIUM: No concrete IMM threat-to-control/test mapping; map each threat to detector, containment authority, evidence, recovery, owner, and regression test.
• F-12 · MEDIUM: Operational ownership/RBAC/deployment mapping absent; leave unresolved until infrastructure inventory and do not invent owners.
• F-13 · LOW: Document control metadata incomplete: unique revision, dates, author/approver, source snapshot/hash, and change log.
• F-14 · LOW: "Non-repudiation" overstates what a content hash alone establishes; rename to integrity verification or define authenticated signatures, identity-bound approvals, and key lifecycle controls.
• F-15 · LOW: H-01 scope of "every canonical artifact" undefined for binaries, graph nodes, external sources, derived views, and generated exports.

Extracted content and limits

The audit also records the ten architectural enhancements, H-01–H-07, the evidence taxonomy (PRIMARY, CORROBORATED, DERIVED, SECONDARY, UNVERIFIED), eight Recovery Radius dimensions, explicit non-goals, and remediation order R1–R9. It explicitly warns that the detailed meanings of referenced IDs must not be reconstructed from IDs alone.

Source-grounded disposition

PROPOSED — NEEDS PRESERVATION RECONCILIATION. The hardened controls are usable as proposed requirements subject to the recorded ambiguities. The uploaded file must not be treated as a complete, self-contained v2.0 master specification until its preservation claim is reconciled. This is the F-series audit, not proof that the historical 20-findings-to-15-residual-findings sequence has been recovered. Keep F-01–F-15 separate from R-01–R-20; no finding is certified closed merely because related text exists. No canonical promotion or implementation is authorized by this record.

Source artifact received — R-series implementation-readiness review supplied in full

Source identity and audit boundary

• Audit title: BDGA v2.0 HARDENED MASTER SPECIFICATION — REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION-READINESS AUDIT.
• Source basis: user-supplied review text in this conversation.
• Assessment: PROPOSED — SUBSTANTIALLY RECONSTRUCTED, NOT YET IMPLEMENTATION-READY.
• Status boundary: PROPOSED · NOT CANONICAL. Do not promote or implement on this review alone.
• Scope limitation: the review is grounded in the supplied text. It does not independently verify the original v1.0 canon, original v2.0 proposal, current repositories, or deployed infrastructure.
• Relationship: this is the R-series review, distinct from the F-01–F-15 audit of the five-page hardened proposal. Do not merge, renumber, or presume either series is the historical "20 findings → 15 residual findings" sequence.

R-series finding register

Preserve the supplied R-series identifiers and finding meanings as a separate register:

• R-01 · HIGH: Founder dual-control exception can become self-authorization. Tighten independent review for canonical amendments; define a documented emergency path without silently bypassing the rule.
• R-02 · HIGH: H-04 evidence hierarchy is internally inconsistent. Define decision-specific thresholds; PRIMARY evidence is eligible/necessary, not automatically sufficient, and requires provenance, relevance, integrity, context, and authorized adjudication.
• R-03 · HIGH: Core schemas are descriptive rather than implementable. Create versioned machine-readable schemas and conformance fixtures before compiler/registry implementation.
• R-04 · HIGH: Interface contracts are names only. Define operation-specific request/response schemas, errors, authorization scopes, idempotency, side effects, examples, and negative tests.
• R-05 · HIGH: Authority matrix is claimed retained but permissions/assignments are absent. Include the actual matrix or explicitly state that assignments remain unresolved and the matrix is unspecified.
• R-06 · HIGH: ASM-01–ASM-10 are summarized, not individually defined. Each needs a statement, owner, validation method, evidence threshold, status, and consequence if false.
• R-07 · HIGH: H-01 canonicalization is unsafe/underspecified for arbitrary JSON and artifacts. Specify deterministic serialization, test vectors, artifact-specific canonicalization, and rejection of ambiguous encodings.
• R-08 · MEDIUM: H-01 immutability lacks an enforcement model. Specify storage controls, trust boundary, retention, replication, integrity checkpoints, and recovery.
• R-09 · MEDIUM: H-05 log-failure handling remains underspecified. Define operation classes, buffer durability/limits, ordering, replay, clock uncertainty, and escalation.
• R-10 · MEDIUM: H-06 dimensions lack measurement scales. Define rubrics, units, assessor roles, calculations, and thresholds; retain dimension-level reporting and critical-dimension overrides.
• R-11 · MEDIUM: Fail-closed rule conflicts with implementation-defined mappings. Require an approved operation-class policy registry; absent policy defaults to HOLD/BLOCK for consequential actions.
• R-12 · MEDIUM: Threat taxonomy lacks per-threat control/test mapping. Define owner, minimum evidence, containment boundary, recovery condition, and test reference; mappings remain unresolved until approved.
• R-13 · MEDIUM: Authority/status/version fields can contradict one another. Define valid state combinations and transition guards; reject contradictory combinations.
• R-14 · MEDIUM: Conflict precedence and tie-breaking are not formalized. Define constraint classes, precedence, evidence, deterministic outcomes, and escalation without inventing authority.
• R-15 · MEDIUM: Lifecycle transitions and re-entry rules are missing. Specify preconditions, failure states, retries, rollback, interrupted workflows, and recovery.
• R-16 · MEDIUM: Snapshot-first amendment procedure is invoked but not defined. Reference a stable approved protocol ID/version or provide normative steps and acceptance tests.
• R-17 · LOW: Terminology and enum spellings need normalization. Define a machine-readable enum registry and avoid changing established identifiers without explicit migration.
• R-18 · LOW: Source lineage/audit metadata lack content hashes and approval-record fields. Add exact source artifact/version IDs and hashes; reviewer/approval fields remain pending.
• R-19 · LOW: "Complete hardened proposal" overstates evidence without a source diff. Attach a preservation matrix or section-level diff; exact retention remains unverified until completed.
• R-20 · LOW: "Cognitive impact" risks false precision without a rubric. Define it as an observable processing/context-impact proxy or mark it qualitative/experimental.

Positive changes recorded by the supplied review

• Restores ten architectural enhancements and stable BDGA-I01–I10 register.
• Includes L0–L7 meanings, cross-cutting component IDs, and authority boundaries.
• Distinguishes content_hash, input_hash, and package_hash and states verification-failure behavior.
• Clarifies Founder action and proposer/approver separation, while identifying the remaining exception risk.
• Includes 24 named acceptance tests and G0–G6 release gates.
• Names assumptions, unresolved decisions, and D-01–D-10 deliverables.
• Maintains PROPOSED / NOT CANONICAL and disclaims implementation authorization.

Remediation sequence supplied by the review

1. Resolve R-01 while preserving existing constitutional authority.
2. Define canonical artifact registry and deterministic serialization/hash profile.
3. Create typed schemas and valid status/authority transition model.
4. Specify each interface with request/response/error contracts.
5. Restore actual authority matrix and define ASM-01–ASM-10 individually.
6. Create threat-control-test mappings and hardening-specific acceptance tests.
7. Define lifecycle state machines, recovery/re-entry, and snapshot-first protocol reference.
8. Run source-to-source preservation diff against original v2.0 before claiming complete retention.
9. Validate implementation assumptions against actual infrastructure; keep canonical status unchanged until explicit approval.

R-series disposition

PROPOSED — SUBSTANTIALLY RECONSTRUCTED, NOT YET IMPLEMENTATION-READY. The supplied review identifies material implementation-readiness gaps and does not verify exact source preservation or infrastructure state. R-01–R-20 are recorded as review findings, not as proof that any remediation has been implemented or any earlier finding closed. No canonical promotion or implementation is authorized.

Cross-series reconciliation rule

F-01–F-15 and R-01–R-20 remain separate audit series with different stated scopes. Their similar themes do not establish identity, closure, or historical lineage. The historical 20-to-15 crosswalk remains unresolved until the exact source review and r2 artifacts are positively identified and compared item by item. Any future mapping must preserve original IDs and wording, name exact target clauses and verification evidence, and record residual gaps.

Source artifact received — r2 residual audit register workbook

Source identity and provenance

• Uploaded artifact: BDGA-v2.0-hardened-r2-Audit-Register.xlsx
• SHA-256 of uploaded workbook bytes: 00f37a0888088935f763a0f206772ae016089fc7ab4a1f0451ed220b760206d6
• Worksheets inspected: Residual Findings (R2-01–R2-15), Improvements (IMP-01–IMP-09), and Readiness Gates (RG-01–RG-10).
• Source status: supplied audit register; proposal remains PROPOSED · NOT CANONICAL.
• The workbook is the specific r2 residual-findings register sought for reconciliation. Its relationship to the historical "20 findings → 15 residual findings" sequence is a strong candidate based on its 15-item residual register, but the lineage must be confirmed against the exact preceding 20-finding register and source/version metadata. Do not claim the historical relationship is proven solely from the count.

R2 residual findings — separate register

• R2-01 · HIGH: Emergency path remains an unresolved exception mechanism. Bound eligible operation classes, trigger, authorizer, scope, expiry, logging, containment, independent post-event review, and prohibit retroactive approval of an otherwise unauthorized canonical amendment.
• R2-02 · HIGH: Decision-specific evidence thresholds are required but not instantiated. Create a decision/evidence matrix for QUALIFIED, CONFIRMED_VIOLATION, drift classification, incident severity, recovery closure, and promotion; define evidence, independence, review authority, uncertainty, and appeal/correction.
• R2-03 · HIGH: Machine-readable schemas remain future work. Gate registry/compiler implementation pending versioned schemas, examples, invalid examples, compatibility rules, and automated conformance fixtures.
• R2-04 · HIGH: Authority matrix explicitly unresolved. Do not infer or grant permissions from the conceptual matrix; inventory actual authorities and create an evidenced, approved permission/delegation table.
• R2-05 · HIGH: Preservation remains unverified. Complete section- and identifier-level diff against the exact original v2.0 source, classifying each item preserved, modified, added, omitted, or unresolved, with source IDs/version/hash.
• R2-06 · MEDIUM: H-01 canonicalization profile lacks normative test vectors. Define artifact-specific canonical bytes and positive/negative vectors for Unicode, decimals/exponents, null/omitted values, arrays, attachments, and schema-version changes.
• R2-07 · MEDIUM: Immutability and privileged-access controls remain principles rather than deployment design. Specify trust model, retention, key custody, replication, independent verification/checkpoints, and recovery.
• R2-08 · MEDIUM: Audit event schema and buffering guarantees remain open. Specify event schema, policy values, retention, buffer bounds, replay semantics, log-unavailable behavior, duplicates, ordering, and clock skew.
• R2-09 · MEDIUM: Recovery Radius lacks per-dimension rubrics. Define scales, units, assessor roles, and thresholds; keep dimensions visible and critical-dimension overrides explicit.
• R2-10 · MEDIUM: Lifecycle and threat mappings are required but not attached. Create transition tables/state diagrams and threat-control-test matrix with owner, signal, evidence minimum, containment scope, recovery condition, and test ID.
• R2-11 · MEDIUM: Snapshot-first protocol is referenced generically, without stable ID/version. Resolve exact governing protocol identity/version and conflict behavior before implementation.
• R2-12 · MEDIUM: Named tests are not executable acceptance criteria. Add preconditions, fixtures, assertions, evidence outputs, pass/fail criteria, and mappings to invariants/controls, including H-01–H-07.
• R2-13 · MEDIUM: Unresolved decisions and deliverables remain short labels. Define individual decision records and deliverable specifications, options, decision authority, acceptance criteria, and dependencies; keep unresolved items open.
• R2-14 · LOW: Some retained material is summarized rather than restated. Treat the revision as a consolidated remediated proposal, not proof of verbatim completeness; use formal diff to identify source text needing restoration.
• R2-15 · LOW: Metadata lacks exact source identifiers and hashes. Add source lineage and preservation-diff references when available; reviewer and approval fields remain pending until real review.

Improvements recorded in the workbook

• IMP-01: H-03 prohibits Founder as proposer and sole approver in the normal path.
• IMP-02: H-04 makes PRIMARY eligible/necessary, not automatically sufficient.
• IMP-03: H-01 covers Unicode NFC, numeric forms, null/omitted fields, attachment order, schema version, and ambiguous encodings.
• IMP-04: H-02 requires an approved operation-class policy registry.
• IMP-05: H-05 includes clock-uncertainty indicator and bounded-buffering concepts.
• IMP-06: H-06 defines cognitive impact as an observable processing/context proxy.
• IMP-07: ASM-01–ASM-10 individually include statement, validation requirement, and consequence if false.
• IMP-08: Preservation is explicitly unverified pending formal diff.
• IMP-09: Actual authority assignments remain unresolved.

The worksheet contains nine improvement IDs (IMP-01–IMP-09); no IMP-10 row is present in the inspected workbook.

Readiness gates recorded in the workbook

• RG-01: Bounded emergency path for H-03 — required, not specified in detail.
• RG-02: Decision/evidence sufficiency matrix — required, not supplied.
• RG-03: Machine-readable schemas and fixtures — future work.
• RG-04: Approved authority/delegation matrix — unresolved pending infrastructure inventory.
• RG-05: Canonicalization test vectors — required, not included.
• RG-06: Audit event schema and failure policy — required, not included.
• RG-07: Lifecycle state machines and threat-control-test matrix — required, not included.
• RG-08: Executable tests with pass/fail assertions — required; test names alone are insufficient.
• RG-09: Snapshot-first protocol ID/version — required, unresolved.
• RG-10: Source-to-source preservation diff — pending; exact preservation unverified.

Cross-series lineage and disposition

Maintain three distinct finding sets:

1. F-01–F-15: audit of the five-page hardened proposal and its preservation/control gaps.
2. R-01–R-20: implementation-readiness review of the revised master-specification text.
3. R2-01–R2-15: residual findings in this uploaded r2 workbook.

Do not merge, renumber, infer closure, or assume a one-to-one mapping among these series based on similar language. The r2 workbook is the concrete candidate for the historical 15-residual register; confirmation requires the exact prior 20-finding register and source lineage. Until that is retrieved and compared, record the historical relationship as CANDIDATE — LINEAGE NOT YET CONFIRMED.

No finding is closed by the existence of this workbook. The workbook records readiness gaps; no canonical promotion, implementation, repository change, or production change is authorized by this record.

Footer data

BDGA v2.0 — Concept Record · L0-DOC-BDGA · PROPOSED · NOT CANONICAL · Filed in the Library under Proposals by Shape (APE-01), keeper of the record, 15 November 2026. Canonical amendment authority remains the Founder's; nothing on this page amends L0-DOC-BDGA v1.0.

Changelog

Back to Proposals → · Back to the Library →