Reference
The vocabulary of computable authority
A field in formation needs terms that mean the same thing to everyone using them. These definitions are working definitions — precise enough to argue with, and revised when the argument is better.
02
One of the first practical domains of computable authority.
The practice of representing institutional rules, obligations, permissions, constraints, authority boundaries, and decision logic in a form machines can interpret and execute, providing methods for expressing institutional rules in executable form.
04
Turning a decomposed policy into an executable artifact.
The process of converting a structured policy — definitions, rules, exceptions, conditions, decision logic — into an authority artifact that a runtime can evaluate without further human interpretation.
05
Separating a policy into its structural parts.
The unit operation of policy engineering: reading an instrument and extracting its definitions, operative rules, conditions, exceptions, decision points, and unresolved ambiguity as distinct elements.
06
Same artifact, same facts, same outcome — always.
The property that evaluating a given authority artifact against a given set of facts produces the same outcome and the same reasoning path on every run, on any conforming runtime.
Determinism is what makes an outcome auditable. Without it, a decision cannot be replayed, only re-argued.
08
Binding every decision to the authority that governed it.
The discipline of issuing authority artifacts under immutable versions so that any past decision can be replayed against the exact rules in force when it was made.
See alsoAuthority Artifact
09
The practitioner who makes authority executable.
A practitioner who decomposes institutional instruments, resolves ambiguity with the authority holder, compiles artifacts, and maintains them across versions — sitting between legal drafting and systems engineering.
See alsoPolicy Decomposition
10
The environment that evaluates authority artifacts.
The execution environment that loads authority artifacts, evaluates them against facts, enforces the resulting permissions and prohibitions, and emits a verifiable record of each evaluation.
12
An institution whose authority is computable by default.
An organisation that issues its rules as authority artifacts rather than prose alone, so that human and machine actors operate from the same executable, versioned source of authority.
See alsoComputable Authority
13
The unwritten system an institution actually decides by.
The effective decision structure an institution operates on, distinct from the one it has documented — composed of stable judgement heuristics, recurring exception handling, and implicit thresholds that govern outcomes without ever having been authored.
Its existence is structural rather than pathological. Documentation states intent; the latent system produces outcomes, and the two diverge continuously in every institution.
See alsoDecision BoundaryReconciliationAuthority Translation Gap
14
The point at which an institution's answer changes.
The threshold on a given field at which a decision flips from one outcome to another, expressed as the field, the value, and which side of it is the permissive region. The unit of comparison between a documented policy and an observed one.
A boundary is not a rule. A rule is authored and may never be exercised; a boundary is where the institution's behaviour actually turns, and can be recovered from records whether or not anyone has written it down.
See alsoLatent Decision SystemReconciliationPolicy Decomposition
15
Whether a decision record can support any claim at all.
The prior question of whether a body of recorded decisions is capable of evidencing a boundary — assessed on volume, outcome variety, completeness of the policy-relevant fields, and temporal coverage — determined before any inference is attempted.
A record in which every decision produced the same outcome carries no information about where the boundary lies, however large it is. Admissibility is a precondition, separate from the weight of what is later found.
See alsoDecision BoundaryReconciliation
16
Comparing the documented policy against the observed one.
The comparison of a documented boundary against an observed boundary on the same field, yielding one of: faithful (they agree within tolerance), divergent (they differ, with a derivable direction), undocumented (practice holds a boundary the document never states), or dormant (the document states one practice never exercises).
The comparison is made boundary to boundary, not text to text. Two rules can share nearly every word and impose different thresholds; two can share no vocabulary and impose the same one.
17
A measured divergence between documented and observed authority.
The difference between where a policy places a decision boundary and where practice places it, expressed with a direction — toward permissiveness or toward caution — derived from which way the permissive region moved.
Direction is derived from the geometry of the boundary, not inferred from the language of the rule. Whether drift is harmful is a separate claim requiring outcome evidence.
18
Judging whether a divergence is actually harmful.
The separate step of establishing, from outcome evidence rather than from the divergence itself, whether observed drift improves or degrades results — adjusted for confounders, corrected for having tested many rules at once, and permitted to return no verdict.
Detection and judgement are distinct operations. A method that always returns a verdict is not measuring anything; inconclusive must remain an available result.
See alsoDriftReconciliation
19
A recurring way a decomposed policy conflicts with itself.
One of the structural conflicts that surface only once a policy is expressed as structure: threshold conflicts, role conflicts, ghost terms, rule collisions, and layer divergences between an instrument and the one it sits under.
Prose can hold two contradictory provisions indefinitely because they never meet on the same page. Structure forces them to meet, which is why detection belongs before an artifact is issued, not after.
Whoever defines the vocabulary defines the field. If a term here is wrong, imprecise, or missing, that disagreement is part of the work.
Discuss terminology