Codex Resonance
/
Codex Commons
/
🏛️
CC-HLA-01 — Codex Commons Semantic Kernel High-Level Architecture v0.1
🏛️

CC-HLA-01 — Codex Commons Semantic Kernel High-Level Architecture v0.1

Architecture ID: CC-HLA-01

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Programme: Codex Commons

Standing: INTERNAL — HIGH-LEVEL SEMANTIC KERNEL ARCHITECTURE CANDIDATE. NO PUBLICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORISED.

Purpose

Consolidate the admitted Commons candidates and completed gap tests into a coherent high-level semantic architecture.

Executive finding

CODEX COMMONS NOW HAS A SMALL COMPOSABLE SEMANTIC KERNEL CANDIDATE.

The kernel consists of three orthogonal candidate profiles:

  1. RRAP — Representation Role Assignment Profile
  2. QMAP — Qualified Mapping Assertion Profile
  3. Assessment Assertion Profile

governed by:

Commons Non-Promotion Rule — No unlicensed semantic promotion.

Cross-cutting lifecycle guidance handles change/supersession/revalidation without a fourth profile.

High-level architecture

This is a conceptual semantic architecture, not a software stack.

Kernel questions

RRAP

What role is this representation/evidence item playing relative to a subject/proposition?

QMAP

What relationship is being asserted between independently identified resources, for what purpose and on what basis?

Assessment Assertion

What did an assessment conclude about this subject/aspect against an explicit basis?

Cross-cutting governance

Commons Non-Promotion Rule

A semantic status, role or standing must not be inferred as another unless an explicit applicable relation, rule, process, evidence criterion or authority licenses the target claim.

Short:

No unlicensed semantic promotion.

Lifecycle / Revalidation Guidance

Preserve:

  • identity/version;
  • effective periods;
  • supersession;
  • applicability;
  • revalidation triggers;
  • historical reconstructability.

Reuse established provenance/time/version vocabularies.

External-standard boundary

Commons should reuse rather than replace:

  • PROV-O — provenance/derivation/attribution;
  • SOSA/SSN — observation semantics;
  • SKOS — concept mapping;
  • OWL — formal ontology semantics;
  • SHACL — RDF validation/conformance;
  • domain vocabularies — sector/application semantics.

Commons profiles provide small cross-domain qualification patterns around these standards.

Explicitly rejected kernel additions

Current tests reject the need for:

  • universal Commons relation vocabulary;
  • universal conformance outcome vocabulary;
  • standalone Evidence Standing Profile;
  • Change/Supersession semantic profile;
  • universal runtime-outcome ontology;
  • authority ontology;
  • epistemic-state ontology at current maturity;
  • Resonance/CR theory inside Commons kernel.

Boundary to CR

Codex Resonance may research:

  • epistemic modes;
  • resonance;
  • Spiral Time;
  • structured disagreement;
  • boundary-standing propositions.

Commons admits only separately tested reusable semantic residue.

CR research standing is not promoted by Commons reuse.

Boundary to Arqua

Arqua may adopt/use Commons profiles.

Commons publication/admission does not establish:

  • Arqua canonical architecture;
  • customer acceptance;
  • runtime admissibility;
  • authority.

Arqua-specific mechanisms such as RCA/EAA remain outside Commons.

Boundary to customers/vendors/frameworks

External/customer/vendor/framework semantics retain independent identity, source and authority.

Commons profiles support qualified mapping/role/assessment without copying or owning external semantics.

Composition invariant

A resource can participate simultaneously in:

  • RRAP role assignment;
  • QMAP mapping assertions;
  • Assessment Assertions;
  • provenance/observation/domain semantics.

No profile owns the resource or silently promotes another profile's standing.

Lifecycle finding

Change is orthogonal:

Change Trigger
   ↓
Materiality Review
   ├─ no effect → retain standing
   └─ material
        ↓
    Revalidation
        ↓
   new assertion/role/finding
        ↓
   preserve history

Evidence gap finding

No fourth Evidence profile is currently justified.

Evidence/source/assertion concerns decompose into:

  • RRAP;
  • QMAP;
  • Assessment Assertion;
  • PROV/SOSA/domain semantics;
  • held epistemic research.

Kernel status

RRAP: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.

QMAP: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.

Assessment Assertion Profile: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.

Commons Non-Promotion Rule: APPROVED INTERNAL GOVERNANCE RULE.

Lifecycle/Revalidation: GUIDANCE CANDIDATE, not separate profile.

What remains before public architecture

  1. formal IP/publication review of each admitted candidate;
  2. public naming review;
  3. external comprehension/interoperability fixtures;
  4. decide whether Commons itself should publish this kernel architecture;
  5. publication authority decision.

Implementation boundary

Do not yet:

  • assign public namespace/URIs;
  • create RDF/OWL/JSON-LD/SHACL;
  • build GitHub packages;
  • create APIs/MCP tools;
  • create conformance programme;
  • publish website/GPT content.

GitHub boundary

HOLD.

The semantic kernel is sufficiently mature to pause before machine-readable implementation.

A future implementation gate should require:

  1. explicit owner decision;
  2. public/licensed/internal boundary;
  3. namespace/version policy;
  4. chosen machine-readable need/use case;
  5. repository authority/release controls;
  6. external-standard reuse mapping;
  7. test fixtures and evidence receipts.

Decision candidate

Codex Commons should carry a small composable semantic kernel of orthogonal profiles rather than evolve into a universal ontology.

Current kernel:

RRAP + QMAP + Assessment Assertion Profile + Non-Promotion Rule + lifecycle guidance.

Linked

Owner Acceptance — 19 September 2026

Decision: ACCEPTED AS THE INTERNAL CODEX COMMONS SEMANTIC KERNEL HIGH-LEVEL ARCHITECTURE.

Owner: Mark Tovey

Accepted architecture decision

Codex Commons should carry a small composable semantic kernel of orthogonal profiles rather than evolve into a universal ontology.

Accepted kernel

  1. RRAP — Representation Role Assignment Profile
    • answers: What role is this representation/evidence item playing relative to a subject/proposition?
    • standing: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.
  2. QMAP — Qualified Mapping Assertion Profile
    • answers: What relationship is being asserted between independently identified resources, for what purpose and on what basis?
    • standing: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.
  3. Assessment Assertion Profile
    • answers: What did an assessment conclude about this subject/aspect against an explicit basis?
    • standing: ADMITTED CANDIDATE — Internal Controlled.

Accepted cross-cutting governance

Commons Non-Promotion Rule

No unlicensed semantic promotion.

No semantic role, mapping, assessment result, publication status, conformance state, authority or permission is promoted into another standing without an explicit applicable basis.

Accepted lifecycle position

Change, supersession and revalidation remain cross-cutting lifecycle guidance, not a fourth semantic profile.

Preserve:

  • identity/version;
  • effective periods;
  • applicability;
  • supersession;
  • revalidation triggers;
  • historical reconstructability.

Reuse established provenance/time/version semantics.

Accepted external-standard boundary

Commons reuses rather than replaces applicable:

  • PROV-O;
  • SOSA/SSN;
  • SKOS;
  • OWL;
  • SHACL;
  • domain vocabularies and standards.

Explicitly rejected as current kernel components

  • universal Commons relation vocabulary;
  • universal conformance outcome vocabulary;
  • Evidence Standing Profile;
  • Change/Supersession semantic profile;
  • universal runtime-outcome ontology;
  • authority ontology;
  • epistemic-state ontology at current maturity;
  • CR Resonance/Spiral theory as Commons kernel semantics.

Boundary to Codex Resonance

CR remains the research environment for unresolved epistemic/resonance/Spiral Time propositions.

Commons may admit separately tested reusable semantic residue only.

CR research standing is not promoted through Commons reuse.

Boundary to Arqua

Arqua may adopt Commons artefacts, but Commons standing does not establish:

  • Arqua canonical architecture;
  • customer acceptance;
  • external authority;
  • runtime admissibility.

RCA/EAA/SCIA and other protected Arqua runtime mechanisms remain outside the Commons kernel.

Implementation boundary

GITHUB / MACHINE-READABLE IMPLEMENTATION: HOLD.

This acceptance does not authorise:

  • public namespace/URI;
  • RDF/OWL/JSON-LD/SHACL;
  • GitHub repository/package implementation;
  • APIs/MCP tools;
  • conformance tooling;
  • website/public GPT publication.

Preconditions to reopen implementation

  1. explicit owner decision;
  2. public/licensed/internal boundary decision;
  3. namespace/version policy;
  4. defined machine-readable use case;
  5. repository ownership/review/release controls;
  6. external-standard reuse mappings;
  7. executable fixtures/acceptance tests/evidence receipts.

Standing after acceptance

CC-HLA-01 v0.1 — ACCEPTED INTERNAL CODEX COMMONS SEMANTIC KERNEL HIGH-LEVEL ARCHITECTURE.

The semantic-design branch is intentionally stable enough to pause before implementation.

Next permitted work

Without reopening implementation, permitted work is limited to:

  • formal IP/publication review;
  • external comprehension/interoperability testing;
  • publication-boundary analysis;
  • controlled documentation/diagram refinement;
  • future candidate extraction only where a demonstrated semantic gap exists.
PAUSE RECEIPT: Codex Commons semantic-kernel design is accepted and paused at the machine-readable/GitHub boundary. No additional profile should be created merely to extend the kernel; a demonstrated unresolved semantic responsibility is required.

Arqua Whole-System Reconciliation — 19 September 2026

The accepted Commons Semantic Kernel has now been reconciled against the wider Arqua system.

Proposed whole-system role:

Codex Commons is Arqua's governed semantic interoperability architecture: a neutral reusable substrate through which independently governed models, representations, frameworks, technologies, evidence and assessments can be related without requiring shared ontology, shared data model or shared authority.

Full reconciliation:

No access

This does not reopen the GitHub/machine-readable implementation boundary.

Whole-System Role Acceptance Receipt — 19 September 2026

The Arqua × Commons reconciliation has been owner-accepted.

No access

Codex Commons now has accepted internal standing as Arqua's governed semantic interoperability architecture, with Semantic Architecture, future Registry and future Publication Surface kept as separately governed surfaces.

No implementation/publication authority follows. H5 remains HOLD.

CR + Health + Personal Codex Adequacy Reconciliation — 29 September 2026

Source test: 🧪CC-TEST-CRH-02 — CR + Health + Personal Codex Commons Kernel Adequacy Test v0.2

Reconciliation decision

The accepted Commons kernel has survived the Codex Resonance, Human Health and Personal Codex/CIE hostile extraction pass without structural change.

Retain:

RRAP + QMAP + Assessment Assertion + Non-Promotion + Lifecycle/Revalidation.

Do not add:

  • Representation Sufficiency Profile;
  • Standing Profile;
  • Authority Profile/Ontology;
  • Interpretation Assertion Profile;
  • Learning/Revision Profile.

Non-Promotion as overarching semantic-control principle

The 29 September test pass strengthens the architectural interpretation of the existing Commons Non-Promotion Rule.

No unlicensed semantic promotion.

This is now treated as the overarching Commons semantic-control principle across the kernel.

It constrains implicit promotion among roles, mappings, assessments, standing, authority, sufficiency, interpretation and lifecycle states.

Examples:

  • standing A does not become standing B without an explicit applicable basis;
  • sufficiency for purpose A does not confer sufficiency for purpose B;
  • represented authority does not become authority;
  • interpretation does not become fact, cause, permission or institutional authority merely through representation or confidence;
  • new evidence does not automatically rewrite historical standing.

This clarification does not create a new profile or ontology.

Four earned Commons invariants / guidance specialisations

1. Purpose-Relative Sufficiency

Representation sufficiency is purpose-, scope-, context- and evidence-relative. Sufficiency for one declared use does not confer sufficiency for another use without an explicit applicable basis.

Treatment:

  • cross-cutting qualification invariant;
  • may be expressed through RRAP, QMAP, Assessment Assertion, provenance and lifecycle;
  • does not make sufficiency an intrinsic property of a representation;
  • does not imply runtime admissibility or authority.

2. Boundary Standing

Boundary crossing does not confer standing. A source object may preserve attributable source standing, but standing in a receiving context must be separately grounded where required.

Treatment:

  • strengthens existing standing-portability guidance;
  • source standing/provenance may be preserved;
  • receiving-context standing remains independently governed;
  • no standalone Standing Profile is introduced.

3. Authority Preservation

Commons may represent, reference and preserve externally constituted authority, but representation does not originate, transfer, expand or legitimise that authority.

Treatment:

  • external authority remains externally constituted;
  • authority may be referenced through qualified mappings, assessments, roles and provenance;
  • Commons does not decide universal legitimacy, jurisdiction or precedence;
  • no Authority ontology/profile is introduced.

4. Governed Revision

Learning may trigger re-evaluation and new standing, but it does not rewrite historical standing. Revision is represented as governed succession/requalification with reconstructable provenance.

Short form:

Learning is recursive; standing remains governed; history remains reconstructable.

Treatment:

  • strengthens Lifecycle/Revalidation guidance;
  • preserve identity/version, evidence basis, effective period, supersession and revalidation;
  • later interpretation or assessment does not overwrite earlier attributable interpretation or assessment;
  • no Learning/Revision profile is introduced.

Interpretation clarification

The Personal Codex/CIE hostile test did not expose a non-reducible Commons responsibility.

At current evidence:

Interpretation is a role and/or basis-bound assertion, not automatically a distinct Commons object class.

Commons should preserve:

  • attribution;
  • declared purpose/intended use;
  • method/profile/version;
  • evidence and input references;
  • limitations and uncertainty;
  • material competing interpretations;
  • standing/classification;
  • lifecycle/revalidation.

RRAP + Assessment Assertion + QMAP + provenance/lifecycle are sufficient at current evidence.

Reopen an Interpretation Profile only if a future independent domain demonstrates a semantic responsibility that cannot be represented by the existing kernel.

Health-domain boundary

Codex Health remains a separate applied research domain.

No health ontology, efficacy claim, clinical standing or health-domain authority is admitted into Commons by this reconciliation.

Health is recognised as a demanding hostile-test environment because it forces preservation of distinctions including:

  • evidence vs inference;
  • population vs individual;
  • observation vs interpretation;
  • association vs cause;
  • suggestion vs decision;
  • personal meaning vs professional/clinical authority.

The kernel surviving those fixtures without becoming health-specific strengthens confidence in its current abstraction boundary.

Kernel standing after reconciliation

CC-HLA-01 remains structurally unchanged.

The accepted internal kernel remains:

RRAP + QMAP + Assessment Assertion + Non-Promotion + Lifecycle/Revalidation.

The 29 September reconciliation:

  • strengthens the interpretation of Non-Promotion as the general semantic-control principle;
  • adds four earned cross-cutting invariants/guidance specialisations;
  • strengthens lifecycle and authority-preservation guidance;
  • does not create new semantic profiles;
  • does not reopen GitHub/machine-readable implementation;
  • does not authorise public publication.

GITHUB / MACHINE-READABLE IMPLEMENTATION: HOLD remains in force.

Reopen condition

Kernel design should be reopened only where a future independent fixture demonstrates a material semantic responsibility that cannot be reduced to:

RRAP + QMAP + Assessment Assertion + Non-Promotion + Lifecycle/Revalidation + external provenance/domain semantics.