mirai-graph 1.3.0 → 2.1.0

package/profiles/societal-governance/profile.json

@@ -1,121 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "id": "profile.societal_governance",
-  "name": "Societal Governance",
-  "version": "0.1.0-proposal",
-  "readiness": "proposal_only",
-  "description": "Proposal profile for modeling rights-bounded governance systems with participants, AI avatars, consent, legitimacy gates, decision traces, execution mandates, outcome evidence and controlled learning proposals.",
-  "allowed_object_kinds": [
-    "governance_dna",
-    "governance_level",
-    "participant",
-    "stakeholder_group",
-    "ai_avatar",
-    "avatar_contract",
-    "delegation_scope",
-    "consent_receipt",
-    "private_decision_journal",
-    "initiative",
-    "simulation",
-    "legitimacy_gate",
-    "rights_gate",
-    "privacy_gate",
-    "affectedness_gate",
-    "anti_capture_gate",
-    "participation_signal",
-    "participation_weight",
-    "generated_context",
-    "decision",
-    "decision_trace",
-    "execution_mandate",
-    "execution_owner",
-    "resource_commitment",
-    "rollback_path",
-    "outcome_metric",
-    "outcome_evidence",
-    "appeal",
-    "harm_report",
-    "learning_proposal",
-    "amendment_proposal",
-    "evidence"
-  ],
-  "allowed_relation_types": [
-    "defined_by_dna",
-    "member_of_level",
-    "represented_by_avatar",
-    "bound_by_contract",
-    "delegates_scope_to",
-    "has_consent_receipt",
-    "requires_reconsent",
-    "opens_initiative",
-    "affects_group",
-    "requires_gate",
-    "passes_gate",
-    "fails_gate",
-    "imposes_condition",
-    "uses_simulation",
-    "uses_evidence",
-    "casts_signal",
-    "summarizes_private_proof",
-    "supports_decision_trace",
-    "authorizes_decision",
-    "creates_execution_mandate",
-    "assigned_to_executor",
-    "commits_resource",
-    "has_rollback_path",
-    "produces_outcome",
-    "has_appeal_path",
-    "triggers_appeal",
-    "reports_harm",
-    "creates_learning_proposal",
-    "proposes_dna_amendment",
-    "approved_update_to",
-    "exposes_private_trace",
-    "overrides_rights",
-    "auto_applies_learning"
-  ],
-  "default_readiness": "draft",
-  "governance_gates": [
-    "rights_before_optimization",
-    "consent_before_avatar_action",
-    "reconsent_after_model_or_scope_change",
-    "privacy_before_public_trace",
-    "affectedness_before_weighted_decision",
-    "anti_capture_before_weight_change",
-    "human_owner_before_binding_action",
-    "evidence_before_execution_mandate",
-    "appeal_path_before_governed_decision",
-    "outcome_evidence_before_learning_update",
-    "no_ai_avatar_as_decision_authority",
-    "no_generated_context_as_authorization",
-    "no_feedback_as_automatic_update"
-  ],
-  "extends_profiles": [
-    "organization_governance",
-    "character_layer",
-    "process_control",
-    "implementation_control"
-  ],
-  "public_safety": {
-    "allowed": [
-      "synthetic examples",
-      "shadow-mode organizational pilots",
-      "non-binding simulations"
-    ],
-    "disallowed": [
-      "real citizen records",
-      "private decision journals in public traces",
-      "binding public-governance claims",
-      "legal validity claims",
-      "automatic learning updates"
-    ]
-  },
-  "conformance_levels": [
-    "G0_concept",
-    "G1_structured_shadow",
-    "G2_assisted_internal",
-    "G3_governed_internal",
-    "G4_public_simulation",
-    "G5_limited_public_pilot",
-    "G6_constitutional_governance"
-  ]
-}

package/profiles/software-specification/README.md

@@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
-# Software Specification Profile
-
-Status: 1.0 release-candidate profile
-
-## Purpose
-
-The software-specification profile adapts Mirai Graph to software packages,
-features, requirements, constraints, risks, implementation tasks and evidence.
-
-It helps connect:
-
-- package scope;
-- requirements;
-- features;
-- components;
-- constraints;
-- risks;
-- implementation tasks;
-- decisions;
-- evidence.
-
-## Object Kinds
-
-Initial allowed object kinds:
-
-- `package`;
-- `feature`;
-- `requirement`;
-- `constraint`;
-- `risk`;
-- `component`;
-- `task`;
-- `decision`;
-- `evidence`.
-
-## Relation Types
-
-Initial allowed relation types:
-
-- `implements`;
-- `depends_on`;
-- `blocks`;
-- `evidences`;
-- `generates`;
-- `related_to`;
-- `supersedes`.
-
-## Governance Gates
-
-Initial gates:
-
-- `human_review_before_canonical_write`;
-- `public_safety_before_release`.
-
-Domain-specific projects may add gates such as:
-
-- `requirement_traceability_before_implementation`;
-- `security_review_before_release`;
-- `acceptance_criteria_before_development`;
-- `test_evidence_before_acceptance`.
-
-## Traceability Guidance
-
-For implementation work, prefer explicit task traceability:
-
-```text
-task -> implements -> feature
-task -> depends_on -> requirement
-feature -> implements -> requirement
-component -> implements -> feature
-constraint -> blocks -> risk
-decision -> blocks -> risk
-```
-
-This makes generated context packs less likely to omit the underlying
-requirement when the task title only matches an implementation detail.
-
-## Readiness Guidance
-
-Use:
-
-- `draft` for early requirements, components, decisions and task plans;
-- `review_ready` when a requirement, feature, task or risk is ready for owner
-  review;
-- `accepted` only after review evidence exists;
-- `blocked` when missing requirement, security, acceptance or test evidence
-  prevents progress;
-- `deprecated` when a requirement, feature or decision is superseded.
-
-## Recommended Minimal Package
-
-A useful Level 1 software-specification package should include:
-
-- at least one `package`;
-- at least one `requirement`;
-- at least one `feature`;
-- at least one implementation `task`;
-- at least one `evidence` object;
-- direct traceability from task to feature and requirement;
-- constraints and risks when safety, privacy, security or reliability matters;
-- gate results for public safety or requirement traceability when the package
-  is used as evidence.
-
-## Current Limitations
-
-The profile does not yet define first-class object kinds for:
-
-- API endpoints;
-- acceptance criteria;
-- test cases;
-- verification results;
-- non-functional requirement categories;
-- owners or reviewers.
-
-Use `requirement`, `constraint`, `task`, `decision` and `evidence` until these
-extensions are standardized.
-
-## Adoption Path
-
-Recommended path:
-
-1. Start with a graph seed.
-2. Draft package, requirement, feature, component, task, risk and evidence
-   objects.
-3. Add direct task-to-requirement traceability before using the graph for
-   implementation context.
-4. Add constraints and risks for security, reliability or privacy concerns.
-5. Run package validation and readiness scoring.
-6. Generate a context pack for one implementation task.
-7. Review omissions before using the context pack for work.
-
-## Pilot Evidence
-
-Pilot 002 uses this profile:
-
-`pilots/independent-implementation-002-software-specification/`
-
-Pilot finding:
-
-The profile is sufficient for a small Level 1 package, but needs richer
-modeling for acceptance criteria, API contracts, non-functional requirements,
-test evidence and conformance fixtures.

package/profiles/software-specification/profile.json

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "id": "profile.software_specification",
-  "name": "Software Specification",
-  "version": "0.1.0",
-  "description": "Profile for modeling software packages, features, constraints, risks and evidence.",
-  "allowed_object_kinds": [
-    "package",
-    "feature",
-    "requirement",
-    "constraint",
-    "risk",
-    "component",
-    "task",
-    "decision",
-    "evidence"
-  ],
-  "allowed_relation_types": [
-    "implements",
-    "depends_on",
-    "blocks",
-    "evidences",
-    "generates",
-    "related_to",
-    "supersedes"
-  ],
-  "default_readiness": "draft",
-  "governance_gates": [
-    "human_review_before_canonical_write",
-    "public_safety_before_release"
-  ]
-}

package/publications/README.md

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-# Publications
-
-This directory tracks public publications, preprints, citation metadata and
-reproducibility notes related to Mirai Graph.
-
-## Current Status
-
-The model is being prepared as an open research and standardization project.
-Publication links should be added only when the public page, DOI or venue record
-is confirmed.
-
-Do not describe a preprint as peer reviewed unless the venue record explicitly
-states peer-reviewed publication status.
-
-For the current public evidence framing, see
-`docs/research/scientific-evidence-package.md`.
-
-## Planned Records
-
-- initial preprint record;
-- preprint outline;
-- [Semantic Intent And Goal Vector Control](semantic-intent-goal-vector-control/README.md);
-- [Observable Self-Correcting AI Workflows](observable-self-correcting-ai-workflows/README.md);
-- public citation note;
-- reproducibility package note;
-- future journal manuscript records.
-
-## Article Candidates
-
-The current `1.0.0-rc.6` release candidate supports two public-safe article
-tracks:
-
-| Candidate | Focus | Current evidence level |
-| --- | --- | --- |
-| Semantic Intent And Goal Vector Control | preventing wrong-start and false-completion drift before and after work execution | public standard, schema, synthetic examples and negative fixtures |
-| Observable Self-Correcting AI Workflows | explaining what happened, checking process conformance and routing corrections into Kaizen/replay | public standard sections, schemas, synthetic examples and negative fixtures |
-
-Both tracks still require sanitized pilot/replay evidence before broad
-effectiveness claims.

package/publications/observable-self-correcting-ai-workflows/README.md

@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
-# Observable Self-Correcting AI Workflows
-
-Status: article foundation
-
-## Working Title
-
-Observable Self-Correcting AI Workflows with Dynamic Episode Traces and
-Technology Quality Feedback
-
-## Core Question
-
-Can a graph-governed workflow make AI-assisted work auditable and
-self-improving by recording what actually happened, checking whether the
-declared technology was followed and routing findings into correction,
-replay/regression or Kaizen?
-
-## Proposed Contribution
-
-The article introduces an observable correction loop:
-
-```text
-process contract
--> dynamic episode trace
--> technology quality feedback
--> finding classification
--> correction route
--> Kaizen / replay / regression candidate
-```
-
-The loop separates planned technology from actual behavior. It records why a
-path was selected, why alternatives were blocked, which gates were evaluated,
-what result was produced and how findings should be handled.
-
-## Hypotheses
-
-- H1. Dynamic episode traces improve auditability by preserving selected paths,
-  blocked alternatives, gates, evidence and limitations.
-- H2. Technology quality feedback identifies process violations that ordinary
-  test results can miss.
-- H3. Classified findings with correction routes improve recurrence prevention
-  by feeding Kaizen and replay/regression candidates.
-
-## Public Artifacts
-
-- `standard/dynamic-episode-layer.md`
-- `standard/episode-trace.md`
-- `standard/dynamic-layer-code-generation.md`
-- `schemas/dynamic-episode-trace.schema.json`
-- `examples/dynamic-episode-minimal/`
-- `standard/technology-quality-feedback.md`
-- `schemas/technology-quality-feedback.schema.json`
-- `examples/technology-quality-feedback-minimal/`
-- `standard/process-control-contract.md`
-- `releases/1.0.0-rc.4.md`
-- `releases/1.0.0-rc.6.md`
-
-## Experiment Design
-
-Compare ordinary AI-assisted execution with observable graph-controlled
-execution.
-
-Baseline:
-
-```text
-task -> work output -> tests/review
-```
-
-Graph-controlled condition:
-
-```text
-task
--> process contract
--> episode trace
--> selected and blocked paths
--> technology feedback report
--> classified findings
--> correction route / Kaizen / replay candidate
-```
-
-## Candidate Metrics
-
-- episode trace completeness;
-- blocked-alternative coverage;
-- technology-step adherence;
-- unclassified finding count;
-- tests-passed-but-process-violated count;
-- correction-route coverage;
-- repeat-failure rate after Kaizen;
-- replay/regression pass rate;
-- reviewer effort to reconstruct what happened.
-
-## Required Evidence Before Publication
-
-- Sanitized private or public pilot traces.
-- At least one replay/regression run over corrected workflow behavior.
-- Reviewer packet showing whether an external reviewer can reconstruct why the
-  AI acted as it did.
-- Threats-to-validity section covering task difficulty, model variance,
-  selection bias, retention policy and trace privacy.
-
-## Limitations
-
-Current public artifacts validate trace and feedback shape. They do not prove
-that production AI work becomes safe, autonomous or objectively better without
-pilot evidence and independent review.

package/publications/preprint-note.md

@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
-# Preprint Note
-
-Status: placeholder
-
-Mirai Graph is related to the Evolutionary Object Graph research program.
-
-Public preprint records, DOI links and citation notes should be added here only
-after the public venue page and metadata are confirmed.
-
-Do not describe a preprint as peer reviewed unless the venue record explicitly
-states peer-reviewed publication status.

package/publications/preprint-outline.md

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-# Mirai Graph Preprint Outline
-
-Status: draft outline
-
-## Working Title
-
-Mirai Graph: An Executable Evolutionary Graph Standard For Governed Human-AI Work
-
-## Abstract Shape
-
-This preprint introduces Mirai Graph, an evolutionary graph operating model for
-managing complex systems through typed objects, relations, evidence, generated
-context, readiness states and governance gates. It presents the public alpha
-standard, schemas, validators, synthetic benchmarks and public-safe pilots. The
-paper focuses on reproducible method structure and early evidence, not broad
-claims of effectiveness.
-
-## Proposed Sections
-
-1. Introduction and motivation.
-2. Related work and positioning.
-3. Mirai Graph model.
-4. Evidence, readiness and governance.
-5. Executable process control.
-6. Context-pack generation.
-7. Synthetic benchmark.
-8. Public-safe pilots.
-9. Limitations and threats to validity.
-10. Future work.
-
-## Candidate Contributions
-
-- Implementation-independent standard draft.
-- Public schemas and validators.
-- Executable governance model for launch records and process transitions.
-- Public-safe synthetic benchmark.
-- Evidence package and reproducibility protocol.
-
-## Required Before Publication
-
-- Complete baseline comparison report.
-- Add independent public-safe pilot evidence.
-- Finalize limitations table.
-- Add citations and related-work map.
-- Confirm publication venue and licensing constraints.

package/publications/semantic-intent-goal-vector-control/README.md

@@ -1,99 +0,0 @@
-# Semantic Intent And Goal Vector Control
-
-Status: article foundation
-
-## Working Title
-
-Semantic Intent and Goal-Vector Control for Reducing Drift in AI-Assisted
-Workflows
-
-## Core Question
-
-Can a graph-governed workflow reduce AI drift by controlling two failure points:
-
-1. wrong start before execution;
-2. false completion or goal drift after execution.
-
-## Proposed Contribution
-
-The article introduces a two-sided control model:
-
-```text
-Semantic Intent Resolution
--> governed work start
--> Goal Vector Quality Control
--> reverse audit before completion
-```
-
-The model treats intent confidence, goal vectors, evidence and reverse audit as
-quality-control artifacts. They do not authorize action, release or canonical
-graph update.
-
-## Hypotheses
-
-- H1. Explicit intent, scale, owner and missing-context decisions reduce
-  wrong-start errors compared with direct execution from a free-form request.
-- H2. Explicit batch-to-final-outcome vector links reduce unproductive work that
-  looks useful but does not advance the goal.
-- H3. Reverse audit reduces false completion claims by checking required
-  qualities from final outcome back to evidence and actual work.
-
-## Public Artifacts
-
-- `standard/semantic-intent-resolution.md`
-- `schemas/semantic-intent-resolution.schema.json`
-- `examples/semantic-intent-resolution-minimal/`
-- `standard/goal-vector-quality-control.md`
-- `schemas/goal-vector-quality-control.schema.json`
-- `examples/goal-vector-quality-control-minimal/`
-- `releases/1.0.0-rc.5.md`
-- `releases/1.0.0-rc.6.md`
-
-## Experiment Design
-
-Compare baseline AI-assisted work with Mirai Graph-controlled work on matched
-tasks.
-
-Baseline:
-
-```text
-free-form request -> direct execution -> final answer
-```
-
-Graph-controlled condition:
-
-```text
-free-form request
--> semantic intent record
--> goal vector
--> batch vector links
--> evidence
--> reverse audit
--> final answer or correction route
-```
-
-## Candidate Metrics
-
-- wrong-start count;
-- missing-context-at-start count;
-- work-scale mismatch count;
-- batch-without-goal-vector count;
-- false-completion claim count;
-- missing-evidence count;
-- reverse-audit finding count;
-- correction-route coverage;
-- reviewer correction count.
-
-## Required Evidence Before Publication
-
-- At least one sanitized baseline-vs-graph-controlled pilot.
-- Replayable task package with public-safe inputs and outputs.
-- Limitations table covering task selection, reviewer bias, model variance and
-  synthetic fixture limits.
-- Negative examples showing failures caught by the validator or review protocol.
-
-## Limitations
-
-Current public artifacts validate model shape and fail-closed fixtures. They do
-not prove real-world drift reduction, generalize across organizations or replace
-human review.

package/releases/0.1.0-alpha.0.md

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-# Mirai Graph 0.1.0-alpha.0
-
-Release type: initial public foundation
-
-## Summary
-
-This alpha release establishes the public Mirai Graph repository as a starting
-point for standardization, developer adoption and reproducible synthetic
-examples.
-
-## Included
-
-- Public README and roadmap.
-- Repository purpose brief.
-- Concept and terminology docs.
-- Initial standard draft.
-- Object and relation models.
-- Lifecycle/readiness, evidence/provenance, governance and conformance sections.
-- Context-pack generation, profiles and test-suite direction.
-- JSON schemas for core package elements.
-- CLI validator.
-- Minimal graph example.
-- Synthetic context-reduction benchmark.
-- Initial adoption and contribution guides.
-
-## Validation
-
-Run:
-
-```bash
-npm test
-```
-
-Expected:
-
-- minimal graph validates;
-- synthetic benchmark validates;
-- synthetic context-reduction calculation returns `56.4516%`.
-
-## Important Limitations
-
-- This is an alpha foundation, not a stable standard.
-- Synthetic benchmark evidence is not external validation.
-- The project does not yet include an independent implementation pilot.
-- Context-pack generation has a documented model but no automated generator.