version v0.1 · 9 September 2026
← 04 The worked example [link removed: 04__the-worked-example.md:] · Next → 06 Verification [link removed: 06__verification.md:]
What each existing thing gains, and what it gives
Every row is read from that vault's or site's own published page, linked, and quoted rather than recalled.
Licence to Operate — posrhzp3
What it is. An agent's grant, its mandate, and the delta between them, priced. 12 capabilities can do, 4 may do, 8 in the delta — "inside the agent's reach, outside its authority. No policy covers these."
What it gains from the anchor. A policy/v1 covering an agent acting for a body, in a jurisdiction currently has no way to name either. With the anchors, the mandate stops being "answer a customer's question" and becomes "answer a records request on behalf of ung:us/ca/santa-barbara, under us/ca, within the statutory 10 days" — a mandate with a deadline that came from a legislature rather than from a product decision.
What it gives back. The delta. Our graph has no way to express the agent could reach this obligation's evidence and is not authorised to, and that is the sharpest thing in their model.
The AIUC-1 conformance layer — 2wzct4k7
What it is. 53 conformance rows for a named subject where unevidenced is the default, and insurability computed as a query — 1 condition met, 52 exclusions at build, 53 exclusions when the date moves to 2027-01-15 with nothing edited by anybody.
What it gains. Subjects, with stable ids. Today a conformance run names its subject as a string, so two runs cannot be compared and none can be aggregated. With ung:entity the subject is a node, and "how many bodies in this jurisdiction have an unevidenced control here" becomes a query rather than a spreadsheet.
What it gives back — and this is the one to steal. Their valid_until mechanism, where time alone turns conditions into exclusions. We contribute a second clock: theirs expires because an attestation lapsed, ours because a statute says 10 calendar days. An attestation expiry is a parameter somebody chose. A statutory deadline is a fact about the world. A model carrying both is strictly better than one carrying either.
Risk Mandate — 4zf6pf2z
What it is. A working application delivered as a vault — 124 files, 98 commits, eight entry points, pinned releases — that calls an LLM without ever holding the API key.
What it gains. A register assembled for a named body in a named jurisdiction rather than for a scenario. The eight questions stay; what changes is that the answers hang off an anchor and can be compared with somebody else's.
What it gives back. The delivery pattern, and the honest one: an app in a vault, offline once cached, with takeaway.html rebuilding a saved register from the link alone. This vault already copied that shape — index.html, data as its own cached immutable object, no permissions.
eu-ai-act.standards.riskmandate.ai
What it is. The composed current text of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 with the Digital Omnibus applied by a deterministic gated parser, published so it can be checked: per-provision ids and sha256 rolling to a root hash, .md and .llm.json on every slug, JSON-LD and Turtle exports, and a manifest hashing every file. It states plainly that it is derived and not authentic law.
What it gains. Almost nothing — and that is the point. It is the layer this pack needs and does not have to build. Step 2 of the work order is a join, not a parse.
What it gives. The standard every other instrument in this graph should be held to. Set beside the CPRA — where the operative clause is prose in a notes field — it is the clearest possible statement of what addressable means, and it is why the worked example [link removed: 04__the-worked-example.md:] puts the two side by side.
And the honesty to copy. It says on its own front page that only the Official Journal is authentic, and it publishes a root hash so a reader knows exactly which version they read. Our inferred edges deserve the same treatment, and get it.
The graph family — graphs.sgit.ai
What it is. The grammar this pack obeys: nine sentences, five rules, fifteen edges with named inverses, and the instruction to bridge rather than merge.
What it gains. A worked instance of anchor nodes with a measured bridge — 96.6% reach, 20.5% needing a human. The site argues that confidence is computable; this is a case where somebody computed it and published the part that does not work.
The composite question this makes answerable
None of the vaults above can answer this today. Together, with the anchors, they can:
For this body, in this jurisdiction: which obligations bind it, which standard controls address each, what is the evidence state of each, what would an insurer exclude — and which of those links did we infer rather than read?
Every clause of that question maps to one layer, and the last clause is the one that keeps it honest.
What integration must not do
| Not this | Because |
|---|---|
| Merge the vocabularies into one control set | Merging erases the disagreement. Bridge through anchors |
| Import UnGovr's AI-law corpus into any of these vaults | It is not CC BY 4.0. Its own licence conveys none |
| Draw a crosswalk and leave who drew it implicit | A crosswalk without an author is an assertion nobody owns |
| Generate an acceptance owner to make a demo look finished | An acceptance without an owner is a note, and a generated one is worse |
| Treat 96.6% as 100% because it rounds nicely | The 20.5% that needs a human is the whole reason the edge is inferred |
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).