⚖️

CC-ADM-RRAP-01 — Representation Role Assignment Profile — Commons Admission Decision Package v0.1

Decision Package ID: CC-ADM-RRAP-01

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Candidate: Representation Role Assignment Profile (RRAP)

Lineage name: Representation Standing Role Profile (RSRP)

Standing: INTERNAL — COMMONS ADMISSION DECISION PACKAGE. ADMISSION DECISION NOT YET MADE. PUBLICATION NOT AUTHORISED.

Decision requested

Choose one:

A — ADMIT AS CODEX COMMONS CANDIDATE SPECIFICATION

Admit RRAP into the controlled Commons corpus as a versioned candidate specification for continued validation and possible later publication.

B — HOLD FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Retain experiment/specification lineage without Commons candidate standing.

C — REDUCE TO EXPLANATORY PATTERN

Preserve the anti-collapse guidance but do not maintain a formal Commons profile/specification.

This package recommends A, subject to the controls below.

Executive recommendation

ADMIT RRAP AS A CODEX COMMONS CANDIDATE SPECIFICATION — INTERNAL / CONTROLLED / NOT YET PUBLIC.

Rationale:

  • the problem recurred independently across multiple domains;
  • the four-role profile survived hostile counterexamples;
  • neighbouring standards can be reused rather than duplicated;
  • the candidate has been reduced to a small interoperability profile;
  • generic contextual-role prior art has been acknowledged;
  • no foundational semantic defect remains;
  • publication, namespace and implementation can remain separately gated.

Candidate purpose

RRAP prevents semantic promotion among representations/evidence used as:

REFERENCE · DESIGNED · IMPLEMENTED · OBSERVED

by making the role assignment explicit relative to:

  • subject;
  • proposition/aspect;
  • provenance/evidence;
  • purpose/context/time where material.

What admission would mean

Admission as a Commons Candidate Specification would establish only that:

  1. Codex Commons recognises RRAP as a controlled candidate semantic artefact;
  2. it has an identity/version/owner and preserved experiment lineage;
  3. it may undergo further Commons validation;
  4. later publication can be considered through a separate gate.

Admission would not mean:

  • public publication;
  • standardisation;
  • certification;
  • external endorsement;
  • novelty/patent claim;
  • institutional authority;
  • customer adoption;
  • Arqua runtime requirement;
  • namespace/URI creation;
  • RDF/OWL/SHACL implementation.

Proposed admitted name

Representation Role Assignment Profile (RRAP)

Lineage note:

Developed through the working name Representation Standing Role Profile (RSRP). “Standing” was removed because it risked confusion with institutional/legal standing and authority.

Candidate semantic core

Representation Role Assignment

A representation/evidence entity is assigned a role relative to a declared subject and proposition/aspect.

Core roles:

  • REFERENCE
  • DESIGNED
  • IMPLEMENTED
  • OBSERVED

Core required qualifiers:

  • role;
  • subject;
  • proposition/aspect;
  • provenance/evidence reference.

Purpose, context/boundary and time are required where material.

Core invariants

  1. Role is contextual, not intrinsic.
  2. Roles are non-exclusive.
  3. Role ≠ epistemic mode.
  4. Role ≠ acceptance/authority.
  5. Role ≠ conformance.
  6. Role ≠ truth.
  7. Roles are not a mandatory lifecycle.
  8. REFERENCE ≠ DESIGNED.
  9. DESIGNED ≠ IMPLEMENTED.
  10. IMPLEMENTED ≠ OBSERVED.
  11. OBSERVED ≠ accepted interpretation.
  12. REFERENCE does not mean non-authoritative.
  13. Conflicting assignments may coexist.
  14. Historical assignments are preserved.
  15. Boundary crossing/availability does not promote role.

Experiment lineage

Stage 0 — Extraction

CC-EXTRACT-ARQUA-01

Eight candidate Commons artefacts extracted from recent CR/Arqua work. CC-C03 selected as first experiment.

Stage 1 — Generality

CC-EXP-C03-01

10 unrelated domains + 5 counterexamples.

Result: PASS.

Key refinement: roles, not mandatory stages.

Stage 2 — Initial prior-art

CC-EXP-C03-02

PROV-O + SOSA/SSN.

Result: PASS WITH REDUCTION.

Key refinement: reuse provenance/observation standards; role assignment is candidate contribution.

Stage 3 — Semantic stability

CC-EXP-C03-03

12 hard cases.

Result: PASS WITH MATERIAL REFINEMENTS.

Key findings:

  • role ≠ epistemic mode;
  • role ≠ acceptance;
  • OBSERVED ≠ truth;
  • IMPLEMENTED is aspect/context/time relative.

Stage 4 — Broader standards reduction

CC-EXP-C03-04

BIM/IFC, desired/current-state patterns, SHACL, digital twins, architecture implementation patterns.

Result: B — interoperability profile preferred.

Stage 5 — Candidate specification

CC-RSRP-SPEC-01

Non-machine-readable candidate specification + hostile specification review.

Result: PASS.

Stage 6 — Generic-role + naming review

CC-EXP-RSRP-05

Generic contextual-role mechanism acknowledged as established practice.

Result: PASS WITH RENAMING.

Recommended name: RRAP.

Prior-art / reuse posture

RRAP is intentionally not a replacement for:

  • PROV-O provenance;
  • SOSA/SSN observation;
  • SHACL validation/conformance;
  • BIM/IFC domain semantics;
  • digital-twin vocabularies;
  • architecture languages;
  • domain-specific desired/current-state models.

Candidate contribution:

A tested cross-domain anti-collapse profile for explicitly assigning representation roles and preserving their separation from provenance, epistemic mode, acceptance/authority and conformance.

No novelty claim is made.

Admission risk assessment

<table fit-page-width="true" header-row="true"><tr><td>Risk</td><td>Position</td></tr>

<tr><td>duplicates existing role modelling</td><td>Controlled — contribution framed as profile, not role mechanism invention.</td></tr>

<tr><td>duplicates provenance/observation standards</td><td>Controlled — explicit reuse/delegation.</td></tr>

<tr><td>“standing” legal ambiguity</td><td>Resolved by RRAP rename recommendation.</td></tr>

<tr><td>DESIGNED mistaken for accepted design</td><td>Controlled by explicit acceptance separation.</td></tr>

<tr><td>OBSERVED mistaken for truth/direct sensing</td><td>Controlled by epistemic/provenance guardrails.</td></tr>

<tr><td>implementation implies conformance</td><td>Explicitly prohibited.</td></tr>

<tr><td>premature publication/IP leakage</td><td>Publication remains separate gate.</td></tr>

<tr><td>overengineering machine-readable ontology</td><td>Namespace/schema implementation deferred.</td></tr></table>

IP / publication pre-position

This package does not constitute formal legal/IP clearance.

However, the profile has been deliberately reduced away from:

  • EAA/SCIA internals;
  • RCA/QCM internals;
  • Pressure Test mechanics;
  • ARQUA mnemonic;
  • Resonance/Spiral Time theory;
  • F/C/G/V implementation mechanics;
  • customer-confidential semantics.

External vocabularies are referenced for interoperability, not copied as Commons-owned semantics.

Formal publication/IP review remains required before external release.

Proposed admission standing

If owner selects A:

Name: Representation Role Assignment Profile

Acronym: RRAP

Version: 0.1 Candidate

Programme: Codex Commons

Status: ADMITTED CANDIDATE

Classification: Internal — Controlled

Publication: Not Approved

Machine-readable: Not Authorised

Namespace: Not Assigned

Conformance programme: None

Owner: Mark Tovey / Codex Commons governance

Lineage: RSRP experiment chain preserved.

Post-admission work — if A is selected

Allowed:

  1. create RRAP v0.1 admitted-candidate record;
  2. preserve aliases/lineage from RSRP;
  3. conduct formal IP/publication review;
  4. conduct external comprehension/interoperability tests;
  5. decide whether machine-readable form is actually needed;
  6. later prepare a separate publication decision package.

Not allowed automatically:

  • website/Codex Commons public publication;
  • public GPT inclusion;
  • namespace/URI;
  • RDF/OWL/SHACL;
  • GitHub implementation;
  • certification/conformance claims.

Decision recommendation

RECOMMEND A — ADMIT AS CODEX COMMONS CANDIDATE SPECIFICATION.

Reason:

Further semantic experimentation is now producing diminishing returns. The profile is sufficiently reduced, bounded and tested to deserve controlled candidate standing. Remaining questions are primarily publication, adoption and implementation questions rather than unresolved semantic architecture.

Owner decision

PENDING.

No admission action should occur until explicit owner acceptance.

Linked evidence