Document ID: CC-EXTRACT-ARQUA-01

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Standing: INTERNAL — CANDIDATE EXTRACTION / ADMISSION PRE-SCREEN. NO COMMONS PUBLICATION OR ADMISSION IS AUTHORISED.

Purpose

Extract potentially reusable semantic artefacts from recent Codex Health → CR → Arqua federation/alignment/high-level architecture work and test whether any are mature/general enough to enter a future Codex Commons admission pipeline.

Discovery in CR or Arqua does not create Commons standing.

Candidate path:

Research / Architecture / Empirical Work → Reduction → Generality Test → Semantic Stability Test → IP/Public Boundary → Commons Admission Decision → Publication.

Commons publication, if later authorised, supplies public identity/version/definition/provenance. It does not create enterprise authority, permitted reliance, customer acceptance or execution rights.

Extraction criteria

A candidate should be general beyond one customer/sector; semantic rather than implementation machinery; sufficiently stable; non-authoritative; reducible without exposing protected IP; source-clean; useful; and testable.

Candidate register

<table fit-page-width="true" header-row="true"><tr><td>ID</td><td>Candidate</td><td>Finding</td><td>Readiness</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C01</td><td>Standing-Preservation Distinction Set</td><td>Repeated across health, authority, federation, vendor/framework and runtime work</td><td>HIGH — admission research</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C02</td><td>Typed Alignment Relation Vocabulary</td><td>Survived CSDM/BIAN/APQC/TM Forum/multi-vendor fixtures</td><td>HIGH/MEDIUM — prior-art/licence review</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C03</td><td>Reference / Designed / Implemented / Observed Standing Pattern</td><td>Cross-framework and operationally useful</td><td>HIGH — first experiment</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C04</td><td>Mapping Qualification Envelope</td><td>Purpose/evidence/standing/applicability/version/supersession repeatedly required</td><td>HIGH/MEDIUM</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C05</td><td>Evidence → Representation → Interpretation → Qualified Understanding → Outcome Evidence → Revision vocabulary</td><td>General-looking but CR/Arqua-entangled</td><td>MEDIUM</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C06</td><td>Standing Does Not Increase by Boundary Crossing principle</td><td>Strong convergence observation</td><td>MEDIUM — research hold</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C07</td><td>Proposition-Relative Authority distinction</td><td>Strong across federation/technology/authority work</td><td>MEDIUM — specialist review</td></tr>

<tr><td>CC-C08</td><td>Source Assertion / Classification / Alignment / Implementation / Observation distinction</td><td>Strong technology/vendor provenance pattern</td><td>HIGH/MEDIUM</td></tr></table>

CC-C01 — Standing-Preservation Distinction Set

Candidate distinctions:

• Evidence ≠ Representation
• Representation ≠ Reality
• Representation ≠ Institutional Standing
• Standing ≠ Authority
• Authority ≠ Technical Permission
• Conformance ≠ Acceptance
• Conformance ≠ Runtime Admissibility
• Qualified Understanding ≠ Authority to Act
• Capability ≠ Implementation
• Reference Definition ≠ Customer Implementation
• Observed Evidence ≠ Accepted Model
• Publication ≠ Institutional Authority

The pattern recurred across Codex Health representation sufficiency, RCA/context qualification, authority reconciliation, federation, Pressure Test, technology alignment and framework fixtures.

Candidate Commons form: a small Standing & Representation Vocabulary defining roles and prohibited implicit promotions.

Readiness: HIGH for admission research; not publication-ready.

CC-C02 — Typed Alignment Relation Vocabulary

Candidate relations:

ALIGNS_WITH · MAPS_TO · SPECIALISES · REALISES · SUPPORTS · CONSUMES · PRODUCES · IMPLEMENTS · HOSTS · EXPOSES · GOVERNS · EVIDENCES · DEPENDS_ON · OVERLAPS_WITH · CONSTRAINS · CONFLICTS_WITH · SUPERSEDES.

Key rule:

Mapping ≠ identity.

Exact equivalence should be used only where separately established.

Risks: relation names may overlap established semantic-web/architecture vocabularies. Commons should reuse established predicates where appropriate rather than mint unnecessary synonyms. Source/licence review required.

Readiness: HIGH/MEDIUM.

CC-C03 — Reference / Designed / Implemented / Observed

Candidate pattern:

REFERENCE
  ≠
DESIGNED / ACCEPTED
  ≠
IMPLEMENTED
  ≠
OBSERVED

Evidence:

• APQC reference process vs customer process vs observed execution;
• BIAN reference domain vs customer capability vs deployment;
• TM Forum reference API vs deployed API vs observed transaction;
• CSDM recorded/design topology vs observed operational state;
• vendor documentation vs customer configuration vs observed behaviour.

Readiness: HIGH.

CC-C04 — Mapping Qualification Envelope

Candidate semantic metadata:

mapping identity · source identity/version/lens · target identity/version · relation · mapping purpose · scope/applicability · rationale/evidence · mapper · acceptance/standing authority · standing/status · effective period · qualification where meaningful · conflicts · supersession · revalidation trigger.

Potentially split into Commons semantic core plus optional implementation profile.

Readiness: HIGH/MEDIUM.

CC-C05 — Epistemic / Learning Vocabulary

Candidate chain:

Observation/Evidence → Representation → Interpretation → Qualified Understanding → Proposed Action → Outcome Evidence → Revision.

Potential states from CR work include:

Observed · Represented · Interpreted · Inferred · Hypothesised · Projected · Predicted · Validated · Contested · Superseded.

Need to distinguish epistemic state, institutional standing, workflow state and evidence status.

Readiness: MEDIUM.

CC-C06 — Boundary Standing Principle

Candidate proposition:

An object or claim should not acquire greater institutional standing merely because it crosses a system, context, organisational, jurisdictional, publication or technology boundary.

Repeated across health→individual inference, CR→Arqua, internal→public, authority representation→authority, vendor claim→customer use, customer evidence→Arqua learning and framework→customer model.

Risk: may be CR research proposition rather than Commons vocabulary.

Readiness: MEDIUM / RESEARCH HOLD.

CC-C07 — Proposition-Relative Authority

Candidate distinction:

Different authorities may govern different propositions; possession of a role, system, record or technical capability does not imply universal authority.

Authority is legally/culturally/institutionally sensitive; Indigenous/custodial authority work makes universal simplification dangerous.

Readiness: MEDIUM — specialist review.

CC-C08 — Technology Evidence Standing Pattern

Candidate distinctions:

1. Source Assertion
2. Normalised Classification
3. Alignment Interpretation
4. Customer Implementation Claim
5. Observed Behaviour
6. Conformance Finding
7. Runtime Outcome

Prevents vendor marketing → architecture truth and customer implementation → generic vendor capability.

Readiness: HIGH/MEDIUM.

Explicit exclusions

Do not extract to Commons now:

• ARQUA mnemonic;
• ARQUA × Resonance explanatory view;
• Resonance Spiral, Spiral Time, Resonant Units, cadence/phase theory, Recursive Sovereignty or candidate CR laws;
• RCA/QCM internals;
• EAA/SCIA internals;
• Pressure Test mechanics;
• F/C/G/V implementation mechanics;
• AICP internals;
• C5/F5 learning mechanics;
• Technology Profile implementation;
• agent control logic;
• customer-confidential semantics.

Do not republish/copy APQC, BIAN, TM Forum, ServiceNow CSDM, DPROD/DPDS or vendor-owned semantics without source/licence eligibility.

Candidate admission pipeline

EXTRACT
  ↓
REDUCE
  ↓
GENERALITY TEST
  ↓
PRIOR-ART / EXISTING VOCABULARY CHECK
  ↓
SEMANTIC STABILITY TEST
  ↓
IP / LICENCE / PUBLICATION REVIEW
  ↓
COMMONS ADMISSION DECISION
  ↓
PUBLIC IDENTITY + VERSION + PROVENANCE

Recommended first admission experiment

Start with CC-C03 Reference / Designed / Implemented / Observed, because it is easy to explain, has evidence across independent fixtures, is less entangled with CR theory, has interoperability value and does not require protected runtime architecture.

Second: CC-C01 Standing-Preservation Distinction Set.

Third: CC-C04 Mapping Qualification Envelope + CC-C02 typed relations, after prior-art/external-vocabulary review.

Commons relationship to Arqua/CR

Codex Commons publishes selected reusable semantic artefacts that have survived research/architecture use and a separate admission process. It does not publish everything CR discovers or everything Arqua implements.

Pattern:

CR/Arqua discovery → candidate semantic residue → Commons admission → reusable public semantic artefact.

Later use by Arqua/customer remains a new mapping/adoption act; Commons publication does not create enterprise standing.

Decision

CC-EXTRACT-ARQUA-01 — CANDIDATE EXTRACTION COMPLETE.

1. Eight candidate semantic artefacts identified.
2. CC-C03 recommended as first Commons admission experiment.
3. CC-C01 recommended second.
4. CC-C02/04 require prior-art/external-vocabulary review.
5. CC-C05/06/07 remain research-sensitive.
6. ARQUA mnemonic/Resonance view and protected architecture remain excluded.
7. No publication/admission authorised.
8. Next step: hostile admission test of CC-C03 against unrelated domains and existing semantic standards.

Linked

• Codex Commons
• No access
• No access
• No access