--- deck: How this composes subtitle: With Risk Mandate, Licence to Operate, and the sgit vault family date: September 2026 accent: blue --- # How this composes > **Deck 3 of 4.** What this vault contributes to the estate's other vaults, and what it takes > from them. Every claim about another vault here is read from **that vault's own published > page**, and linked, rather than recalled. > > This is the markdown source; the **Decks** view is a projection of it. --- ## The shape **everything shares** Four vaults, one chain, different segments of it: ``` AIUC-1 standard -> control -> requirement -> attestation -> conformance -> insurability LICENCE grant -> mandate -> DELTA -> policy -> covered / not covered THIS VAULT entity -> instrument -> provision -> obligation -> control -> evidence -> acceptance ``` **They overlap at `control`, `evidence` and `acceptance`.** That is not a coincidence — it is the same risk-acceptance grammar applied to three different sources of obligation: a standard, a mandate, and a statute. **This vault supplies the third one, which none of the others had.** --- ## What we take: the two-edge rule The AIUC-1 conformance vault keeps two edges *"never traversed in one query without the query naming which it used"*: | Edge | Answers | Absent means | |---|---|---| | `evidenced_by` | does the **standard** say this? | a build defect | | `attested_by` | does **this subject** do this? | the control is **unevidenced — which is the finding** | **We do the same thing on a different axis.** `ung:` is what UnGovr publish; `sg:` is our model; exactly one edge crosses between them and it is drawn `inferred`. Their rule is enforced by a test that goes red if a layer edge reaches a `source_observation`. Ours is enforced by a build check that fails if any page names `sg:resolvesTo` without marking it inferred. --- ## What we take: unevidenced is a state From the same vault: *"Every control in scope gets a row whether or not anyone has looked at it, so an absent row is never quietly read as compliance."* Their first build of one subject across 53 controls: **2 evidenced, 48 unevidenced, 3 contradicted** — *"the designed answer, not a failure to finish."* **Our evidence node ships `unevidenced` and our acceptance node ships with no owner.** Both are the default, both stay, and both mean *nobody has looked* rather than *nothing is wrong*. --- ## What we contribute: a **jurisdiction layer** **327,138 entities. 398 records laws. 254 of them sub-national.** A `policy/v1` that covers an agent acting for a public body has to know **which body, and which law binds it**. Neither the Licence to Operate vault nor the conformance layer carries that, and neither should have to build it. This vault is that lookup — with the honest caveat attached, which is that the entity-to-law edge is **inferred**, reaches 96.6%, and hands 20.5% of matches to a human. > **Notes.** The caveat is the contribution as much as the data is. A jurisdiction layer that > silently guessed would be worse than none. --- ## What we contribute: a clock **nobody negotiates** The conformance layer's headline mechanism is that **time breaks the policy**: move the date to 2027-01-15, *"with nothing edited by anybody"*, and one condition becomes **53 exclusions** — because the attestations behind them expire. **Our obligations expire on a different clock, and it is not ours.** `Gov. Code § 7922.535(a)`: the agency shall determine and notify **within 10 calendar days**, extendable by 14 in unusual circumstances. Calendar days — office closures do not toll it. An attestation expiry is a policy parameter somebody chose. **A statutory deadline is a fact about the world.** A conformance model that can carry both is strictly better than one that can only carry the first. --- ## The delta, at **zero** Licence to Operate's argument, made countable: | | | In their demo | |---|---|---| | **CAN DO** — the grant | what the agent can technically reach | **12 capabilities** | | **MAY DO** — the mandate | what is actually expected, and all the policy insures | **4** | | **THE DELTA** | inside reach, outside authority. **Nothing covers these** | **8** | **This vault's app declares `"permissions": []`.** CAN DO equals MAY DO. **The delta is zero** — not managed down, absent. It is the smallest possible instance of their argument, and it is why a stranger can open this vault read-only and be asked for nothing. --- ## Where the three meet: an **unowned acceptance** Our chain ends on `sg:acceptance/unassigned` — **no named owner, no review interval, no revocation path.** Read through the conformance layer's vocabulary, that is not a gap in the diagram. It is a **conformance state**, and it is `unevidenced`. Read through Licence to Operate's, it is not a condition on a policy. **It is an exclusion** — and the exclusion carries its reason in the control's own words: *an acceptance without an owner is a note.* **Three vaults, three vocabularies, one unfilled field, and all three agree on what it means.** That is the strongest evidence so far that the grammar is real rather than a house style. --- ## What we took from the family, concretely | From | What we used | |---|---| | **Risk Graph Explorer** | `PUBLIC.md`'s three rules for a vault whose read key is published. We added a fourth: nothing whose licence forbids republication | | **Regulation Graph** | law-as-a-citable-graph, hash-verified to source bytes — the closest analogue to this work | | **AIUC-1 conformance** | the two-edge rule, and `unevidenced` as a default rather than an absence | | **Licence to Operate** | grant / mandate / delta, and the `policy/v1` shape | | **Risk Mandate** | that a real application ships *as* a vault, with a release history | | **sgit.ai** | the embed protocol — the read key posted to a pinned origin after a handshake, never in a URL | --- ## The one thing to **build next** **Make the obligation layer a `policy/v1` producer.** This vault already has the pieces: an entity, an instrument, an addressable-enough provision, a statutory deadline as a scalar, a control, and an acceptance with a named hole in it. The missing step is emitting the conformance row — **one obligation, one control, one state, one `valid_until` driven by the statute rather than by an attestation** — in the shape the conformance layer already reads. Then a policy could say: *this agent may file a records request on behalf of this body, in this jurisdiction, under this law, with this deadline* — and say what it does **not** prove. > **Notes.** Scope discipline still applies. One county, one law, one acceptance. The point of > this slide is the interface, not a second vault. --- ## What this **does not** prove Borrowed deliberately from the conformance layer's own `does_not_prove` field: - It does **not** prove Santa Barbara County complies with anything. The evidence node is `unevidenced` because **nobody has observed the county**. - It does **not** prove UnGovr intend any of this. **No conversation has taken place**; every statement about their intentions is inference from what they publish. - It does **not** prove the inferred edge is right for any particular entity. It reaches 96.6% and hands 20.5% of those to a human. - It does **not** make anything citable by version. That release channel was **withdrawn**, and acceptance test 9 regressed to `unevidenced` rather than being left looking satisfied. --- This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).