diff --git a/conformance/README.md b/conformance/README.md index 053b191..4e7426c 100644 --- a/conformance/README.md +++ b/conformance/README.md @@ -18,8 +18,15 @@ governed standards change under the then-current standards. Profiles do not authorize their own adoption or promotion. Repository governance and the then-current standards govern acceptance, revision, deprecation, and replacement. -The first adopted profile is: +The adopted profile is: - `devidence-acquisition-representation-v0.2.md` — acquisition, representation identity, integrity comparison, compound/container materialization, bounded representation-adequacy assertions, reproducible provenance, and associated failure semantics. + +The candidate profile is: + +- `devidence-primary-source-analysis-interpretive-derivation-v0.1.md` — direct primary-source + confirmation, raw/normalized distinction, bounded corpus-negative claims, reference + resolution, interpretive derivation, operation-taxonomy versioning, authority bindings, + disagreement preservation, and supersession. diff --git a/conformance/devidence-primary-source-analysis-interpretive-derivation-v0.1.md b/conformance/devidence-primary-source-analysis-interpretive-derivation-v0.1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d8f370 --- /dev/null +++ b/conformance/devidence-primary-source-analysis-interpretive-derivation-v0.1.md @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +# DEVIDENCE Primary-Source Analysis and Interpretive Derivation Conformance Profile +## Version 0.1 + +Status: CANDIDATE EXTERNAL CONFORMANCE PROFILE + +Authority scope: implementations explicitly claiming this profile and version after adoption + +Base Layer authority: NONE + +This document is a candidate external conformance profile. It does not amend DEVIDENCE Base +Layer meanings and does not become part of Base Layer conformance merely by being present in +the standards repository. + +Normative keywords such as **SHALL**, **SHALL NOT**, **SHOULD**, and **MAY** describe the +requirements proposed for an implementation that explicitly claims conformance with this +profile and version after adoption. Until adoption, this document is non-normative. + +## Purpose + +This profile defines testable behavior for research systems that verify source-grounded claims, +perform bounded corpus searches, resolve references, and derive interpretive observations from +preserved primary-source material. + +The profile uses existing DEVIDENCE Base Layer concepts: + +- resource; +- representation; +- acquisition; +- observation; +- assertion or claim; +- evidence; +- derivation; +- provenance; +- coverage; +- change and supersession. + +It does not introduce a universal truth authority, domain canon, confidence scale, or +interpretive taxonomy. + +## Primary-source confirmation + +When a material claim is directly testable against an accessible primary representation, a +conforming implementation SHALL either: + +1. acquire and examine an identified primary representation; or +2. record why primary-source confirmation was not available through the attempted path. + +A secondary source MAY identify a useful claim, locator, citation, or search target, but the +secondary report SHALL NOT be represented as direct confirmation of a primary text when the +primary representation was not examined. + +The confirmation record SHALL preserve, to the provenance ceiling supported by the source: + +- resource identity; +- representation identity; +- edition, witness, corpus, revision, or other bounded source identity when applicable; +- acquisition route and tool/version; +- observed or retrieved time as applicable; +- exact locator or source span when available; +- raw or preserved representation identity; +- cryptographic digest when available or required; +- normalization and transformation history used for analysis; +- the observation actually made; +- the claim ceiling describing what the observation does not establish. + +## Raw, normalized, and interpreted forms + +Exact preserved material, normalized analytical text, translations, transcriptions, extracted +features, and interpretive conclusions SHALL remain distinguishable. + +A conforming implementation SHALL NOT silently replace an exact source representation with a +normalized, translated, corrected, reconstructed, or interpreted form. + +When normalization or transformation is used for searching or analysis, derivation provenance +SHALL identify: + +- input representation; +- transformation or normalization method; +- software or model identity and version where applicable; +- configuration material necessary to reproduce the transformation; +- resulting representation or analytical object; +- relevant digests or stable identities. + +## Bounded corpus-negative claims + +A statement that a term, pattern, feature, or record is absent from a corpus is a bounded +analytical observation, not a universal absence claim. + +For a corpus-negative result, a conforming implementation SHALL preserve: + +- exact corpus identity; +- exact revision, release, commit, tree, snapshot, or equivalent bounded version; +- declared scan scope; +- inclusion and exclusion rules; +- file or member inventory sufficient to audit the scan; +- integrity identities for the scanned material when practical; +- search pattern or query; +- character normalization and case-handling rules; +- search tool and version or reproducible search procedure; +- search result; +- whether zero matches were expected or merely observed; +- coverage or completeness limits known to the implementation. + +A zero-hit result SHALL NOT be promoted to a claim about manuscripts, editions, witnesses, +repositories, or corpora outside the bounded scan. + +Acquisition failure, unreadable material, excluded files, unsupported encodings, and +materialization failure SHALL NOT be converted into source absence. + +## Reference resolution + +A citation, footnote, bibliography entry, embedded reference, or secondary-source claim that +points to another source MAY generate a separate acquisition or verification target. + +A conforming implementation SHALL preserve the distinction between: + +- the fact that source A cites or refers to source B; +- the representation of source B actually acquired; +- the observation made from source B; +- an analyst's inference relating A and B. + +Truth, interpretation, or evidentiary support SHALL NOT be inherited transitively merely +because a reference exists. + +When a referenced source is unavailable, the unresolved reference SHALL remain visible rather +than being silently treated as confirmed. + +## Interpretive derivation + +When an implementation records how a source applies, explains, extends, harmonizes, narrows, +or otherwise interprets an earlier rule, text, or source, the result SHALL be represented as a +derivation or analytical observation rather than as part of the underlying source text. + +An interpretive-derivation record SHALL preserve, when applicable: + +- identity of the governing or antecedent source material being interpreted; +- exact source span or locator for that basis; +- identity of the interpreting source; +- exact source span or locator for the interpretive act or resulting ruling; +- the case, problem, question, or circumstance being addressed; +- the resulting ruling, application, explanation, or conclusion as observed in the source; +- any rationale explicitly stated by the interpreting source; +- the analytical classification of the interpretive operation; +- the deriver or analyst identity; +- derivation method and version; +- confidence or uncertainty where legitimately supplied; +- alternative plausible classifications or unresolved ambiguity; +- a claim ceiling separating observation from reconstruction. + +The record SHALL distinguish at least these three layers: + +1. **source observation** — what the relevant representation actually says or contains; +2. **interpretive operation observation** — what movement from antecedent material to applied + ruling can be directly supported by the interpreting source; +3. **analytical reconstruction** — the researcher's classification or explanation of that + interpretive movement. + +A conforming implementation SHALL NOT represent an analytical reconstruction as though the +ancient or primary source explicitly stated that classification. + +## Operation taxonomies + +A domain profile or local research contract MAY classify interpretive operations with labels +such as analogy, reciprocal application, category extension, procedural concretization, +harmonization, exception, priority resolution, grammatical inference, or protective +implementation. + +Such labels are analytical vocabulary, not Base Layer meanings. + +The implementation SHALL: + +- define the vocabulary it uses; +- version that vocabulary; +- preserve the evidence supporting each assigned label; +- permit an operation to remain UNKNOWN or multiply classified; +- preserve later reclassification without rewriting the original record. + +## Governing-source or authority bindings + +A domain-specific research contract MAY declare that one source collection, rule set, canon, +standard, or authority governs the interpretation of other writings. + +DEVIDENCE itself does not choose that authority. + +When such a binding exists, a conforming implementation SHOULD preserve: + +- identity of the domain contract establishing the authority relationship; +- identity of the governing source or rule set; +- the scope in which the authority relationship applies; +- version or revision of the domain contract; +- the evidentiary or methodological role assigned to subordinate or interpretive sources. + +The existence of a governing-source binding SHALL NOT cause derived interpretation records to +be merged into the governing source representation. + +## Disagreement and alternative derivations + +Different analysts, models, communities, editions, or source witnesses may support different +interpretive derivations. + +A conforming implementation SHALL preserve materially distinct derivations separately when +their provenance, source basis, operation classification, or conclusion differs. + +Disagreement SHALL NOT be flattened into a synthetic consensus record unless that synthesis is +itself represented as a separately attributable derivation. + +## Supersession and correction + +Later source acquisition, improved transcription, corrected normalization, new witnesses, or +revised interpretation MAY supersede an earlier analytical result. + +Supersession SHALL preserve: + +- the earlier observation or derivation; +- the later observation or derivation; +- the relationship between them; +- the reason for change; +- the evidence responsible for the change where available. + +Correction SHALL NOT erase the historical analytical record. + +## Research-state mutation boundary + +Acquiring, preserving, indexing, searching, validating, or interpreting a source SHALL NOT by +itself mutate unrelated claims, conclusions, coverage records, queues, or publication state. + +If a research system uses a validated observation to update another research object, that +update SHOULD occur through a separately attributable and auditable derivation or workflow +step. + +## Minimum conformance vectors + +An implementation claiming this profile SHOULD be tested against at least: + +- direct primary-source confirmation of a positive textual claim; +- direct primary-source confirmation that contradicts a secondary report; +- primary source unavailable through the attempted route; +- exact-locator extraction from a preserved representation; +- raw-to-normalized derivation with reproducible provenance; +- bounded corpus search with positive matches; +- bounded corpus search with a valid zero-hit result; +- corpus search with unreadable or excluded material producing bounded or UNKNOWN coverage; +- secondary citation that resolves to a separately acquired primary source; +- unresolved reference that remains unresolved; +- interpretive derivation with an explicitly stated source rationale; +- interpretive derivation whose operation classification is analytical rather than explicit; +- two plausible operation classifications preserved without forced collapse; +- disagreement between independent derivations; +- later correction or supersession preserving the prior record; +- domain authority binding that remains separate from DEVIDENCE Base Layer semantics. + +## Authority boundary + +This candidate profile does not amend DEVIDENCE Base Layer meanings, declare any source +canonical or authoritative, establish truth from preservation, or make an interpretive +classification binding merely because it was recorded. + +If adopted, its authority applies only to implementations explicitly claiming this profile and +version. Promotion of any distinction from this profile into the Base Layer requires a +separate governed standards change.