info-tech-canon/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.json

3637 lines
100 KiB
JSON
Raw Permalink Normal View History

{
"common_distinctions": [
{
"id": "agentic-fallback-direct-interface",
"source_artifacts": [
"practice-pattern/agentic-drives-functional"
],
"summary": "Use cross-repository agentic work to interpret novel demand; use an owned API, CLI, or MCP surface when the outcome is stable and recurring.",
"title": "Agentic fallback vs direct functional interface"
},
{
"id": "interface-deprecation-retirement-removal",
"source_artifacts": [
"practice-pattern/interface-deprecation-strangler"
],
"summary": "Deprecation guides and observes callers, retirement ends legacy behavior while retaining a metered tombstone, and removal deletes that tombstone only after the evidence gate passes.",
"title": "Interface deprecation vs retirement vs removal"
},
{
"id": "actor-subject-principal",
"source_artifacts": [
"model/organization",
"model/access-control",
"standard/caring"
],
"summary": "Use actor for the acting entity in a context, subject for the entity a policy evaluates, and principal for the authenticated identity bound to access decisions.",
"title": "Actor vs Subject vs Principal"
},
{
"id": "organization-role-access-role-caring-role",
"source_artifacts": [
"model/organization",
"model/access-control",
"standard/caring"
],
"summary": "Organization roles describe responsibility or position; access roles describe permissions; CARING roles classify access-governance needs and analysis.",
"title": "Organization Role vs AccessRole vs CARING role"
},
{
"id": "policy-control-evidence",
"source_artifacts": [
"model/governance",
"model/evidence",
"model/security",
"model/observability"
],
"summary": "Governance owns policy and control; ITC-EVID owns the distinct evidence assertion and its addressable source. Evidence supports a stated interest without guaranteeing truth.",
"title": "Policy vs Control vs Evidence"
},
{
"id": "intent-scope-purpose",
"source_artifacts": [
"kernel/itc-core",
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"pattern/intent-scope-purposes",
"profile/small-saas"
],
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
"summary": "Intent captures why a producer or consumer exists, scope bounds producer ownership and promises, and purpose captures consumer demand anchored in consumer intent.",
"title": "Intent vs Scope vs Purpose"
}
],
"infospace": "canon",
"item_count": 81,
"items": [
{
"canonical_path": "assimilation/canon-federation/ASSIMILATION.md",
"id": "assimilation/canon-federation",
"imports": [
"concept-area/family",
"model/access-control",
"model/evidence",
"model/identity",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "assimilation",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon federation research provenance"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/identity",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "concept-area/family",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/CorpusIndex.md",
"summary": "Canon artifact: Canon federation research provenance.",
"title": "Canon federation research provenance",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "assimilation/emission-cadence/ASSIMILATION.md",
"id": "assimilation/emission-cadence",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "assimilation",
"owned_concepts": [
"Assimilation \u2014 EmissionCadenceDeclaration handover"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/emission-cadence/source/EmissionCadenceDeclaration.md",
"summary": "Canon artifact: Assimilation \u2014 EmissionCadenceDeclaration handover.",
"title": "Assimilation \u2014 EmissionCadenceDeclaration handover",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "assimilation/it-capability-canon/ASSIMILATION.md",
"id": "assimilation/it-capability-canon",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "assimilation",
"owned_concepts": [
"Assimilation \u2014 IT Capability Canon (ITCC) v0.1"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/ITCapabilityCanonV0.1.md",
"summary": "Canon artifact: Assimilation \u2014 IT Capability Canon (ITCC) v0.1.",
"title": "Assimilation \u2014 IT Capability Canon (ITCC) v0.1",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 06:53:30 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/benchmark.yaml",
"id": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"imports": [
"standard/caring",
"standard/tagging"
],
"kind": "benchmark-workspace",
"owned_concepts": [
"CARING Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "stress_tests"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/benchmark.yaml",
"summary": "Benchmark workspace definition and review criteria: CARING Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark.",
"title": "CARING Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/access-descriptors.yaml",
"id": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac/access-descriptors",
"imports": [
"model/access-control",
"model/devsecops",
"model/security",
"standard/caring"
],
"kind": "access-descriptor-set",
"owned_concepts": [
"Kubernetes RBAC CARING Access Descriptors"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/access-descriptors.yaml",
"summary": "Structured CARING access descriptor set: Kubernetes RBAC CARING Access Descriptors.",
"title": "Kubernetes RBAC CARING Access Descriptors",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/caring-mapping.yaml",
"id": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac/caring-mapping",
"imports": [],
"kind": "caring-mapping",
"owned_concepts": [
"Kubernetes RBAC To CARING Mapping"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/caring-mapping.yaml",
"summary": "Native access model to CARING mapping: Kubernetes RBAC To CARING Mapping.",
"title": "Kubernetes RBAC To CARING Mapping",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/findings-and-canon-pressure.yaml",
"id": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac/findings",
"imports": [],
"kind": "benchmark-findings",
"owned_concepts": [
"Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark Findings And Canon Pressure"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "proposes"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "proposes"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "proposes"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/findings-and-canon-pressure.yaml",
"summary": "Benchmark findings, gaps, and canon pressure: Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark Findings And Canon Pressure.",
"title": "Kubernetes RBAC Benchmark Findings And Canon Pressure",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/native-concepts.yaml",
"id": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac/native-concepts",
"imports": [],
"kind": "native-concept-map",
"owned_concepts": [
"Kubernetes RBAC Native Concept Map"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/native-concepts.yaml",
"summary": "Native source concept map for assimilation or benchmark work: Kubernetes RBAC Native Concept Map.",
"title": "Kubernetes RBAC Native Concept Map",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/capability/capabilities.yaml",
"id": "capability-catalog/itc-cap",
"imports": [],
"kind": "capability-catalog",
"owned_concepts": [
"InfoTechCanon Capability Catalog"
],
"relationships": [],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/capabilities.yaml",
"summary": "Canon artifact: InfoTechCanon Capability Catalog.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Capability Catalog",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/data/attribute-value-types.yaml",
"id": "catalog/attribute-value-types",
"imports": [],
"kind": "concept-catalog",
"owned_concepts": [
"InfoTechCanon Attribute Value Type Catalog"
],
"relationships": [],
"source_path": "demand/AttributeValueTypes.md",
"summary": "Structured candidate concept catalog: InfoTechCanon Attribute Value Type Catalog.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Attribute Value Type Catalog",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml",
"id": "catalog/evidence-basis",
"imports": [],
"kind": "concept-catalog",
"owned_concepts": [
"InfoTechCanon Evidence Basis Catalog"
],
"relationships": [],
"source_path": "demand/EvidenceBasis.md",
"summary": "Structured candidate concept catalog: InfoTechCanon Evidence Basis Catalog.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Evidence Basis Catalog",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 06:07:18 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/repo-scoping/canon-benefit-analysis.yaml",
"id": "comparison/repo-scoping/canon-benefit-analysis",
"imports": [],
"kind": "benefit-analysis",
"owned_concepts": [
"Repo Scoping Canon Benefit Analysis"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "comparison/repo-scoping/report",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repo-scoping/canon-benefit-analysis.yaml",
"summary": "Consumer benefit analysis against canon surfaces: Repo Scoping Canon Benefit Analysis.",
"title": "Repo Scoping Canon Benefit Analysis",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/repo-scoping/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"id": "comparison/repo-scoping/consumer-workplan-brief",
"imports": [
"model/purpose-demand-extension"
],
"kind": "consumer-workplan-brief",
"owned_concepts": [
"Repo Scoping Consumer Workplan Brief"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "comparison/repo-scoping/report",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repo-scoping/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"summary": "Consumer repo workplan seed brief: Repo Scoping Consumer Workplan Brief.",
"title": "Repo Scoping Consumer Workplan Brief",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/repo-scoping/extension-candidates.yaml",
"id": "comparison/repo-scoping/extension-candidates",
"imports": [],
"kind": "extension-candidate-set",
"owned_concepts": [
"Repo Scoping Canon Extension Candidates"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "comparison/repo-scoping/report",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "proposes"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "proposes"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "proposes"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "proposes"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repo-scoping/extension-candidates.yaml",
"summary": "Reviewable canon extension candidate set: Repo Scoping Canon Extension Candidates.",
"title": "Repo Scoping Canon Extension Candidates",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-frame.yaml",
"id": "comparison/repo-scoping/frame",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "comparison-frame",
"owned_concepts": [
"Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Frame"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "comparison/repo-scoping/report",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-frame.yaml",
"summary": "Structured comparison questions and domains: Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Frame.",
"title": "Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Frame",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-report.md",
"id": "comparison/repo-scoping/report",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/information-space",
"model/task",
"pattern/intent-scope-purposes"
],
"kind": "comparison-report",
"owned_concepts": [
"Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Report"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "compares"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "pattern/intent-scope-purposes",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-report.md",
"summary": "Canon-side comparison report: Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Report.",
"title": "Repo Scoping Canon Comparison Report",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "concepts/family/FamilySeed.md",
"id": "concept-area/family",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "concept-area-seed",
"owned_concepts": [
"Family",
"Family concept-area seed"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "../prj-canon-federation/ledger/concept-ownership.json",
"summary": "Canon artifact: Family concept-area seed.",
"title": "Family concept-area seed",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "concepts/purpose-demand.yaml",
"id": "concept-catalog/purpose-demand",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/governance"
],
"kind": "concept-catalog",
"owned_concepts": [
"Purpose And Consumer Demand Concept Catalog"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/concepts/purpose-demand.yaml",
"summary": "Structured candidate concept catalog: Purpose And Consumer Demand Concept Catalog.",
"title": "Purpose And Consumer Demand Concept Catalog",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/railiance-fabric/conformance-pack.yaml",
"id": "conformance/railiance-fabric",
"imports": [
"model/data",
"model/devsecops",
"model/governance",
"model/landscape",
"model/network",
"model/observability",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/security",
"model/task",
"standard/tagging"
],
"kind": "conformance-pack",
"owned_concepts": [
"Railiance Fabric Canon Conformance Pack"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/railiance-fabric/conformance-pack.yaml",
"summary": "Machine-readable canon-side conformance support pack: Railiance Fabric Canon Conformance Pack.",
"title": "Railiance Fabric Canon Conformance Pack",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/railiance-fabric/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"id": "conformance/railiance-fabric/consumer-workplan-brief",
"imports": [
"model/purpose-demand-extension"
],
"kind": "consumer-workplan-brief",
"owned_concepts": [
"Railiance Fabric Consumer Workplan Brief"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/railiance-fabric/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"summary": "Consumer repo workplan seed brief: Railiance Fabric Consumer Workplan Brief.",
"title": "Railiance Fabric Consumer Workplan Brief",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/railiance-fabric/entity-edge-capture-criteria.yaml",
"id": "conformance/railiance-fabric/entity-edge-capture-criteria",
"imports": [
"model/data",
"model/devsecops",
"model/governance",
"model/landscape",
"model/network",
"model/observability",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/security",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "capture-criteria",
"owned_concepts": [
"Railiance Fabric Entity And Edge Capture Criteria"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/railiance-fabric/entity-edge-capture-criteria.yaml",
"summary": "Criteria for canonical entity and edge capture: Railiance Fabric Entity And Edge Capture Criteria.",
"title": "Railiance Fabric Entity And Edge Capture Criteria",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/railiance-fabric/mapping-expectations.yaml",
"id": "conformance/railiance-fabric/mapping-expectations",
"imports": [],
"kind": "mapping-expectation",
"owned_concepts": [
"Railiance Fabric Mapping Expectations"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/railiance-fabric/mapping-expectations.yaml",
"summary": "Expected mappings between consumer graph capture and canon surfaces: Railiance Fabric Mapping Expectations.",
"title": "Railiance Fabric Mapping Expectations",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/railiance-fabric/visualization-examples.yaml",
"id": "conformance/railiance-fabric/visualization-examples",
"imports": [],
"kind": "visualization-example-set",
"owned_concepts": [
"Railiance Fabric Visualization Examples"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric/entity-edge-capture-criteria",
"type": "illustrates"
},
{
"target": "conformance/railiance-fabric/mapping-expectations",
"type": "illustrates"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/railiance-fabric/visualization-examples.yaml",
"summary": "Graph visualization examples and bad-shape corrections: Railiance Fabric Visualization Examples.",
"title": "Railiance Fabric Visualization Examples",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/user-engine/evaluation-pack.yaml",
"id": "evaluation/user-engine",
"imports": [
"model/access-control",
"model/data",
"model/governance",
"model/organization",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/security",
"model/task",
"standard/caring"
],
"kind": "evaluation-pack",
"owned_concepts": [
"User Engine Canon Evaluation Pack"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "evaluates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/user-engine/evaluation-pack.yaml",
"summary": "Machine-readable canon-side evaluation pack: User Engine Canon Evaluation Pack.",
"title": "User Engine Canon Evaluation Pack",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/user-engine/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"id": "evaluation/user-engine/consumer-workplan-brief",
"imports": [
"model/purpose-demand-extension"
],
"kind": "consumer-workplan-brief",
"owned_concepts": [
"User Engine Consumer Workplan Brief"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "evaluation/user-engine",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/user-engine/consumer-workplan-brief.md",
"summary": "Consumer repo workplan seed brief: User Engine Consumer Workplan Brief.",
"title": "User Engine Consumer Workplan Brief",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/user-engine/interface-card-expectations.yaml",
"id": "evaluation/user-engine/interface-card-expectations",
"imports": [
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"standard/caring"
],
"kind": "interface-card-expectation",
"owned_concepts": [
"User Engine Canon Interface Card Expectations"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "evaluation/user-engine",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/user-engine/interface-card-expectations.yaml",
"summary": "Expected Canon Interface Card fields and mappings: User Engine Canon Interface Card Expectations.",
"title": "User Engine Canon Interface Card Expectations",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/user-engine/questions.yaml",
"id": "evaluation/user-engine/questions",
"imports": [
"model/access-control",
"model/data",
"model/governance",
"model/organization",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/security",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "evaluation-question-set",
"owned_concepts": [
"User Engine Canon Evaluation Questions"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "evaluation/user-engine",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/user-engine/questions.yaml",
"summary": "Structured canon evaluation question set: User Engine Canon Evaluation Questions.",
"title": "User Engine Canon Evaluation Questions",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "evaluations/user-engine/small-saas-alignment.yaml",
"id": "evaluation/user-engine/small-saas-alignment",
"imports": [
"model/access-control",
"model/governance",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "profile-alignment",
"owned_concepts": [
"User Engine Small SaaS Alignment Lens"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "evaluation/user-engine",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "evaluates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/user-engine/small-saas-alignment.yaml",
"summary": "Profile-specific evaluation alignment artifact: User Engine Small SaaS Alignment Lens.",
"title": "User Engine Small SaaS Alignment Lens",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "examples/consumer-purpose-portfolio.yaml",
"id": "example/consumer-purpose-portfolio",
"imports": [
"profile/small-saas"
],
"kind": "example",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon-Side Consumer Purpose Portfolio"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "illustrates"
},
{
"target": "pattern/intent-scope-purposes",
"type": "illustrates"
},
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/examples/consumer-purpose-portfolio.yaml",
"summary": "Canon-side example artifact: Canon-Side Consumer Purpose Portfolio.",
"title": "Canon-Side Consumer Purpose Portfolio",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/emission-cadence/examples/qonto-assistant.yaml",
"id": "example/emission-cadence/qonto-assistant",
"imports": [
"standard/emission-cadence"
],
"kind": "example",
"owned_concepts": [
"Qonto Assistant Emission Cadence Worked Example"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "standard/emission-cadence",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/emission-cadence/source/EmissionCadenceDeclaration.md",
"summary": "Canon-side example artifact: Qonto Assistant Emission Cadence Worked Example.",
"title": "Qonto Assistant Emission Cadence Worked Example",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "interfaces/federation.yaml",
"id": "interface-card/canon-federation",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "interface-card",
"owned_concepts": [
"InfoTechCanon federation interface"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "../the-custodian/canon/architecture/adr-006-canon-federation-concept-ownership.md",
"summary": "Canon artifact: InfoTechCanon federation interface.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon federation interface",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "kernel/InfoTechCanonCore.md",
"id": "kernel/itc-core",
"imports": [],
"kind": "kernel",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Activity",
"AgentBrief",
"AgentReference",
"Alias",
"Ambiguity",
"Assimilation",
"CanonArtifact",
"CanonInterfaceCard",
"Canonical Owner",
"ChangeRecord",
"Concept",
"Conflict",
"ConformanceLevel",
"DecisionRecord",
"Drift",
"ExternalReference",
"Gap",
"Import",
"Influence",
"InfoTechCanon Core",
"Label",
"Mapping",
"Namespace",
"OpenQuestion",
"Overlap",
"Pattern",
"ProvenanceRecord",
"RelationshipDefinition",
"Source",
"Standard",
"ValidationResult",
"ValidationRule",
"Version",
"VersionRecord"
],
"relationships": [],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonCore_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Kernel artifact that defines canon structure or integration: InfoTechCanon Core.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Core",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "kernel/InfoTechCanonKernelMap.md",
"id": "kernel/itc-kernel-map",
"imports": [],
"kind": "kernel",
"owned_concepts": [
"InfoTechCanon Kernel Map"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "concept-area/family",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/identity",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/capability",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonKernelMap_RC1.md",
"summary": "Kernel artifact that defines canon structure or integration: InfoTechCanon Kernel Map.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Kernel Map",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "mappings/capability-anchors.yaml",
"id": "mapping/capability-anchors",
"imports": [],
"kind": "mapping",
"owned_concepts": [
"ITC-CAP concept mappings to anchoring canon models"
],
"relationships": [],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/mappings.yaml",
"summary": "Mapping artifact connecting canon surfaces: ITC-CAP concept mappings to anchoring canon models.",
"title": "ITC-CAP concept mappings to anchoring canon models",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "assimilation/emission-cadence/mappings.yaml",
"id": "mapping/emission-cadence-handover",
"imports": [],
"kind": "mapping",
"owned_concepts": [
"Emission cadence handover mappings"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "standard/emission-cadence",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/emission-cadence/source/EmissionCadenceDeclaration.md",
"summary": "Mapping artifact connecting canon surfaces: Emission cadence handover mappings.",
"title": "Emission cadence handover mappings",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "mappings/purpose-demand-governance-candidates.yaml",
"id": "mapping/purpose-demand-governance-candidates",
"imports": [
"model/task"
],
"kind": "mapping",
"owned_concepts": [
"Purpose Demand Governance Extension Candidates"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "maps"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/mappings/purpose-demand-governance-candidates.yaml",
"summary": "Mapping artifact connecting canon surfaces: Purpose Demand Governance Extension Candidates.",
"title": "Purpose Demand Governance Extension Candidates",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/access-control/InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel.md",
"id": "model/access-control",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/governance",
"model/identity",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"AccessCertification",
"AccessControlEntity",
"AccessFinding",
"AccessRemediation",
"AccessReview",
"AccessRole",
"AccessSession",
"AgentAccess",
"AuthenticatedSubject",
"AuthenticationStrengthReference",
"AuthorizationDecision",
"AuthorizationRequest",
"BreakGlassAccess",
"Condition",
"CredentialReference",
"DecisionReason",
"DelegatedAccess",
"Denial",
"Entitlement",
"EvaluationContext",
"ExcessAccess",
"Grant",
"IdentityReference",
"InfoTechCanon Access Control Model",
"JustInTimeAccess",
"Operation",
"OrphanedAccess",
"Permission",
"PolicyAdministrationPoint",
"PolicyBinding",
"PolicyDecisionPoint",
"PolicyEnforcementPoint",
"PolicyInformationPoint",
"PolicyRetrievalPoint",
"Principal",
"Privilege",
"ProtectedResource",
"RelationshipTuple",
"Resource",
"ResourceAction",
"ResourceScope",
"RoleBinding",
"ServiceAccountAccess",
"StaleAccess",
"Subject",
"TemporaryAccess",
"TokenReference"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/identity",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Access Control Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Access Control Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/capability/InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel.md",
"id": "model/capability",
"imports": [
"catalog/evidence-basis",
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/governance",
"model/landscape",
"model/observability",
"model/purpose-demand-extension"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
"Capability",
"CapabilityConsumption",
"CapabilityContract",
"CapabilityDomain",
"CapabilityEvidenceHook",
"CapabilityInclusionRule",
"CapabilityMaturityLevel",
"CapabilityProfile",
"CapabilityProvider",
"CapabilityProvision",
"CapabilityQualityDimension",
"CapabilityRequirement",
"CapabilityResourceClass",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Capacity behaviour",
"InfoTechCanon Capability Model",
"Supply"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "catalog/evidence-basis",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "capability-catalog/itc-cap",
"type": "introduces"
},
{
"target": "assimilation/it-capability-canon",
"type": "derived_from"
},
{
"target": "mapping/capability-anchors",
"type": "introduces"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/ITCapabilityCanonV0.1.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Capability Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Capability Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/data/InfoTechCanonDataModel.md",
"id": "model/data",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/governance"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Attribute",
"AttributeValueType",
"BreakingChange",
"BusinessTerm",
"CodeList",
"CompatibilityRule",
"Constraint",
"ConsumerExpectation",
"DataAccessPattern",
"DataAvailability",
"DataCategory",
"DataClassification",
"DataContract",
"DataDefinition",
"DataDistribution",
"DataDomain",
"DataElement",
"DataElementConcept",
"DataEntity",
"DataFlow",
"DataFreshness",
"DataLineage",
"DataObject",
"DataProduct",
"DataQualityCheck",
"DataQualityDimension",
"DataQualityIssue",
"DataQualityResult",
"DataQualityRule",
"DataResidency",
"DataService",
"DataStoreReference",
"DataSubjectCategory",
"DataType",
"DataUsageConstraint",
"Dataset",
"DatasetSeries",
"Derivation",
"Field",
"FitnessForUse",
"GlossaryTerm",
"InfoTechCanon Data Model",
"MasterDataReference",
"ProcessingPurpose",
"ProducerExpectation",
"Record",
"ReferenceData",
"Representation",
"RetentionRuleReference",
"SchemaEvolutionPolicy",
"Sensitivity",
"Transformation"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "catalog/attribute-value-types",
"type": "introduces"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonDataModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Data Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Data Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/devsecops/InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel.md",
"id": "model/devsecops",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/security"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"AgentExecutionEvidence",
"AgentGeneratedPatch",
"AgentReview",
"Artifact",
"ArtifactDigest",
"ArtifactVersion",
"Attestation",
"Branch",
"ChangeFailure",
"CodeReview",
"CodingAgentChange",
"Commit",
"ContainerImage",
"DeliveryMetric",
"DeploymentExecution",
"DeploymentHealthSignal",
"DeploymentManifest",
"DeploymentPlan",
"DeploymentRecord",
"DeploymentVerification",
"DevSecOpsEntity",
"EnvironmentPromotion",
"FeedbackLoop",
"GateDecision",
"HumanSupervisionReference",
"IaCModule",
"InfoTechCanon DevSecOps Model",
"Package",
"Pipeline",
"PipelineDefinition",
"PipelineIdentity",
"PipelineJob",
"PipelineResult",
"PipelineRun",
"PipelineStage",
"PipelineStep",
"PolicyGate",
"Promotion",
"Provenance",
"PullRequest",
"QualityGate",
"RecoveryAction",
"Release",
"ReleaseApprovalReference",
"ReleaseCandidate",
"ReleaseNote",
"ReleaseVersion",
"Repository",
"Rollback",
"RolloutStrategy",
"Runner",
"ScanResult",
"ScanRun",
"Signature",
"Software Bill of Materials",
"SourceChange",
"SourceTag",
"SupplyChainEvidence",
"TestResult",
"TestRun",
"TransparencyLogEntry",
"VEXReference",
"VerificationEvidence"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon DevSecOps Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon DevSecOps Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/evidence/InfoTechCanonEvidenceModel.md",
"id": "model/evidence",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
"Adjudication Outcome",
"Evidence",
"Evidence Source",
"Evidence strength",
"InfoTechCanon Evidence Model"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "../prj-canon-federation/ledger/concept-ownership.json",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Evidence Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Evidence Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/governance/InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel.md",
"id": "model/governance",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Approval",
"Assertion",
"Assessment",
"AssuranceCase",
"AssuranceConclusion",
"Audit",
"CompensatingControl",
"ComplianceRequirement",
"Control",
"ControlActivity",
"ControlImplementation",
"ControlObjective",
"ControlResult",
"ControlTest",
"Decision",
"DecisionRight",
"Escalation",
"EvidenceBasis",
"Exception",
"Finding",
"GovernanceCycle",
"GovernanceEntity",
"GovernanceForum",
"GovernanceProcess",
"GovernanceScope",
"GovernanceSystem",
"Guideline",
"Impact",
"InfoTechCanon Governance Model",
"Likelihood",
"Nonconformity",
"Obligation",
"Policy",
"Principle",
"RegulatoryReference",
"Remediation",
"Requirement",
"Review",
"Risk",
"RiskAcceptance",
"RiskSource",
"RiskTreatment",
"Rule",
"Waiver"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "catalog/evidence-basis",
"type": "introduces"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Governance Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Governance Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/identity/InfoTechCanonIdentityModel.md",
"id": "model/identity",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/access-control",
"model/evidence",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
"Account",
"Administration Relationship",
"Affiliation Relationship",
"Assurance Level",
"Claim",
"Credential",
"Delegation Relationship",
"Following Relationship",
"Identifier",
"Identity Record",
"InfoTechCanon Identity Model",
"Lifecycle State",
"Persona",
"Profile",
"Pseudonymous Identifier",
"Realm",
"Relationship",
"Representation Relationship",
"Scope",
"Scoped Identifier",
"Service Account",
"Synonymity Assertion",
"Tenant",
"Trust Relationship"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "../prj-canon-federation/ledger/concept-ownership.json",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Identity Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Identity Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/information-space/InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel.md",
"id": "model/information-space",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/identity"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Anchor",
"AssimilationReport",
"Backlink",
"Block",
"BrokenLink",
"Chunk",
"Citation",
"Collection",
"ConceptIndex",
"ConceptPage",
"ConflictingDefinition",
"Corpus",
"CrossReference",
"DependencyReference",
"Document",
"DuplicateContent",
"EmbeddingRecord",
"Excerpt",
"FrontMatter",
"Generation",
"GraphView",
"Heading",
"Index",
"InfoTechCanon Information Space Model",
"InformationSpace",
"Infospace",
"KnowledgeArtifact",
"KnowledgeBase",
"Link",
"LowRetrievalQuality",
"MapView",
"MappingDocument",
"MappingReference",
"MarkdownDocument",
"MetadataRecord",
"MissingMetadata",
"NavigationView",
"OrphanArtifact",
"PatternDocument",
"ProfileDocument",
"RelationshipIndex",
"RepositorySpace",
"RetrievalContext",
"RetrievalEvaluation",
"RetrievalQuery",
"RetrievalResult",
"RetrievalUnit",
"ReviewRecord",
"Revision",
"SearchIndex",
"Section",
"Shard",
"SourceReference",
"StaleContent",
"StandardDocument",
"Status",
"Summary",
"TopicIndex",
"UsePath",
"VectorIndex"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/identity",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Information Space Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Information Space Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md",
"id": "model/landscape",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"ApplicationService",
"BusinessService",
"Environment",
"InfoTechCanon Landscape Model",
"LandscapeClaim",
"LandscapeEntity",
"LandscapeEvidence",
"LandscapeRelationship",
"LandscapeSource",
"LandscapeState",
"RuntimeResource",
"SoftwareComponent",
"SoftwareSystem",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"TechnicalService",
"Workload"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Landscape Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Landscape Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/network/InfoTechCanonNetworkModel.md",
"id": "model/network",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/security"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"ACL",
"AddressFamily",
"AllowedFlow",
"AppliedNetworkState",
"AssessedNetworkState",
"AttackSurfaceReference",
"Circuit",
"ConnectivityService",
"DNSRecord",
"DNSZone",
"DeclaredNetworkState",
"DeniedFlow",
"EgressEndpoint",
"Endpoint",
"Firewall",
"FirewallRule",
"Gateway",
"HistoricalNetworkState",
"Hostname",
"IPAddress",
"IPAllocation",
"InfoTechCanon Network Model",
"IngressEndpoint",
"IntendedNetworkState",
"Interface",
"KubernetesNetworkPolicy",
"LoadBalancer",
"ManagementEndpoint",
"Microsegment",
"NAT",
"NetworkACL",
"NetworkConfiguration",
"NetworkDevice",
"NetworkDomain",
"NetworkEntity",
"NetworkFabric",
"NetworkFlow",
"NetworkIntent",
"NetworkNode",
"NetworkPolicy",
"NetworkRegion",
"NetworkSegment",
"NetworkSite",
"NetworkTenant",
"NetworkZone",
"NextHop",
"ObservedFlow",
"ObservedNetworkState",
"OverlayNetwork",
"Path",
"Peering",
"Port",
"Prefix",
"PrivateEndpoint",
"Proxy",
"PublicEndpoint",
"ReachabilityClaim",
"ReachabilityTest",
"ReconciliationResult",
"Route",
"RouteTable",
"Router",
"SecurityGroup",
"SecurityZone",
"ServiceEndpoint",
"ServiceMeshPolicy",
"ServiceName",
"Subnet",
"Switch",
"TerminationPoint",
"TrafficPolicy",
"TrustZoneReference",
"UnderlayNetwork",
"VLAN",
"VRF",
"WorkloadEndpoint"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonNetworkModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Network Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Network Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/observability/InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel.md",
"id": "model/observability",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Alert",
"AlertCorrelation",
"AlertRoute",
"AlertRule",
"AlertSuppression",
"Annotation",
"AvailabilityWindow",
"Baggage",
"BurnRate",
"Correlation",
"Counter",
"Dashboard",
"ErrorBudget",
"EscalationReference",
"Event",
"EventConsumer",
"EventCorrelationKey",
"EventEnvelope",
"EventSource",
"EventType",
"Exemplar",
"Gauge",
"HealthState",
"Histogram",
"InfoTechCanon Observability Model",
"Log",
"LogContext",
"LogLevel",
"LogRecord",
"LogStream",
"Metric",
"MetricInstrument",
"MetricPoint",
"Notification",
"ObservabilityEntity",
"ObservabilityEvidence",
"ObservedIncident",
"ObservedResource",
"OperationalView",
"PerformanceProfile",
"PostIncidentObservation",
"ProfilingSample",
"Query",
"QueryResult",
"ResourceAttribute",
"ResourceProfile",
"RootCauseHypothesis",
"Runbook",
"SLAReference",
"Service Level Indicator",
"Service Level Objective",
"Signal",
"SignalSource",
"Snapshot",
"Span",
"SpanEvent",
"SpanLink",
"Telemetry",
"TelemetryPipeline",
"TelemetrySource",
"TimeSeries",
"Timeline",
"Trace",
"TraceContext",
"TraceSample"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Observability Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Observability Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/organization/InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel.md",
"id": "model/organization",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/identity"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Accountability",
"Actor",
"Agent",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Assignment",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Authority",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Availability",
"Capacity",
"CollectiveActor",
"Community",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Competence",
"Group",
"Household",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"InfoTechCanon Organization Model",
"Membership",
"Organization",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"OrganizationEntity",
"OrganizationalCapability",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"OrganizationalUnit",
"Ownership",
"Person",
"Position",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Post",
"ReportingLine",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Responsibility",
"Role",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Skill",
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"Stewardship",
"Team"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/identity",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Organization Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Organization Model",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "models/governance/InfoTechCanonPurposeDemandExtension.md",
"id": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/information-space",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "model-extension",
"owned_concepts": [
"ConsumerNeed",
"ConsumerPurpose",
"DemandSignal",
"EvolutionRequest",
"InfoTechCanon Purpose And Demand Model Extension",
"ProducerCapability",
"Purpose",
"PurposeFit",
"ScopePressure",
"UseCase"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "extends"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "concept-catalog/purpose-demand",
"type": "introduces"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/models/governance/InfoTechCanonPurposeDemandExtension.md",
"summary": "Candidate extension to an existing canon model: InfoTechCanon Purpose And Demand Model Extension.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Purpose And Demand Model Extension",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/security/InfoTechCanonSecurityModel.md",
"id": "model/security",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/access-control",
"model/evidence"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"AttackImpact",
"AttackPath",
"AttackPattern",
"AttackPrecondition",
"AttackStep",
"AttackTechnique",
"BlastRadius",
"ChokePoint",
"CompensatingMeasure",
"Containment",
"DataSecurityFinding",
"Detection",
"DetectionCoverage",
"DetectionRule",
"Eradication",
"Exploit",
"ExploitLikelihood",
"Exploitability",
"Exposure",
"ExposureFinding",
"HardeningMeasure",
"IdentityFinding",
"InfoTechCanon Security Model",
"Investigation",
"LessonLearned",
"Misconfiguration",
"MisconfigurationFinding",
"Mitigation",
"PenTestFinding",
"ProtectedAssetReference",
"Recovery",
"SecurityAssessment",
"SecurityBoundary",
"SecurityDomain",
"SecurityEntity",
"SecurityEvidence",
"SecurityFinding",
"SecurityIncident",
"SecurityMeasure",
"SecurityPosture",
"SecurityPostureScore",
"SecurityReview",
"SecuritySignal",
"Severity",
"SupplyChainFinding",
"Tactic",
"Threat",
"ThreatActor",
"ThreatEvent",
"Vulnerability",
"VulnerabilityFinding",
"Weakness"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonSecurityModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Security Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Security Model",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "models/task/InfoTechCanonTaskModel.md",
"id": "model/task",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence"
],
"kind": "model",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"AcceptanceCriteria",
"Action",
"Actionability",
"ApprovalTask",
"AssignmentReference",
"Backlog",
"Blocker",
"Bug",
"ChangeTask",
"Commitment",
"CompletionEvidence",
"Complexity",
"Deadline",
"DecisionTask",
"DefinitionOfDone",
"DefinitionOfReady",
"Deliverable",
"Dependency",
"DueDate",
"EffortEstimate",
"Epic",
"Experiment",
"Exploration",
"Feature",
"Importance",
"IncidentTask",
"InfoTechCanon Task Model",
"Issue",
"Milestone",
"Move",
"NextAction",
"Option",
"Outcome",
"Priority",
"ProblemTask",
"Reachability",
"Readiness",
"RemediationTask",
"Request",
"ReviewTask",
"Step",
"Story",
"Task",
"TaskEntity",
"Transition",
"Urgency",
"Value",
"WIPLimit",
"WaitingFor",
"WorkItem",
"WorkPackage",
"Workflow",
"WorkflowState"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonTaskModel_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Task Model.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Task Model",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "patterns/intent-scope-purposes.md",
"id": "pattern/intent-scope-purposes",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "pattern",
"owned_concepts": [
"Intent Scope Purposes Pattern",
"IntentScopePurposePattern"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "implements"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/patterns/intent-scope-purposes.md",
"summary": "Reusable canon pattern: Intent Scope Purposes Pattern.",
"title": "Intent Scope Purposes Pattern",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "patterns/AgenticDrivesFunctional.md",
"id": "practice-pattern/agentic-drives-functional",
"imports": [
"model/capability",
"model/governance",
"model/observability",
"model/task",
"scheme/practice-pattern"
],
"kind": "practice-pattern",
"owned_concepts": [
"AgenticDrivesFunctional",
"AgenticFallback",
"DemandSignature",
"FunctionalInterfaceCandidate"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "scheme/practice-pattern",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/capability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "practice-pattern/interface-deprecation-strangler",
"type": "related_to"
}
],
"source_path": "patterns/AgenticDrivesFunctional.md",
"summary": "Reusable canon PracticePattern: AgenticDrivesFunctional.",
"title": "AgenticDrivesFunctional",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "patterns/InterfaceDeprecationStrangler.md",
"id": "practice-pattern/interface-deprecation-strangler",
"imports": [
"model/devsecops",
"model/governance",
"model/observability",
"scheme/practice-pattern"
],
"kind": "practice-pattern",
"owned_concepts": [
"InterfaceDeprecationStrangler"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "scheme/practice-pattern",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "patterns/InterfaceDeprecationStrangler.md",
"summary": "Reusable canon PracticePattern: InterfaceDeprecationStrangler.",
"title": "InterfaceDeprecationStrangler",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "assimilation/intake-and-assimilation-practice.md",
"id": "practice/intake-and-assimilation",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "practice",
"owned_concepts": [
"Intake and Assimilation Practice"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "assimilation/intake-and-assimilation-practice.md",
"summary": "Canon artifact: Intake and Assimilation Practice.",
"title": "Intake and Assimilation Practice",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/profile.yaml",
"id": "profile/small-saas",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/access-control",
"model/data",
"model/devsecops",
"model/governance",
"model/landscape",
"model/network",
"model/observability",
"model/organization",
"model/security",
"model/task",
"standard/caring",
"standard/tagging"
],
"kind": "profile",
"owned_concepts": [
"Small SaaS System Profile"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "requires"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/profiles/small-saas/profile.yaml",
"summary": "Profile that constrains canon artifacts for a practical implementation slice: Small SaaS System Profile.",
"title": "Small SaaS System Profile",
"warnings": []
},
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
{
"canonical_path": "agent/review-kit/review-kit.yaml",
"id": "review-kit/alignment",
"imports": [
"benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/governance",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/task",
"standard/caring"
],
"kind": "alignment-review-kit",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon Consumer Alignment Review Kit"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/agent/review-kit/review-kit.yaml",
"summary": "Reusable kit for consumer repository alignment reviews: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Kit.",
"title": "Canon Consumer Alignment Review Kit",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "agent/review-kit/model-selection-guide.yaml",
"id": "review-kit/alignment/model-selection-guide",
"imports": [
"benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"model/access-control",
"model/data",
"model/devsecops",
"model/governance",
"model/landscape",
"model/network",
"model/observability",
"model/organization",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/security",
"model/task",
"profile/small-saas",
"standard/caring",
"standard/tagging"
],
"kind": "model-selection-guide",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon Model And Standard Selection Guide"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "review-kit/alignment",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/agent/review-kit/model-selection-guide.yaml",
"summary": "Guide for choosing canon models, standards, profiles, and benchmarks: Canon Model And Standard Selection Guide.",
"title": "Canon Model And Standard Selection Guide",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "schemas/alignment-review.schema.yaml",
"id": "review-kit/alignment/schema",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "alignment-review-schema",
"owned_concepts": [
"Consumer Alignment Review Schema"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "review-kit/alignment",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/schemas/alignment-review.schema.yaml",
"summary": "Schema for structured consumer repository alignment reviews: Consumer Alignment Review Schema.",
"title": "Consumer Alignment Review Schema",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "agent/review-kit/scorecard.yaml",
"id": "review-kit/alignment/scorecard",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "alignment-scorecard",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "review-kit/alignment",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/agent/review-kit/scorecard.yaml",
"summary": "Scorecard dimensions for canon alignment reviews: Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard.",
"title": "Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "agent/review-kit/review-workflow.yaml",
"id": "review-kit/alignment/workflow",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "alignment-review-workflow",
"owned_concepts": [
"Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "review-kit/alignment",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/agent/review-kit/review-workflow.yaml",
"summary": "Repeatable workflow for canon alignment reviews: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow.",
"title": "Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "agent/templates/consumer-alignment-workplan.template.md",
"id": "review-kit/alignment/workplan-template",
"imports": [
"model/purpose-demand-extension",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "consumer-workplan-template",
"owned_concepts": [
"Consumer Alignment Workplan Template"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "review-kit/alignment",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/purpose-demand-extension",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/agent/templates/consumer-alignment-workplan.template.md",
"summary": "Template for consumer repository alignment workplans: Consumer Alignment Workplan Template.",
"title": "Consumer Alignment Workplan Template",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "patterns/PracticePatternScheme.md",
"id": "scheme/practice-pattern",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core"
],
"kind": "practice-pattern-scheme",
"owned_concepts": [
"PatternLanguage",
"PracticePattern",
"PracticePattern Scheme"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
}
],
"source_path": "patterns/PracticePatternScheme.md",
"summary": "Contract for canon PracticePattern artifacts: PracticePattern Scheme.",
"title": "PracticePattern Scheme",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/capability-requirements.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/capability-requirements/production",
"imports": [
"model/capability"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Small SaaS Production Capability Requirements"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/capability",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/service/billing-portal",
"type": "applies_to"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/capability-requirements.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Small SaaS Production Capability Requirements.",
"title": "Small SaaS Production Capability Requirements",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/control.namespace-per-tenant.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"imports": [
"model/security",
"standard/caring"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Namespace Per Tenant Control"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "standard/caring",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/evidence/access-review-2026-05",
"type": "evidenced_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/control.namespace-per-tenant.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Namespace Per Tenant Control.",
"title": "Namespace Per Tenant Control",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/dataset.subscription-ledger.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/dataset/subscription-ledger",
"imports": [
"model/data"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Subscription Ledger Dataset"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/service/billing-portal",
"type": "owned_by"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/acme",
"type": "partitioned_for"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/globex",
"type": "partitioned_for"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/policy/tenant-isolation",
"type": "governed_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/dataset.subscription-ledger.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Subscription Ledger Dataset.",
"title": "Subscription Ledger Dataset",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/deployment.production.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/deployment/production",
"imports": [
"model/devsecops",
"model/network"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Production Deployment"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/service/billing-portal",
"type": "deploys"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/acme",
"type": "separates"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/globex",
"type": "separates"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"type": "implements"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/deployment.production.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Production Deployment.",
"title": "Production Deployment",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/evidence.access-review-2026-05.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/evidence/access-review-2026-05",
"imports": [
"model/observability"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Access Review 2026-05"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/evidence.access-review-2026-05.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Access Review 2026-05.",
"title": "Access Review 2026-05",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/incident.cross-tenant-access-attempt.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/incident/cross-tenant-access-attempt",
"imports": [
"model/security"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Cross-Tenant Access Attempt"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"type": "constrained_by"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/evidence/access-review-2026-05",
"type": "evidenced_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/incident.cross-tenant-access-attempt.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Cross-Tenant Access Attempt.",
"title": "Cross-Tenant Access Attempt",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/policy.tenant-isolation.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/policy/tenant-isolation",
"imports": [
"model/governance",
"small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Tenant Isolation Policy"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"type": "requires"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/evidence/access-review-2026-05",
"type": "evidenced_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/policy.tenant-isolation.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Tenant Isolation Policy.",
"title": "Tenant Isolation Policy",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/service.billing-portal.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/service/billing-portal",
"imports": [
"model/landscape"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Billing Portal Service"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/system/billing-system",
"type": "part_of"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/team/platform",
"type": "owned_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/service.billing-portal.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Billing Portal Service.",
"title": "Billing Portal Service",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/system.billing-system.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/system/billing-system",
"imports": [
"model/landscape"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Small SaaS Billing System"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/landscape",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/acme",
"type": "serves"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/globex",
"type": "serves"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/system.billing-system.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Small SaaS Billing System.",
"title": "Small SaaS Billing System",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/task.onboard-tenant.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/task/onboard-tenant",
"imports": [
"model/task"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Onboard Tenant"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/team/platform",
"type": "owned_by"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/tenant/acme",
"type": "changes"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/policy/tenant-isolation",
"type": "governed_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/task.onboard-tenant.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Onboard Tenant.",
"title": "Onboard Tenant",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/team.platform.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/team/platform",
"imports": [
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Platform Team"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/team.platform.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Platform Team.",
"title": "Platform Team",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.acme.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/tenant/acme",
"imports": [
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Acme Tenant"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/user/ada-admin",
"type": "represented_by"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"type": "isolated_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.acme.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Acme Tenant.",
"title": "Acme Tenant",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.globex.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/tenant/globex",
"imports": [
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Globex Tenant"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/control/namespace-per-tenant",
"type": "isolated_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.globex.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Globex Tenant.",
"title": "Globex Tenant",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/user.ada-admin.yaml",
"id": "small-saas/user/ada-admin",
"imports": [
"model/access-control",
"model/organization"
],
"kind": "profile-artifact",
"owned_concepts": [
"Ada Admin"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "profile/small-saas",
"type": "instantiates"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/team/platform",
"type": "member_of"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/policy/tenant-isolation",
"type": "has_access_under"
},
{
"target": "small-saas/evidence/access-review-2026-05",
"type": "access_evidenced_by"
}
],
"source_path": "profiles/small-saas/artifacts/user.ada-admin.yaml",
"summary": "Example artifact for the small-saas profile: Ada Admin.",
"title": "Ada Admin",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/caring/InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md",
"id": "standard/caring",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/access-control",
"model/data",
"model/devsecops",
"model/evidence",
"model/governance",
"model/network",
"model/observability",
"model/organization",
"model/security",
"model/task",
"standard/tagging"
],
"kind": "standard",
"owned_concepts": [
"CARINGAccessDescriptor",
"CARINGAnalysisFitnessTest",
"CARINGAnalysisProcedure",
"CARINGCanonicalRole",
"CARINGCapabilityProfile",
"CARINGDeclaredAccessMap",
"CARINGDerivedCapability",
"CARINGEffectiveAccessMap",
"CARINGExposureEvent",
"CARINGExposureMode",
"CARINGInducedAccess",
"CARINGOrganizationRelation",
"CARINGPlane",
"CARINGRedesignProcedure",
"CARINGRestrictionPrecedence",
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
"Capability Profile",
"Declared Access",
"Derived Capability",
"Effective Access",
"InfoTechCanon CARING Access Governance Standard"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/organization",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/access-control",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/data",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/devsecops",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/network",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "standard/tagging",
"type": "imports"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md",
"summary": "Cross-cutting canon standard: InfoTechCanon CARING Access Governance Standard.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon CARING Access Governance Standard",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/emission-cadence/InfoTechCanonEmissionCadenceStandard.md",
"id": "standard/emission-cadence",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/governance",
"model/observability"
],
"kind": "standard",
"owned_concepts": [
"EmissionCadenceDeclaration",
"EmissionCadenceForm",
"ExpectedRateCadence",
"HeartbeatCadence",
"InfoTechCanon Emission Cadence Standard",
"ReconciliationCadence"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/observability",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/security",
"type": "related_to"
},
{
"target": "assimilation/emission-cadence",
"type": "derived_from"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/assimilation/emission-cadence/source/EmissionCadenceDeclaration.md",
"summary": "Cross-cutting canon standard: InfoTechCanon Emission Cadence Standard.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Emission Cadence Standard",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/repository-layout/InfoTechCanonRepositoryLayoutStandard.md",
"id": "standard/repository-layout",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/governance",
"model/information-space",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "standard",
"owned_concepts": [
"CanonicalRepositoryLayout",
"InfoTechCanon Repository Layout Standard",
"LayoutConformanceLevel",
"RepositoryDocumentationDirectory",
"ScopeIntentOperatingMode"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/information-space",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/governance",
"type": "imports"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "imports"
}
],
"source_path": "infospace/evaluations/repository-layout/source-demand.md",
"summary": "Cross-cutting canon standard: InfoTechCanon Repository Layout Standard.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Repository Layout Standard",
"warnings": []
},
{
"canonical_path": "standards/tagging/InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard.md",
"id": "standard/tagging",
"imports": [
"kernel/itc-core",
"model/evidence",
"model/task"
],
"kind": "standard",
"owned_concepts": [
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
"ControlledTag",
"DeprecatedTag",
"EmergentTag",
"InfoTechCanon Tagging Standard",
"OverTaggedEntity",
"Tag",
"TagAlias",
"TagAssignment",
"TagCategory",
"TagConflict",
"TagDefinition",
"TagDrift",
"TagKey",
"TagMapping",
"TagNamespace",
"TagProfile",
"TagQuery",
"TagRule",
"TagScheme",
"TagSelector",
"TagSet",
"TagValue",
"TagView",
"TaggingEntity",
"UntaggedEntity"
],
"relationships": [
{
"target": "model/evidence",
"type": "uses"
},
{
"target": "kernel/itc-core",
"type": "conforms_to"
},
{
"target": "model/task",
"type": "imports"
}
],
"source_path": "seeds/InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard_RC1_seed.md",
"summary": "Cross-cutting canon standard: InfoTechCanon Tagging Standard.",
"title": "InfoTechCanon Tagging Standard",
"warnings": []
}
],
"schema": "info-tech-canon.retrieval-index.v1"
}