Experiment ID: CC-EXP-C08-EVID-01
Version: 0.1
Date: 19 September 2026
Candidate: Evidence / Assertion Standing
Standing: INTERNAL — EXECUTED DECOMPOSITION / GAP TEST. NO COMMONS ADMISSION OR PUBLICATION AUTHORISED.
Question
After RRAP, QMAP, Assessment Assertion, PROV reuse and the Non-Promotion Rule, is a separate Evidence / Assertion Standing profile still needed?
Candidate source list:
Source Assertion · Normalised Classification · Alignment Interpretation · Implementation Claim · Observed Evidence · Conformance Finding · Runtime Outcome.
Executive result
REJECT A FOURTH EVIDENCE PROFILE — THE CANDIDATE DECOMPOSES INTO EXISTING PROFILES + PROVENANCE + HELD EPISTEMIC RESEARCH.
The source list mixes different dimensions:
- representation role;
- provenance/source status;
- mapping assertion;
- assessment assertion;
- epistemic mode;
- operational event/outcome.
A single Evidence Standing Profile would recreate semantic collapse.
Decomposition
Source Assertion
A representation/assertion with provenance.
Use:
- RRAP where representation role matters;
- PROV for source/provenance.
No new profile required.
Normalised Classification
Usually a transformation/classification output.
May involve:
- RRAP role;
- QMAP mapping;
- provenance/transformation activity.
No new profile required.
Alignment Interpretation
A relationship assertion.
Use QMAP.
Implementation Claim
A representation/claim about implementation.
Use RRAP IMPLEMENTED role where evidence supports that role, with provenance.
Do not treat claim existence as observed implementation.
Observed Evidence
Use RRAP OBSERVED role plus SOSA/SSN/domain observation/provenance where applicable.
OBSERVED ≠ true.
Conformance Finding
Use Assessment Assertion Profile.
Runtime Outcome
Operational event/evidence; use domain event/outcome model + RRAP/PROV where needed.
Do not create universal Commons runtime-outcome ontology from this candidate.
Epistemic modes
Terms such as:
- inferred;
- interpreted;
- hypothesised;
- projected;
- predicted;
- validated;
- contested;
remain a separate epistemic dimension.
This is still active CR/Commons research and must not be smuggled into an Evidence profile.
Hostile gap tests
E1 — Vendor documentation
RRAP REFERENCE + provenance handles source claim.
QMAP handles alignment.
Observation evidence separately supports IMPLEMENTED/OBSERVED roles.
NO GAP.
E2 — AI summary of vendor source
Summary is a derived representation with provenance.
It does not inherit vendor-source standing.
NO GAP — Non-Promotion Rule.
E3 — Regulatory text
Source representation + external authority reference remain separate.
No Evidence profile needed.
NO GAP.
E4 — Sensor reading
RRAP OBSERVED + SOSA/SSN/PROV.
NO GAP.
E5 — Customer implementation statement
Claim may be evidence/provenance but does not automatically establish IMPLEMENTED role without applicable basis.
NO GAP.
E6 — Audit finding
Assessment Assertion.
NO GAP.
E7 — AI-generated interpretation
Derived representation/provenance; epistemic mode may be INTERPRETED/INFERRED in future research.
NO GAP IN CURRENT COMMONS KERNEL; EPISTEMIC DIMENSION HELD.
E8 — Incident outcome
Domain event/outcome + provenance; may be RRAP OBSERVED.
NO GAP.
Key architecture finding
The Commons kernel should resist adding profiles merely because a lifecycle list contains different nouns.
Instead, separate orthogonal dimensions:
REPRESENTATION ROLE → RRAP
RELATIONSHIP ASSERTION → QMAP
ASSESSMENT FINDING → Assessment Assertion Profile
PROVENANCE → PROV / domain
OBSERVATION DETAIL → SOSA/SSN / domain
EPISTEMIC MODE → HELD RESEARCH
OPERATIONAL EVENT/OUTCOME→ DOMAIN MODELDecision
CC-EXP-C08-EVID-01 — NO-GAP / DECOMPOSITION PASS.
- Reject separate Evidence / Assertion Standing profile.
- Reuse RRAP/QMAP/Assessment Assertion + PROV/SOSA/domain models.
- Keep epistemic modes on research hold.
- Do not create universal runtime-outcome vocabulary.
- No admission package required.
- Composition evidence now supports a Commons high-level semantic kernel architecture.