Constitutional Framework
Rights and institutions for computational authority.
Computational authority requires constitutional limits when a computational process materially contributes to an act governing a covered passage and the affected person lacks a reasonable and timely substitute. The Articles define entitlement, duties, review, amendment, emergency authority, and the independent record of public power. The continuing organs are the Standard-Setting Body, Auditor, and Adjudicator; affected-person counterpower remains matter-specific.
Four Institutional Separations
- Issuers vs. VerifiersThose who issue credentials, tokens, or attestations must be structurally separated from those who verify them.
- Operators vs. AuditorsThose who operate computational infrastructure must be auditable by parties they do not control.
- Rule-Makers vs. AdjudicatorsThose who set the rules of a coordination substrate must be separated from those who adjudicate disputes under them.
- Credentialers vs. Identity ProvidersThose who attest to capabilities must be separated from those who hold identity records.
Affected-Person Counterpower
- Distributed RecourseAffected persons may proceed directly or through interoperable Contest Registries, common dockets, claim-specific advocates, and temporary remedy panels. Counterpower has no permanent membership, licensing authority, or general mandate.
Documents
- Computational RepublicanismJurisdiction, entitlement, the Twelve Articles, institutional allocation, construction, amendment, and emergency authority.
- The Constitutional MachineReceipt and review mechanics, four institutional separations, distributed counterpower, Contest Registries, portability, and record assurance.
- Living ConsentDistinct rules for assent to a system state, delegated authority, temporal use of records, and institutional succession.
- Grounds of the ArticlesThe structural condition, legitimacy failure, minimum safeguard, legal analogue, and open calibration for each Article.