@hap-labs/human-agent-paradigm 0.1.0 → 0.2.1

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (18) hide show
  1. package/README.md +19 -45
  2. package/assets/EN/CONFORMANCE_CHECKLIST.md +156 -161
  3. package/assets/EN/CONTRACT_TEMPLATE.md +108 -112
  4. package/assets/EN/DECISION_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md +76 -81
  5. package/assets/EN/DELIVERY_REPORT_TEMPLATE.md +103 -83
  6. package/assets/EN/DERIVED_SPECIFICATION.md +73 -76
  7. package/assets/EN/HUMAN_AGENT_PARADIGM.md +26 -30
  8. package/docs/ZH_CN/README.md +30 -0
  9. package/package.json +7 -16
  10. package/CHANGELOG.md +0 -21
  11. package/README.zh-CN.md +0 -52
  12. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/__init__.py +0 -3
  13. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/__main__.py +0 -6
  14. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/checks.py +0 -359
  15. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/cli.py +0 -115
  16. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/config.py +0 -33
  17. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/governance_check_config.json +0 -166
  18. package/scripts/python/repo_governance_check/report.py +0 -79
package/README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,60 +1,34 @@
1
- # hap-governance
1
+ # Human-Agent Paradigm
2
2
 
3
- The **governance content package** of the Human-Agent Paradigm (HAP):
4
- the frozen governance documents and their structural self-check tool, published as an independent npm package so content
5
- (owner-approval cadence) and tooling (engineering cadence) release independently.
3
+ The **governance content package** of the Human-Agent Paradigm (HAP): six frozen governance documents and their
4
+ structural self-check tool, published as a standalone npm package so that the content.
6
5
 
7
- **English** | [简体中文](README.zh-CN.md)
6
+ **English** | [简体中文](docs/ZH_CN/README.md)
8
7
 
9
8
  ## Contents
10
9
 
11
- | Path | Purpose |
12
- |:----------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
13
- | `assets/ZH_CN/` | The six governance documents — Simplified Chinese originals: `HUMAN_AGENT_PARADIGM.md` (Constitution v1.0), `DERIVED_SPECIFICATION.md` (v1.0), `CONFORMANCE_CHECKLIST.md` (v1.0), `CONTRACT_TEMPLATE.md`, `DECISION_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`, `DELIVERY_REPORT_TEMPLATE.md` |
14
- | `assets/EN/` | Official English translations of the same six documents |
15
- | `scripts/python/repo_governance_check/` | Structural self-check for the document set (Python stdlib only; auto-detects `assets/ZH_CN` etc.) |
10
+ | Path | Purpose |
11
+ |:----------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
12
+ | `assets/ZH_CN/` | The six governance documents (Simplified Chinese originals): `HUMAN_AGENT_PARADIGM.md` (Constitution v1.0), `DERIVED_SPECIFICATION.md` (Derived Specification v1.0), `CONFORMANCE_CHECKLIST.md` (Conformance Checklist v1.0), `CONTRACT_TEMPLATE.md`, `DECISION_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`, `DELIVERY_REPORT_TEMPLATE.md` |
13
+ | `assets/EN/` | The official English translations of the same six documents |
16
14
 
17
15
  ## Usage
18
16
 
19
- Consumers copy the `assets/` language directories into their workspace governance root
20
-
21
- ```bash
22
- python3 -m scripts.python.repo_governance_check --root . --out-dir reports
23
- ```
17
+ Consumers copy the `assets/` language directory into the governance root of their own workspace. Standalone use.
24
18
 
25
19
  ## Version strategy
26
20
 
27
- | Content version | Package version | Trigger |
28
- |:-------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------|:---------------------------|
29
- | Constitution v1.0 | 1.0.0 (baseline) | initial release |
30
- | Constitution revision (major) | major bump | a new Constitution version |
31
- | Derived Specification / Checklist / Templates revision | minor / patch bump | derived-family edits |
32
-
33
- The Constitution version is authoritative; package versions follow it. Every content amendment requires explicit owner
34
- approval in a HAP flow (Constitution §0.4, Derived Specification §0.4). Tooling changes to the checker do not change the
35
- governance content.
36
-
37
- ## Publishing
38
-
39
- Releases are published to npm from GitHub Actions ([.github/workflows/publish.yml](.github/workflows/publish.yml)):
40
- pushing a `v*` tag that matches the `package.json` version triggers a build + `npm publish`; the same can be triggered
41
- manually with `workflow_dispatch`.
42
-
43
- The workflow uses npm **Trusted Publishing (OIDC)** — publishing authenticates with the GitHub Actions OIDC token, so
44
- **no npm token/secret** is stored in this repository. Provenance is generated automatically for public repositories.
45
-
46
- Before the first publish succeeds, configure the Trusted Publisher once on npmjs.com
47
- (Package Settings → Trusted publishing → GitHub Actions):
48
-
49
- - Organization or user: `hap-labs`
50
- - Repository: `human-agent-paradigm-governance`
51
- - Workflow filename: `publish.yml`
52
- - Allowed actions: `npm publish`
21
+ | Content version | Package version | Trigger |
22
+ |:----------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|
23
+ | Constitution v1.0 | 1.0.0 (baseline) | Initial release |
24
+ | Constitution amendment (major) | major increment | New constitution version |
25
+ | Derived spec / checklist / template revisions | minor / patch increment | Derived-family edits |
53
26
 
54
- After the first successful publish, consider hardening the package (Settings → Publishing access → "Require two-factor
55
- authentication and disallow tokens") and revoking any obsolete automation tokens.
27
+ The constitution version governs, and the package version follows it. Any content revision must be explicitly approved
28
+ by the Owner within a HAP run (Constitution §0.4, Derived Specification §0.4). Tool-only changes to the self-check tool
29
+ do not change the governance content.
56
30
 
57
31
  ## Governance
58
32
 
59
- This repository is governed by its own content (the HAP Constitution). Amendments are made through HAP runs with owner
60
- sign-off; publishing is an owner-authorized action.
33
+ This repository is governed by its own content (the HAP Constitution). Revisions happen through a HAP run with the
34
+ Owner's signature; publishing is an Owner-authorized action.
package/assets/EN/CONFORMANCE_CHECKLIST.md CHANGED
@@ -1,211 +1,206 @@
1
1
  # Human–Agent Collaboration Paradigm · Conformance Self-Check Checklist
2
2
 
3
- > English translation of the frozen document `CONFORMANCE_CHECKLIST.md`. The Simplified Chinese original is
4
- > authoritative for governance; this English copy is provided for agent reading and for filling `checklist_filled.md`.
5
- > Version markers mirror the original (v1.0), and every item ID and ★ marker is kept identical so the preflight
6
- > inventory
7
- > comparison works in either language. When filling the English copy, verdicts are `Compliant` / `Non-compliant` /
8
- > `Not applicable`; in the user-language copy, `符合` / `不符合` / `不适用`.
9
-
10
3
  Version: v1.0
11
4
  Status: self-check tool · subordinate to the constitution · v1.0 reviewed and confirmed by the Owner, serving as the
12
5
  pre-delivery self-check basis
13
- Upstream document: `HUMAN_AGENT_PARADIGM.md` v1.0 (the constitution)
14
- Companion document: `DERIVED_SPECIFICATION.md` v1.0 (derived specification)
6
+ Upstream document: `HUMAN_AGENT_PARADIGM.md` v1.0 (Constitution)
7
+ Companion document: `DERIVED_SPECIFICATION.md` v1.0 (Derived Specification)
15
8
 
16
- ## How to Use
9
+ ## Usage
17
10
 
18
- 1. **When to run**: before every delivery (pre-P7), at the end of every milestone, and at every governance audit; the
11
+ 1. **When to run**: before every delivery (before P7), at the end of every milestone, and at every governance audit; the
19
12
  pre-delivery check is mandatory.
20
- 2. **Judging**: each item may be marked only `Compliant` / `Non-compliant` / `Not applicable`. Marking `Compliant`
21
- requires an evidence ID or evidence location; marking `Not applicable` requires a written reason; a "Compliant"
22
- without evidence counts as `Non-compliant`.
23
- 3. **★ marks hard items**: if any ★ item fails, the delivery cannot enter acceptance; non-conformances touching
24
- constitutional 3.1, 3.2, or 3.4 void the delivery. ★ items may not be marked `Not applicable`; genuine scope disputes
25
- must return to the contract process for the human to decide — not be exempted inside this table.
13
+ 2. **How to judge**: each item may be filled only as `Compliant` / `Non-compliant` / `Not applicable`. A `Compliant`
14
+ must include an evidence ID or evidence location; a `Not applicable` must give a reason; a "Compliant" without
15
+ evidence is treated as `Non-compliant`.
16
+ 3. **★ marks a hard item**: if any ★ item fails, the delivery may not enter acceptance; non-conformances touching
17
+ constitution 3.1, 3.2, or 3.4 void the delivery. A ★ item may not be filled as "not applicable"; when scope is
18
+ genuinely disputed, return to the contract process for the human to rule, not exempt it within this checklist.
26
19
  4. **This checklist is a self-check tool, not proof of conformance**: conformance ultimately rests on behavior and
27
- results, evidenced by independently verifiable records (constitution 9.2). Passing self-check does not replace
28
- multi-view review and the human's acceptance.
29
- 5. **Rectification rules**: non-★ non-conformances must be recorded, rectified, and re-checked; re-check results are
30
- appended after this table and archived with the evidence.
31
- 6. **Sign-off**: the checker, check time, and evidence-package version must be recorded; the final conclusion is
32
- confirmed by the human.
20
+ results, evidenced by independently verifiable evidence (constitution 9.2). Passing the self-check does not replace
21
+ multi-view review or human acceptance.
22
+ 5. **Remediation rules**: a non-★ item that is non-compliant must be recorded as a defect, remediated, and re-checked;
23
+ the re-check result is appended after this checklist and archived with the evidence.
24
+ 6. **Signing**: the checker, the check time, and the evidence-package version used must be recorded; the final
25
+ conclusion is confirmed by the human.
33
26
 
34
27
  ---
35
28
 
36
29
  ## A. Normative Status and Applicability
37
30
 
38
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
39
- |:---|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------|:-------|
40
- | A1 | This delivery is within the constitution's governance scope and does not conflict with it | delivery statement, applicable-scope record; conflicts reported | constitution 0.1–0.3 | |
41
- | A2 | This delivery traces back to derived-specification clauses | traceability matrix (constitution → derived spec → contract → evidence) | constitution 9.1; derived 0.2, 9.1 | |
42
- | A3 | Contract, records, and implementation do not weaken constitutional core clauses | core-clause comparison check records | constitution 0.4 | |
43
- | A4 | Every derived/implementation requirement has an upstream basis; no hard obligations invented from thin air | traceability matrix | constitution 9.1 | |
44
- | A5 | This self-check checklist has been archived with its evidence | archive record | derived 9.2 | |
45
-
46
- ## B. Reliability (Hard Requirement One)
47
-
48
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
49
- |:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:-------|
50
- | R1 ★ | Every "completed / achieved / passed" claim carries evidence | one-to-one claim-to-evidence mapping, no orphan claims | constitution 3.1.1; derived 1.3, 5.2 | |
51
- | R2 ★ | Evidence comes from an actual process or real artifact and is independently checkable | evidence has ID, time, production method, review method, original location | constitution 3.1.1; derived 5.1 | |
52
- | R3 ★ | No fabricated evidence, no citations of nonexistent things, no invented output | evidence-chain spot-check records; adversarial review records | constitution 3.1 prohibitions; derived 5.5 | |
53
- | R4 ★ | Simulation, description, or imagination did not replace real output | output is a runnable/usable entity; no "demo as reality" | constitution 3.1 prohibitions; derived 5.1 | |
54
- | R5 ★ | Externally reported state matches real state — no front-running, embellishment, or omission | state reports compared against artifact/evidence snapshots | constitution 3.1.2; derived 5.3 | |
55
- | R6 ★ | Traceable along "need → design → implementation → verification → delivery" | traceability matrix; at least one verification evidence per contract clause | constitution 3.1.3; derived 5.4 | |
56
- | R7 ★ | Incomplete work, failure, and unmet standards all clearly reported | failure/incomplete list and report records; no vague wording | constitution 3.1.4; derived 5.3 | |
57
- | R8 | Progress expressed with objective objects (done/total, passed/failed), no "basically done" wording | progress records | derived 5.3 | |
58
- | R9 | No self-declaration substituted for evidence | spot-check that any "passed/excellent" conclusion has third-party-checkable evidence | constitution 3.1.1, A2; derived 5.5 | |
59
- | R10 | Evidence package complete; an acceptor can review it without extra requests to the Agent | evidence-package catalog compared with contract C8 | derived 1.1, 5.4 | |
60
-
61
- ## C. Excellence (Hard Requirement Two)
62
-
63
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
64
- |:-------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------|
65
- | E1 ★ | The contract established judgeable criteria for each of the five excellence dimensions | contract C5; every criterion has a unique ID | constitution 3.2.1, 6.1–6.5; derived 2.2, 2.3 | |
66
- | E2 ★ | Excellence criteria confirmed by the human; the Agent did not unilaterally relax them | contract signature record; no unapproved criterion downgrades | constitution 3.2.1; derived 2.3 | |
67
- | E3 ★ | Every excellence criterion has evidence and is judged "met" | contract-criterion ID → evidence ID → conclusion mapping table | constitution 3.2.3; derived 6.1 | |
68
- | E4 ★ | Multi-view review executed with all four perspectives: product, user, engineering, adversarial | four independent review records | constitution 3.2.2, 6.6; derived 6.2 | |
69
- | E5 ★ | Review aims to find defects, not to prove correctness | each record contains its defect-finding method and attempted counterexamples; defects listed when found, attempted paths recorded when none found | constitution 6.6.2; derived 6.2, 6.3 | |
70
- | E6 ★ | Review standpoint independent of the production process of the content under review | perspective, standpoint, method, records independent; no "author endorsement" | constitution 6.6.2; derived 6.3 | |
71
- | E7 ★ | No known unresolved defect inside the contract scope; defects chosen not to fix were human-approved out of scope and explicitly disclosed | defect list fully closed; scope-adjustment records; delivery-report disclosure | constitution 6.6.3; derived 6.4 | |
72
- | E8 ★ | Sound design evidenced: key decision records, structure analysis, need-to-design traceability | design notes, key decision records | constitution 6.1; derived 2.3 | |
73
- | E9 ★ | Functional completeness evidenced: requirements coverage matrix covering main paths, boundaries, exceptional scenarios | requirements traceability matrix, test/run/usage records | constitution 6.2; derived 2.3 | |
74
- | E10 ★ | Implementation elegance evidenced: for software, readability/cohesion/low duplication/static checks; for non-software, clear/consistent/low-waste craft — all meeting contract thresholds | craft/code checks, review records, measurements | constitution 6.3; derived 2.3 | |
75
- | E11 ★ | Experience perfection evidenced: target-user paths, feedback, error recovery, no known friction | user-path walkthrough/usability verification records | constitution 6.4; derived 2.3 | |
76
- | E12 ★ | Performance excellence evidenced: measurements or usage records under contract scenarios/loads meet thresholds with headroom | measurement/usage plan, results, environment notes | constitution 6.5; derived 2.3 | |
77
- | E13 ★ | Outstanding performance on one dimension did not offset failure on another | item-by-item conclusions on all five dimensions; no "overall excellent" substitute for per-dimension compliance | constitution 3.3; derived 6.1 | |
31
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
32
+ |:---|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------|:-------|
33
+ | A1 | This delivery is within the scope governed by the constitution and does not conflict with it | delivery description, applicable-scope record; conflicts escalated | constitution 0.1–0.3 | |
34
+ | A2 | This delivery is traceable to derived-specification clauses | traceability matrix (constitution → derived spec → contract → evidence) | constitution 9.1; derived 0.2, 9.1 | |
35
+ | A3 | Neither the contract, records, nor implementation weakens constitutional core clauses | core-clause comparison-check record | constitution 0.4 | |
36
+ | A4 | Every derived/implementation requirement has an upstream basis; no "invented out of nothing" hard obligation | traceability matrix | constitution 9.1 | |
37
+ | A5 | This self-check checklist has been archived with its evidence | archiving record | derived 9.2 | |
38
+
39
+ ## B. Reliability (hard requirement one)
40
+
41
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
42
+ |:------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:-------|
43
+ | R1 ★ | Every "completed / achieved / passed" claim has evidence | claims list mapped one-to-one to evidence, no orphan claims | constitution 3.1.1; derived 1.3, 5.2 | |
44
+ | R2 ★ | Evidence comes from an actual process or a real artifact and is independently checkable | evidence contains ID, time, method of production, review method, source location | constitution 3.1.1; derived 5.1 | |
45
+ | R3 ★ | No fabricated evidence, no citing of things that do not exist, no fictitious output | evidence-chain spot-check records; adversarial review records | constitution 3.1 prohibitions; derived 5.5 | |
46
+ | R4 ★ | Simulation, description, or imagination has not replaced real output | artifact is a runnable/usable entity; no "demo standing in for the real thing" | constitution 3.1 prohibitions; derived 5.1 | |
47
+ | R5 ★ | Externally reported state matches real state; no front-running, embellishment, or omission | state reports compared against artifact/evidence snapshots | constitution 3.1.2; derived 5.3 | |
48
+ | R6 ★ | Traceable along "need → design → implementation → verification → delivery" | traceability matrix; at least one verification evidence per contract clause | constitution 3.1.3; derived 5.4 | |
49
+ | R7 ★ | Incomplete work, failure, and unmet standards are all clearly reported | failure/incomplete list and report records; no vague wording | constitution 3.1.4; derived 5.3 | |
50
+ | R8 | Progress is expressed in objective terms (done/total, passed/failed), with no "basically done" wording | progress records | derived 5.3 | |
51
+ | R9 | No case where self-declaration replaces evidence | spot-check: any "passed/excellent" conclusion has third-party-checkable evidence | constitution 3.1.1, A2; derived 5.5 | |
52
+ | R10 | The evidence package is complete; an acceptor can verify without asking the Agent for more | evidence-package directory compared against contract C8 | derived 1.1, 5.4 | |
53
+
54
+ ## C. Excellence (hard requirement two)
55
+
56
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
57
+ |:-------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------|
58
+ | E1 ★ | The contract has established judgeable criteria for each of the five excellence dimensions | contract C5; every criterion has a unique ID | constitution 3.2.1, 6.1–6.5; derived 2.2, 2.3 | |
59
+ | E2 ★ | The excellence criteria were confirmed by the human; the Agent has not unilaterally relaxed them | contract signing records; no unapproved lowering of criteria versions | constitution 3.2.1; derived 2.3 | |
60
+ | E3 ★ | Every excellence criterion has evidence and is judged "met" | contract-criterion ID → evidence ID → conclusion mapping table | constitution 3.2.3; derived 6.1 | |
61
+ | E4 ★ | Multi-view review executed: product, user, engineering, and adversarial perspectives all present | four independent review records | constitution 3.2.2, 6.6; derived 6.2 | |
62
+ | E5 ★ | Review aims to find defects, not to prove correctness | each record contains defect-finding methods and counterexamples tried; list defects when found, record the paths tried when none found | constitution 6.6.2; derived 6.2, 6.3 | |
63
+ | E6 ★ | The review standpoint is independent of the production process of the content under review | perspective, standpoint, method, records independent; no "author endorsement" | constitution 6.6.2; derived 6.3 | |
64
+ | E7 ★ | No known unresolved defect inside the contract scope; defects chosen not to fix have been approved by the human as moved out of scope and explicitly disclosed | defect list fully closed; scope-adjustment records; delivery-report disclosure | constitution 6.6.3; derived 6.4 | |
65
+ | E8 ★ | Evidence of sound design: key decision records, structure analysis, need-to-design traceability | design notes, key decision records | constitution 6.1; derived 2.3 | |
66
+ | E9 ★ | Evidence of complete functionality: requirements-coverage matrix; main paths, boundaries, and exceptional scenarios covered | requirements traceability matrix, test/run/use records | constitution 6.2; derived 2.3 | |
67
+ | E10 ★ | Evidence of elegant implementation: for software, readability/cohesion/low duplication/static checks; for non-software, craft clarity/consistency/low waste; all meet contract thresholds | craft/code checks, review records, measurements | constitution 6.3; derived 2.3 | |
68
+ | E11 ★ | Evidence of perfect experience: target-user paths, feedback, error recovery, no known friction | user path walkthrough / usability verification records | constitution 6.4; derived 2.3 | |
69
+ | E12 ★ | Evidence of excellent performance: measurements/usage records under contract scenarios/loads meet thresholds with headroom | measurement/usage plan, results, environment notes | constitution 6.5; derived 2.3 | |
70
+ | E13 ★ | Outstanding performance on one dimension has not offset failure on another | item-by-item conclusions on all five dimensions; no "overall excellence" replacing item-by-item met | constitution 3.3; derived 6.1 | |
78
71
 
79
72
  ## D. Boundaries and Decisions
80
73
 
81
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
82
- |:------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|:-------|
83
- | D1 ★ | Every human involvement requiring a decision falls under one of the two necessary-decision types (preference/value or authorization/responsibility); factual information completion is separately checked as D11 | interaction log + necessity-test records | constitution 4.3; derived 4.1, 4.2 | |
84
- | D2 ★ | No "how-to" capability questions were asked of the human | question-record classification | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
85
- | D3 ★ | Matters the Agent could ascertain/verify/cover by existing authorization were not shifted to the human (including factual information requests) | necessity tests and information-request records: each question proves it could not be self-decided | constitution 4.3, 4.4; derived 4.2, 4.4 | |
86
- | D4 ★ | Every decision request carried: background summary, substantive options, recommendation, reason, default choice, decision impact | decision-request records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.3 | |
87
- | D5 ★ | Preference-type defaults proceeding left a disclosure trace; authorization/responsibility decisions were not defaulted and waited for the human's explicit decision | default-effect records; authorization-type waiting records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
88
- | D6 ★ | Proposals contain at least two substantively different options; the recommendation gives reasons and cost | proposal records; option differences discernible | constitution 4.5; derived 4.5 | |
89
- | D7 | Proposals and contract drafts disclosed pros, cons, costs, and standard strength completely and without bias; no inducement into weaker standards | proposal texts, contract history | constitution 4.5; derived 4.5 | |
90
- | D8 | The human did not overstep into execution details, did not approve step by step, and did not do executive work for the Agent | interaction log; boundary-reminder records (if any) | constitution 4.6; derived 4.6 | |
91
- | D9 | At every decision point the human's choice, basis, and impact left traces | decision records and accountability mapping | constitution 5.1.5; derived 4.5 | |
92
- | D10 | Between decision points the Agent worked autonomously and continuously without step-by-step asking | interaction timeline and decision-point list | constitution 5.1.1; derived 4.1 | |
93
- | D11 | Factual information requests happened only in P0/P1 after the Agent exhausted self-service channels; requests listed tried channels, the exact missing information, and its use, with no "how-to" or executive shifting | information-request records, retrieval-attempt records | constitution 4.2, 4.4, 5.2 P1; derived 4.1, 4.4 | |
94
- | D12 | Every decision request stated a response window or an inferred one; preference-type timeouts proceeded on defaults with traces; authorization/responsibility types were never defaulted | decision requests and timeout-handling records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
74
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
75
+ |:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|:-------|
76
+ | D1 ★ | Every intervention requiring a human decision is one of the two necessary-decision kinds — preference/value or authorization/responsibility; factual-information completion is separately checked under D11 | interaction log + necessity-test records | constitution 4.3; derived 4.1, 4.2 | |
77
+ | D2 ★ | No "how-to" capability question was put to the human | question-record classification | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
78
+ | D3 ★ | Nothing the Agent could ascertain/verify or cover under existing authorization was handed to the human (including factual-information requests) | necessity-test and information-request records: every question proves it could not be self-decided | constitution 4.3, 4.4; derived 4.2, 4.4 | |
79
+ | D4 ★ | Every decision request carries: background summary, substantive options, recommendation, reason, default choice, decision impact | decision-request records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.3 | |
80
+ | D5 ★ | Preference-type default advancement is disclosed with a trace; authorization/responsibility decisions had no default and waited for the human's explicit decision | default-taking records; authorization-type waiting records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
81
+ | D6 ★ | Proposals contain at least two substantively different options, and the recommendation has reasons and cost | proposal records; option differences discernible | constitution 4.5; derived 4.5 | |
82
+ | D7 | Proposals and contract drafts disclose pros, cons, cost, and standard strength completely and without bias, with no inducement toward weaker standards | proposal texts, contract history | constitution 4.5; derived 4.5 | |
83
+ | D8 | The human did not overstep into execution details, did not approve step by step, and did not do executive work in place of the Agent | interaction log; overstepping-reminder records (if any) | constitution 4.6; derived 4.6 | |
84
+ | D9 | At every decision point the human's choice, basis, and impact are traced | decision records and accountability | constitution 5.1.5; derived 4.5 | |
85
+ | D10 | Between decision points the Agent worked autonomously and continuously and did not ask step by step | interaction timeline and decision-point list | constitution 5.1.1; derived 4.1 | |
86
+ | D11 | Factual-information requests occur only in P0/P1 and only after the Agent exhausted self-service; the request includes channels already tried, the exact missing information, and its use, with no "how-to" or executive shifting | information-request records, search-attempt records | constitution 4.2, 4.4, 5.2 P1; derived 4.1, 4.4 | |
87
+ | D12 | Every decision request states a response window or an inferred window; preference-type timeouts proceed on the default with a trace; authorization/responsibility types have no default | decision-request and overdue-handling records | constitution 4.4; derived 4.4 | |
95
88
 
96
89
  ## E. Process and Contract
97
90
 
98
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
99
- |:------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:-------|
100
- | P1 ★ | P0 intent alignment executed; the intent record confirmed by the human | intent record + confirmation record | constitution 5.2; derived 3.1 | |
101
- | P2 ★ | P3 contract established and signed by the human; C1–C10 complete | contract + signature record | constitution 5.2 P3; derived 2.1, 3.4 | |
102
- | P3 ★ | P7 delivery and acceptance executed per the contract, not skipped | delivery units, acceptance records | constitution 5.2 P7; derived 3.8 | |
103
- | P4 ★ | No design/implementation before the contract was established | phase timestamp ordering | constitution 5.2; derived 3.4 | |
104
- | P5 ★ | Design before implementation; the design made judgeable commitments on the five excellence dimensions | evidence the design document precedes implementation; design commitments | constitution 5.2 P4; derived 3.5 | |
105
- | P6 ★ | P6 multi-view polish executed and met its exit criteria | review records, defect closure, exit judgment | constitution 5.2 P6; derived 3.7 | |
106
- | P7 ★ | No silent deviation from any confirmed direction; every deviation was proposed and approved | deviation log; contract-change records | constitution 5.1.4; derived 2.4 | |
107
- | P8 | P1 fact baseline traceable; the human was asked only when the Agent could not obtain information itself | fact-and-constraint understanding, source records | constitution 5.2 P1; derived 3.2 | |
108
- | P9 | P2 direction decided by the human or per authorized default, with decision traces | proposal records, direction decision | constitution 5.2 P2; derived 3.3 | |
109
- | P10 | P5 implementation verified while doing; completion claims checkable | self-verification evidence, run records, defect records | constitution 5.2 P5; derived 3.6 | |
110
- | P11 | Phase trimming authorized and traceable; P0/P3/P7, P6, and the achievement proofs of the two hard requirements were not omitted | trimming records, contract clauses | constitution 5.2 trimming principle; derived 3.9 | |
111
- | P12 | On facts conflicting with the contract: stopped, reported truthfully, submitted a redirect/reopen proposal | conflict reports, reopen records | constitution 5.3; derived 2.4 | |
112
- | P13 | When the human changed intent/constraints: P0/P3 reopened, affected parts re-priced | contract versions and change records | constitution 4.6, 5.3; derived 2.4 | |
113
- | P14 | When reliability and excellence could not both be met: reported and asked for constraint adjustment; no silent trade-off | escalation records, constraint-adjustment or termination records | constitution 1.4, 5.4; derived 3.11 | |
114
- | P15 | Acceptance used the contract as the sole basis (the contract not violating the constitution/derived spec); no out-of-contract requirements added ad hoc | acceptance records compared with the contract | constitution 0.3, 5.5; derived 1.4, 3.8 | |
115
- | P16 | Acceptance conclusions, basis, and time left traces; self-justification/self-assessment did not replace contract requirements | acceptance records, evidence links | constitution 5.5; derived 3.8 | |
91
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
92
+ |:------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:-------|
93
+ | P1 ★ | P0 intent alignment executed; the intent record confirmed by the human | intent record + confirmation record | constitution 5.2; derived 3.1 | |
94
+ | P2 ★ | P3 contract established and signed by the human; C1–C10 complete | contract + signing record | constitution 5.2 P3; derived 2.1, 3.4 | |
95
+ | P3 ★ | P7 delivery and acceptance executed per the contract, not skipped | delivery units, acceptance records | constitution 5.2 P7; derived 3.8 | |
96
+ | P4 ★ | Design and implementation did not start before the contract was established | timestamps in phase order | constitution 5.2; derived 3.4 | |
97
+ | P5 ★ | Design before implementation; the design makes judgeable commitments on the five excellence dimensions | design-document-before-implementation evidence; design commitments | constitution 5.2 P4; derived 3.5 | |
98
+ | P6 ★ | P6 multi-view polish executed and meets the exit criteria | review records, defect closure, exit judgment | constitution 5.2 P6; derived 3.7 | |
99
+ | P7 ★ | No silent deviation from any confirmed direction; all deviations were proposed and approved | deviation log; contract-change records | constitution 5.1.4; derived 2.4 | |
100
+ | P8 | P1 fact baseline is traceable; the human was asked only when the Agent could not obtain information itself | fact-and-constraint understanding, source records | constitution 5.2 P1; derived 3.2 | |
101
+ | P9 | P2 direction decided by the human or by an authorized default, with the decision traced | proposal records, direction decision | constitution 5.2 P2; derived 3.3 | |
102
+ | P10 | P5 implemented with verification while working; completion claims checkable | self-verification evidence, run records, defect records | constitution 5.2 P5; derived 3.6 | |
103
+ | P11 | Phase trimming is authorized and traceable; P0/P3/P7, P6, and the proof of the two hard requirements were not omitted | trimming records, contract clauses | constitution 5.2 trimming principle; derived 3.9 | |
104
+ | P12 | On a fact–contract conflict, work stopped, the conflict was reported truthfully, and a redirect/reopen proposal was submitted | conflict reports, reopening records | constitution 5.3; derived 2.4 | |
105
+ | P13 | When the human changed intent/constraints, P0/P3 was reopened and affected parts were re-priced | contract versions and change records | constitution 4.6, 5.3; derived 2.4 | |
106
+ | P14 | When reliability and excellence could not both be met, it was reported and constraint adjustment requested; no silent trade-off | escalation records, constraint-adjustment or termination records | constitution 1.4, 5.4; derived 3.11 | |
107
+ | P15 | Acceptance used the contract as the sole basis (with the contract not violating the constitution/derived spec); no out-of-contract requirements added on the spot | acceptance records and contract comparison | constitution 0.3, 5.5; derived 1.4, 3.8 | |
108
+ | P16 | Acceptance conclusion, basis, and time are traced; self-justification/self-assessment did not replace contract requirements | acceptance records, evidence links | constitution 5.5; derived 3.8 | |
116
109
 
117
110
  ## F. Economics and Autonomy
118
111
 
119
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
120
- |:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------|:-------|
121
- | C1 ★ | Cost was not bought by sacrificing reliability or excellence | cost-decision records; no unapproved standard downgrades | constitution A8, 7.4; derived 7.5 | |
122
- | C2 ★ | Cost constraints conflicting with reliability/excellence were escalated; the human adjusted the constraints | conflict escalation and adjustment records | constitution 7.4; derived 7.5 | |
123
- | C3 | Cost ledger kept: human attention, Agent consumption, rework, error/delay costs | cost ledger | constitution 7.1; derived 7.1 | |
124
- | C4 | Autonomy budget stated in contract C7; nothing asked inside the budget; boundary touches escalated | contract C7, boundary-escalation records | constitution 7.3; derived 7.3 | |
125
- | C5 | Autonomy budget adjusted only by the human; the Agent did not expand its own authority | authorization records | constitution 7.3; derived 7.3 | |
126
- | C6 | Reuse search executed before building; non-reuse has reasons; reuse did not conflict with the contract | reuse-decision records | constitution 7.2; derived 7.2 | |
127
- | C7 | Cost reduction came from thinking first / reuse / trimming non-value steps / information economy, not from cutting corners | trimming records, value statements | constitution 7.2; derived 7.4 | |
128
- | C8 | Reported and transmitted information limited to decision needs; no irrelevant bloat | spot-check of reporting materials | constitution 7.2.4; derived 7.4 | |
112
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
113
+ |:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------|:-------|
114
+ | C1 ★ | Cost was not bought by sacrificing reliability or excellence | cost-decision records; no unapproved lowering of criteria | constitution A8, 7.4; derived 7.5 | |
115
+ | C2 ★ | On a cost–constraint conflict with reliability/excellence, it was escalated and the human adjusted the constraints | conflict escalation and adjustment records | constitution 7.4; derived 7.5 | |
116
+ | C3 | A cost ledger exists: human attention, Agent consumption, rework, error/delay costs | cost ledger | constitution 7.1; derived 7.1 | |
117
+ | C4 | The autonomy budget is specified in contract C7; no asking inside the budget, boundary touches escalated | contract C7, boundary-escalation records | constitution 7.3; derived 7.3 | |
118
+ | C5 | The autonomy budget adjusted only by the human; the Agent did not expand its own authority | authorization records | constitution 7.3; derived 7.3 | |
119
+ | C6 | Reuse was searched before building; non-reuse has a reason; reuse did not conflict with the contract | reuse-decision records | constitution 7.2; derived 7.2 | |
120
+ | C7 | Cost reduction came from thinking first/reuse/trimming non-value steps/information economy, not from cutting corners | trimming records, value statements | constitution 7.2; derived 7.4 | |
121
+ | C8 | Reporting and transmitted information was limited to what decisions need; no irrelevant bloat | report spot-checks | constitution 7.2.4; derived 7.4 | |
129
122
 
130
123
  ## G. Assets and Evolution
131
124
 
132
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
133
- |:------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:------------------------------|:-------|
134
- | K1 ★ | Assets belong to the human; the human can view, correct, and delete | asset permission and operation records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
135
- | K2 ★ | Deposited experience has verifiable sources; unverified experience was not spread as fact | asset verification evidence | constitution 8.3; derived 8.4 | |
136
- | K3 | Four asset types deposited: preferences/values, acceptance criteria and patterns, reusable components, failure lessons | asset list | constitution 8.1; derived 8.1 | |
137
- | K4 | Every asset's metadata complete (ID, type, source, time, verification, scope, owner, authorization, deletion policy) | asset metadata | derived 8.2 | |
138
- | K5 | Deposition and use authorized or within the necessary scope of collaboration; assets not used for other purposes | authorization and usage records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
139
- | K6 | Privacy and confidentiality came before efficiency | privacy/confidentiality handling records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
140
- | K7 | Evolution metrics recorded; quality/cost/reuse/involvement trends show no anomaly (anomalies analyzed if present) | evolution metrics, trend analysis | constitution 8.4; derived 8.5 | |
125
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
126
+ |:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:------------------------------|:-------|
127
+ | K1 ★ | Assets belong to the human; the human may view, correct, and delete them | asset permission and operation records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
128
+ | K2 ★ | Deposited experience has verifiable sources; unverified experience was not spread as fact | asset verification evidence | constitution 8.3; derived 8.4 | |
129
+ | K3 | Four kinds of assets deposited: preferences/values, acceptance criteria and patterns, reusable components, failure lessons | asset list | constitution 8.1; derived 8.1 | |
130
+ | K4 | Every asset's metadata is complete (ID, type, source, time, verification, scope, owner, authorization, deletion policy) | asset metadata | derived 8.2 | |
131
+ | K5 | Deposition and use were authorized or within the necessary scope of collaboration; assets not used for other purposes | authorization and use records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
132
+ | K6 | Privacy and confidentiality came before efficiency | privacy/confidentiality handling records | constitution 8.2; derived 8.3 | |
133
+ | K7 | Evolution metrics recorded; no anomalies in quality, cost, reuse, and involvement trends (anomalies analyzed if present) | evolution metrics, trend analysis | constitution 8.4; derived 8.5 | |
141
134
 
142
135
  ## H. Safety and Compliance Bottom Line
143
136
 
144
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
145
- |:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:-------|
146
- | S1 ★ | Requests that could cause illegality, harm, or major safety risk were identified and handled; refused or escalated when necessary | risk-identification and handling records | constitution 3.4 | |
147
- | S2 ★ | Zero violations of the safety and compliance bottom line | risk/compliance check records, handling records, incident records; "no incident records" alone is not sufficient evidence | constitution 3.4, 11.7 | |
148
- | S3 ★ | Human authorization never overrode law or basic safety bottom lines | authorization records, compliance review | constitution 3.4 | |
149
- | S4 | Safety/compliance risks escalated immediately; silence did not apply | risk-escalation timeline | constitution 5.1.2, 3.4; derived 3.10 | |
150
- | S5 | Residual risks truthfully disclosed in the delivery report | delivery-report risk section | constitution 3.1.4; derived 1.1 | |
137
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
138
+ |:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:-------|
139
+ | S1 ★ | Requests that could cause illegality, harm, or significant safety risk were identified and handled; refused or escalated when necessary | risk identification and handling records | constitution 3.4 | |
140
+ | S2 ★ | Zero violations of the safety and compliance bottom line | risk and compliance check records, handling records, incident records; "no incident records" alone must not be the only evidence | constitution 3.4, 11.7 | |
141
+ | S3 ★ | Human authorization was not placed above law and the basic safety bottom line | authorization records, compliance review | constitution 3.4 | |
142
+ | S4 | Safety/compliance risks were escalated immediately; silence did not apply | risk-escalation timeline | constitution 5.1.2, 3.4; derived 3.10 | |
143
+ | S5 | Residual risks disclosed truthfully in the delivery report | delivery-report risk section | constitution 3.1.4; derived 1.1 | |
151
144
 
152
145
  ## I. Governance and Evidence
153
146
 
154
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
155
- |:------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------|:-------|
156
- | G1 ★ | Any "conforms to this paradigm" claim has independently verifiable evidence mapped to the constitutional hard requirements and process clauses | evidence package, traceability matrix | constitution 9.2 | |
157
- | G2 | Traceability matrix covers constitutional hard requirements, the five dimensions, P0–P7, assets, and safety | traceability matrix | derived 9.1 | |
158
- | G3 | Self-check non-conformances recorded, rectified, re-checked | non-conformance list and re-check evidence | derived 9.3 | |
159
- | G4 | Revisions to this specification/checklist (if any) human-approved and did not weaken core clauses | revision records | constitution 0.4, 9.3; derived 0.4 | |
160
- | G5 | Final conclusion confirmed and signed by the human | signature record | derived 9.2; constitution 4.1 | |
161
- | G6 | The delivery report never claims incomplete items as complete | delivery report compared with evidence | constitution 5.4; derived 1.3 | |
147
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
148
+ |:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------|:-------|
149
+ | G1 ★ | Any claim of "conforms to this paradigm" has independently verifiable evidence mapped to constitutional hard requirements and process clauses | evidence package, traceability matrix | constitution 9.2 | |
150
+ | G2 | The traceability matrix covers constitutional hard requirements, the five dimensions, P0–P7, assets, and safety | traceability matrix | derived 9.1 | |
151
+ | G3 | Self-check non-conformances recorded, remediated, and re-checked | non-conformance list and re-check evidence | derived 9.3 | |
152
+ | G4 | Any revision to this specification/checklist (if any) was approved by the human and did not weaken core clauses | revision records | constitution 0.4, 9.3; derived 0.4 | |
153
+ | G5 | The final conclusion is confirmed and signed by the human | signing record | derived 9.2; constitution 4.1 | |
154
+ | G6 | The delivery report did not claim any incomplete item as complete | delivery report compared against evidence | constitution 5.4; derived 1.3 | |
162
155
 
163
156
  ## J. Paradigm-Level Acceptance Criteria (Constitution 11)
164
157
 
165
- > This group is executed item by item only when the delivery claims "the paradigm has been implemented" or is a
166
- > paradigm-level governance audit; for a single-product delivery only, note "Not applicable this run (product-only
167
- > delivery)" in the result column — this never exempts any hard item of groups A–I.
158
+ > This group is executed item by item only when this delivery claims "the paradigm has been implemented" or when a
159
+ > paradigm-level governance audit is performed; for a single-product delivery, write "not applicable this run
160
+ > (single-product delivery only)" in the result column, but that does not exempt any hard item in groups A–I.
168
161
 
169
- | # | Check item | Judgment points / evidence needed | Basis | Result |
170
- |:---|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------|:-------|
171
- | J1 | A new user obtains a complete delivery from intent statements plus a small number of necessary decisions alone | new-user onboarding path records, decision-point list and counts | constitution 11.1, S3 | |
172
- | J2 | Deliveries satisfy both reliability and excellence with independently verifiable evidence | all evidence of groups B and C | constitution 11.2 | |
173
- | J3 | Every human decision involvement is a preference/value/authorization decision; factual information completion only as the D11-allowed exception; no executive work shifted to the human; no human overstep into execution details | group D records, interaction logs | constitution 11.3, 4.3, 4.6, 5.2 P1 | |
174
- | J4 | Real multi-view review records exist and the review aims at finding defects | E4–E7 evidence | constitution 11.4 | |
175
- | J5 | Total cost for similar tasks trends downward with use and was never bought by sacrificing reliability/excellence | cost-ledger trends, standard-version comparisons | constitution 11.5, 8.4 | |
176
- | J6 | Assets belong to the human, sources verifiable, inspectable and deletable | group K records, permission and deletion operation records | constitution 11.6 | |
177
- | J7 | Zero violations of the safety and compliance bottom line | group H records | constitution 11.7 | |
162
+ | # | Check item | Judgment point / required evidence | Basis | Result |
163
+ |:---|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------|:-------|
164
+ | J1 | A new user obtains a complete delivery from intent statements plus a small number of necessary decisions alone | new-user onboarding path record, decision-point list and count | constitution 11.1, S3 | |
165
+ | J2 | Deliveries satisfy both reliability and excellence, with independently verifiable evidence | all evidence in groups B and C | constitution 11.2 | |
166
+ | J3 | Every decision-type human involvement is a preference/value/authorization decision; factual-information completion is only the exception allowed under D11; no executive work shifted, no human overstepping into execution details | group D records, interaction log | constitution 11.3, 4.3, 4.6, 5.2 P1 | |
167
+ | J4 | Real multi-view review records exist, and the review aims at finding defects | E4–E7 evidence | constitution 11.4 | |
168
+ | J5 | Total cost for similar tasks trends downward with use and has never been bought by sacrificing reliability/excellence | cost-ledger trends, criteria-version comparison | constitution 11.5, 8.4 | |
169
+ | J6 | Assets belong to the human, have verifiable sources, and can be inspected and deleted | group K records, permission and deletion operation records | constitution 11.6 | |
170
+ | J7 | Zero violations of the safety and compliance bottom line | group H records | constitution 11.7 | |
178
171
 
179
172
  ---
180
173
 
181
- ## Final Verdict
174
+ ## Final Judgment
182
175
 
183
- | Item | Content |
184
- |:------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
185
- | Checker / check time | |
186
- | Evidence-package version | |
187
- | Hard items (★) total / passed | |
188
- | Non-hard items total / passed / not applicable | |
189
- | Paradigm-level group J (applicable this run / passed) | |
190
- | Unclosed non-conformances | |
191
- | Final conclusion | `Pass` (all applicable items compliant with complete evidence) / `Fail` (any ★ non-compliant or evidence missing) |
192
- | Human confirmation and signature | |
176
+ | Item | Content |
177
+ |:------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
178
+ | Checker / check time | |
179
+ | Evidence-package version | |
180
+ | Hard items (★) total / passed | |
181
+ | Non-hard items total / passed / not applicable | |
182
+ | Paradigm-level group J (applicable this run / passed count) | |
183
+ | Unclosed non-conformances | |
184
+ | Final conclusion | `Pass` (all applicable items compliant with complete evidence) / `Fail` (any ★ non-compliant or missing evidence) |
185
+ | Human confirmation and signature | |
193
186
 
194
187
  **Threshold rules**:
195
188
 
196
- 1. Any ★ item non-compliant or missing evidence → final conclusion `Fail`; the delivery cannot enter acceptance.
197
- 2. Non-★ non-compliance → record, rectify, re-check; if still non-compliant after re-check, this table must not judge
198
- `Pass` — return to the contract process: the human decides to reopen P3 to adjust scope/standards, explicitly accepts
199
- the residual risk with a record, or terminates; silent sign-off is forbidden.
200
- 3. `Not applicable` is allowed only for non-★ items and must state a reason; an insufficient reason counts as
189
+ 1. Any ★ item non-compliant or missing evidence → final conclusion is `Fail`; the delivery may not enter acceptance.
190
+ 2. A non-★ item non-compliant → record, remediate, and re-check; if it is still non-compliant after re-check, this
191
+ checklist may not be judged "pass"; it must return to the contract process: the human decides whether to reopen P3 to
192
+ adjust scope/criteria, explicitly accept it as residual risk and record it, or terminate; silent release is
193
+ forbidden.
194
+ 3. "Not applicable" is allowed only for non-★ items and must state a reason; an insufficient reason counts as
201
195
  `Non-compliant`.
202
- 4. No `Pass` in this table replaces the independent review required by constitution 9.2; final conformance rests on
203
- behavior and results.
204
- 5. If this run claims "the paradigm has been implemented" or is a paradigm-level audit, J1–J7 must all pass with
205
- evidence; for product-only deliveries, mark group J "Not applicable this run (product-only delivery)".
196
+ 4. No "pass" in this checklist replaces the independent verification required by constitution 9.2; final conformance
197
+ rests on behavior and results.
198
+ 5. If this delivery claims "the paradigm has been implemented" or is a paradigm-level audit, J1–J7 must all pass with
199
+ evidence; for a single-product delivery, group J notes "not applicable this run (single-product delivery only)".
206
200
 
207
201
  ## Revision History
208
202
 
209
203
  | Version | Date | Revision basis | Major changes | Approval status |
210
204
  |:--------|:-----------|:--------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------|
211
205
  | v1.0 | 2026-09-04 | constitution, first draft | established conformance self-check checklist groups A–I | draft |
206
+