ungovr.providers.sgit.ai / The seven-step join — one entity, one clause, one acceptance

The seven-step join — one entity, one clause, one acceptance

One county. One law. One acceptance. And a refusal to widen it — because one instrument modelled properly beats forty sketched, and a vault that tries to be a complete ontology of government ships nothing.

Prose from the government-graph vault dkeclt5r, 9 September 2026. The join was built in this session from bytes retrieved in this session. When the vault moves ahead, this page is behind — and says so rather than guessing.

How to read it

Two things are being said about every node, and they are different questions:

• Origin — whose claim is this? ung: is transcribed from UnGovr and never edited, corrected, enriched or re-typed. akn: is the instrument. sg: is our model.
• Assertion class — how strongly is it held? asserted or inferred.

Origin is carried by border and shape; assertion class by colour. Hue is already spent on the second, so the first cannot also use it. Merging them would lose both, and a reader checking this work should check that separation first.

1. 1
   ung:us/ca/santa-barbaraungasserted

   Santa Barbara County

   Transcribed from their detail document exactly as published, and not edited, corrected, enriched or re-typed. type: county, 154 children, three domains, a boundary. It carries no open_records key at all — which is the whole reason the next edge has to be inferred.

   retrieved 2026-09-09T01:49Z
   sha256 8d5e6db9e4056b2f68fcd66d…
   source https://data.ungovr.org/v1/entities/detail/us--ca--santa-barbara…
2. 2
   akn:/akn/us-ca/act/statute/1968-01-01/gov-7920akninferred

   California Public Records Act

   Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7920.000-7931.000, effective 1968-01-01, transcribed from their law record. The Akoma Ntoso identifier above is minted by us following the AKN naming convention — no Akoma Ntoso document for the CPRA exists to retrieve. That is the answer to blocker B3, and it is why acceptance test 3 cannot pass for this instrument. The identifier is a stable name, not a retrieved artefact, and it is marked inferred for that reason.

   retrieved 2026-09-09T01:49Z
   sha256 ce8bc4744115befddb2d2981…
   source https://data.ungovr.org/v1/laws/records/us--ca.json…
3. 3
   akn:…/gov-7920/!main~sec_7922_535__aaknasserted

   Gov. Code § 7922.535(a) — determine and notify within 10 days

   The clause that creates the duty. The vault's pack named § 7922.535 as a candidate to verify, written from prior knowledge and therefore unevidenced by its own rule. The retrieved bytes carry it — UnGovr's response_deadline_notes cites Gov. Code § 7922.535(a) for the determination and (b)-(c) for the extension. The candidate is confirmed by the source rather than by memory. What the bytes do not carry is the clause as an addressable thing: it is a citation inside an English sentence, so there is nothing below the law to point at.

   retrieved 2026-09-09T01:49Z
   sha256 ce8bc4744115befddb2d2981…
   source https://data.ungovr.org/v1/laws/records/us--ca.json…
4. 4
   sg:obligation/cpra-determine-and-notifysgasserted

   Determine and notify, within 10 calendar days

   The first node that is ours rather than theirs. What, of whom, within what interval: the agency shall determine whether the request seeks disclosable records and notify the requester, within 10 calendar days of receipt, extendable by up to 14 days by written notice in unusual circumstances. The interval is not our reading of the prose — UnGovr publish it as structured scalars, initial_response_days: 10 and extension_days: 14, which is more than this brief expected to find.

   note Derived from the provision above. Modelled by us; the numbers are transcribed from initial_response_days and extension_days in the law record.
5. 5
   sg:control/cpra-10-day-clocksgasserted

   A dated determination on file within the interval

   What would satisfy the obligation: for each received request, a written determination, dated within 10 calendar days of receipt, recording whether disclosable records exist, and served on the requester. Calendar days — office closures do not toll it; only a last day falling on a holiday rolls forward.

   note Our model. UnGovr publish no control layer and make no such claim.
6. 6
   sg:evidence/santa-barbara-cpra-clocksgasserted

   unevidenced

   The default, and it stays the default. Nobody has observed Santa Barbara County's determinations against this control. On the vault's conformance ladder this is the weakest rung: unevidenced. It means the county has not been observed — it does not mean the county is non-compliant, and it is not a site claim state. The two vocabularies answer different questions.

   note No observation has been made. Recorded as an absence, on purpose.
7. 7
   sg:acceptance/unassignedsgasserted

   No named owner — open

   An acceptance needs a named owner, a review interval and a revocation path. This one has none of the three, so it ships open rather than filled in. An acceptance without an owner is a note, and writing a plausible name here because the field exists is the exact failure this vault argues against. It is handback item 8.

   note Deliberately unfilled. Requires a human decision.

The edges

The three rules that are the argument

The county was resolved, not guessed. us/ca/santa-barbara came out of /v1/entities/us/ca.json rather than out of anybody's memory, which is what closed blocker B4. verified 9 Sep 2026

Attach, never mutate. No ung: node is edited. The entity above is exactly the bytes UnGovr served, and the things we have to say about it hang off it rather than being written into it. That is what makes the compiled artefact checkable against the retrieved JSON it came from.

sg:resolvesTo is inferred, not asserted. It is the only edge crossing from their data into our model and it is the most important claim in the demonstration. UnGovr did not make it. The rule that produces it, and the 20.5% of cases where it would be wrong, are measured on the coverage page.

The default evidence tier is the weakest one. The evidence node above is unevidenced, and it stays that way, because nobody has observed Santa Barbara County's determinations against the control. That is a statement about our observation, not about the county's compliance.

Two vocabularies, and why they must not merge

This is the thing a reader is most likely to get wrong, so it is stated rather than left implicit.

A vault node's evidence tier is never rendered as a site claim state. If it were, a reader would see unevidenced on the evidence node and conclude that this site does not know something. It means the county has not been observed. The two vocabularies are crosswalked in the brief, not merged.

What is out of this MVP, said here rather than left to be noticed

• The full fractal zoom to sentence level — zoom into an entity, a law and a provision and have each expand under identical rules. Specified, not built. specified, not shipped
• The document viewer opening a byte range in the instrument's own source. Blocked by something real: there is no machine-readable CPRA to open. verified 9 Sep 2026
• The remaining six computations. Two are done.
• A named owner on the acceptance node. It ships open. specified, not shipped

Every claim on this site, with its state → Disclosures →