Codex Resonance
/
Codex Commons
/
🧪
CC-EXP-NEXT-01 — Codex Commons Next Candidate Test Set v0.1
🧪

CC-EXP-NEXT-01 — Codex Commons Next Candidate Test Set v0.1

Experiment Set ID: CC-EXP-NEXT-01

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Programme: Codex Commons

Standing: INTERNAL — NEXT CANDIDATE TEST SET / CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT PLAN. NO ADMISSION OR PUBLICATION AUTHORISED.

Purpose

Continue the Commons extraction programme after admission of:

  • RRAP v0.1 Candidate;
  • QMAP v0.1 Candidate;

and approval of the Commons Non-Promotion Rule.

The next tests deliberately avoid reopening already resolved RRAP/QMAP semantics and avoid prematurely admitting CR/authority-sensitive constructs.

Candidate triage

From CC-EXTRACT-ARQUA-01 and CC-C01 decomposition:

Advance now

T1 — Conformance / Acceptance Boundary

Source: SP3 residual after RRAP.

Question:

Can we define a reusable cross-domain profile distinguishing constraint/reference → assessment → conformance finding → acceptance/adoption, without creating a conformance engine or authority model?

Why now:

RRAP stops at role; QMAP stops at mapping. Conformance remains a repeated independent concern.

T2 — Evidence / Assertion Standing

Source: CC-C08.

Question:

Can source assertion, normalised classification, interpretation, implementation claim, observed evidence, conformance finding and runtime outcome be reduced into a reusable evidence/assertion profile without importing CR epistemic theory?

Why now:

This repeatedly appears in vendor, framework, agent and customer evidence flows.

T3 — Change / Supersession / Revalidation

Source: RRAP/QMAP repeated requirement.

Question:

Is there a small reusable profile for effective period, supersession, invalidation and revalidation triggers across semantic artefacts?

Why now:

Both admitted candidates depend on reconstructable history, but neither should own a full lifecycle ontology.

Hold

H1 — Epistemic Qualification

CC-C05 / SP1.

HOLD: too close to active CR epistemic/reality research.

H2 — Proposition-Relative Authority

CC-C07 / SP2.

HOLD: requires legal/cultural/Indigenous authority reconciliation.

H3 — Understanding / Execution Boundary

SP4.

HOLD: needs reduction away from EAA before Commons testing.

H4 — SNPP standalone artefact

HOLD: already placed as Commons governance rule + Arqua principle.

Experiment T1 — Conformance / Acceptance Boundary — first-pass decomposition

Candidate distinctions:

Reference/Constraint ≠ Assessment ≠ Conformance Finding ≠ Acceptance ≠ Authority ≠ Admissibility.

Generality probes

  • software schema validation;
  • cybersecurity control assessment;
  • building inspection/certification;
  • regulatory compliance mapping;
  • data contract validation;
  • AI model evaluation;
  • manufacturing quality inspection;
  • professional accreditation.

Hostile questions

  1. Can conformance be self-declared?
  2. Can assessment produce non-conformance?
  3. Does certification imply legal permission?
  4. Does accepted exception mean conformant?
  5. Can implementation be accepted despite non-conformance?
  6. Can conformance be purpose/version-specific?
  7. Can two assessors disagree?
  8. Does runtime drift invalidate prior conformance?

Provisional hypothesis: likely decomposes into an Assessment Assertion plus separate acceptance/authority. Test before naming.

Experiment T2 — Evidence / Assertion Standing — first-pass decomposition

Candidate sequence-like list:

Source Assertion · Classification · Interpretation · Implementation Claim · Observation Evidence · Conformance Finding · Runtime Outcome.

Immediate warning:

This is probably not a lifecycle.

Test whether these are:

  • assertion/evidence roles;
  • epistemic modes;
  • provenance roles;
  • institutional standings.

Generality probes

  • vendor product documentation;
  • research paper;
  • regulatory source;
  • sensor evidence;
  • customer implementation statement;
  • audit finding;
  • AI-generated summary;
  • incident/outcome record.

Hostile questions

  1. Is a source assertion itself evidence?
  2. Can observation be generated by inference?
  3. Can an interpretation be authoritative?
  4. Can an implementation claim be observed?
  5. Does an audit finding become truth?
  6. Does a runtime outcome validate the prior model?
  7. Can AI summaries preserve source assertion standing?
  8. Which parts are already RRAP roles?

Provisional hypothesis: likely decomposes rather than becoming one profile. Strong overlap with RRAP/PROV and CR epistemic mode must be controlled.

Experiment T3 — Change / Supersession / Revalidation — first-pass decomposition

Candidate concepts:

  • effective_from / effective_to;
  • supersedes / superseded_by;
  • invalidated_by;
  • revalidation_trigger;
  • last_reviewed;
  • review_due;
  • applicability change.

Generality probes

  • framework version update;
  • vendor capability change;
  • regulation amendment;
  • schema migration;
  • mapping supersession;
  • design revision;
  • observation expiry;
  • authority source change.

Hostile questions

  1. Does newer automatically supersede older?
  2. Can two versions remain concurrently applicable?
  3. Does source change invalidate every dependent assertion?
  4. Is expiry the same as invalidation?
  5. Can an artefact be superseded for one purpose but still valid for another?
  6. Is revalidation a semantic relation or workflow task?
  7. Does changed evidence invalidate accepted standing automatically?
  8. Can applicability be jurisdiction-specific?

Provisional hypothesis: likely a temporal/applicability guidance profile, but much may already be covered by PROV/time/version vocabularies. Prior-art reduction will be decisive.

Test order

  1. CC-EXP-C05-CONF-01 — Conformance / Acceptance Decomposition & Generality
  2. CC-EXP-C08-EVID-01 — Evidence / Assertion Standing Decomposition
  3. CC-EXP-CHANGE-01 — Supersession / Revalidation Generality
  4. Reassess candidate register after all three before admitting anything else.

Programme guardrails

  • No “one ontology to rule them all”.
  • Reuse existing standards before minting Commons terms.
  • Keep authority separate.
  • Keep CR epistemic theory separate.
  • Preserve Commons Non-Promotion Rule.
  • RRAP/QMAP standings unchanged.
  • No public publication.
  • No namespace/schema/GitHub implementation.

Decision

CC-EXP-NEXT-01 — NEXT TEST SET ESTABLISHED.

Begin with T1 Conformance / Acceptance Boundary, because it is the clearest unresolved semantic gap adjacent to RRAP/QMAP.

Linked

🧪CC-EXP-C05-CONF-01 — Conformance / Acceptance Boundary — Decomposition & Generality Test v0.1🧩CC-EXP-COMPOSE-01 — RRAP × QMAP × Assessment Assertion Composition & Boundary Test v0.1♻️CC-EXP-CHANGE-01 — Change, Supersession & Revalidation Generality Test v0.1🧪CC-EXP-C08-EVID-01 — Evidence & Assertion Standing — Decomposition / Gap Test v0.1