specification-govern

name	specification-govern
description	Review work for constitutional compliance. Propose amendments when primitives or prohibitions are affected. Checks against amendment registry and enforces the AI Decision Procedure (IX.3). Final gate before merge.

Specification Govern Phase

Purpose

Audit any work — plan, spec, implementation, or validation — for constitutional compliance. Propose amendments when necessary. This phase answers: Are we allowed to do this?

When to Use

Load this skill when:

• The user asks "does this violate the constitution?"
• The user wants to add/redefine/remove a primitive
• The user wants to relax a prohibition (e.g., allow substrate mutation)
• The user wants to introduce a formalism that may fail the Aleksandrov Test
• A [TRANSITION STATE] principle is blocking work and the user wants resolution
• Any phase encounters a constitutional conflict and cannot proceed

Constitutional Constraints (P0 + P1)

P0 (Never Drop)

• I.19 Dialectic Primitive — D = (A, Ā, w, T, σ) is irreducible. No redefinition without MAJOR version bump.
• I.20 Spatial Substrate — Immutable. No mutation ever.
• II.9 Morphism Dyadic — Strictly dyadic. No N-ary morphisms.
• III.7 Determinism Hash — Every tick deterministic. Non-determinism is a bug.
• III.8 Aleksandrov Test — Every formal construct traces to material relation.
• V Verb Atomicity — Every verb maps to graph operation. Atomic per target instance.

P1

• IX.2 Staged Amendment Series — Primitive changes require downstream translation with invariance proofs. No skipping.
• IX.3 AI Decision Procedure — Read-and-Proceed → Read-and-Ask → Escalate → Transition-State-Protocol.
• IX.4 AI Context Budget — P0 immutable, P1 domain-mandatory, P2 droppable-with-reporting.

AI Decision Procedure (IX.3)

Follow this escalation ladder exactly:

1. Read and Proceed

If the constitution provides an unambiguous constraint that answers the question, apply it without asking for clarification.

Examples:

• "Can we delete a county from the substrate?" → Banned per I.20. Reject immediately.
• "Should Investigate mutate the graph?" → Required per V. Proceed.

2. Read and Ask

If the constitution constrains the shape but not the content, consult the relevant spec before proceeding.

Examples:

• "What's the cost function for AIR_LINK transport?" → II.13 defines types but not costs. Read transport spec.
• "How does Educate create centrality?" → I.21 defines modes but not graph operation. Read verb spec.

3. Escalate to Amendment

If the question requires any of:

• Adding a new primitive (new pole type, new morphism relation, new transport edge type not in II.13)
• Redefining an existing primitive (changing dialectic structure in I.19)
• Relaxing a prohibition (allowing substrate mutation despite I.20)
• Introducing a formalism that fails Aleksandrov Test (III.8)

Then: STOP. Propose a constitutional amendment. Include:

• The problem
• Proposed principle text
• Principles affected
• Draft invariance proof
• Version bump rationale (MAJOR/MINOR/PATCH)

4. Transition State Protocol

If a principle is marked [TRANSITION STATE], treat it as blocked.

You MAY propose a spec to resolve the transition state. You MUST NOT implement code that depends on the unresolved principle.

Examples:

• II.7 (hyperedges) is transition state → Do not implement hyperedge logic until Amendment D ratified.
• I.17 (OODA) is transition state → Do not implement OODA profiles until Amendment C ratified.

Amendment Proposal Format

If escalation is required, draft an amendment following this structure:

**Amendment [Next Letter] — [Title]**
Status: PROPOSED
Target Version: [e.g., v2.8.0]
Bump: [MAJOR/MINOR/PATCH]

**Problem:**
[What problem does this solve?]

**Proposed Principle:**
[Exact text of the new/modified principle]

**Affected Principles:**
- [List all downstream principles that must be translated]

**Invariance Proof (Draft):**
[Demonstrate that affected principles are at least as constrained as predecessors]

**Consequences:**
- Positive: [Benefits]
- Negative: [Tradeoffs]

Save to .specify/memory/constitution.md as a PROPOSED amendment in the IX.2 registry. Do NOT bump the version until ratified.

Compliance Audit Checklist

For any work under review, verify:

• No substrate mutation
• No AI adjudication (AI only parses/narrates)
• No ungrounded tensor notation
• No fixture/runtime substitution
• No transition-state dependency in implementation
• Determinism hash preserved
• Aleksandrov Test passed for all new formal constructs
• Dyadic morphism constraint respected
• Subsystem ownership documented
• Falsifiability criteria defined for all new formulas
• Michigan test case traceability documented

If any unchecked, flag the defect and recommend remediation or amendment.

Next Phase

Govern is typically terminal. After compliance review, the work either:

• PASSES → ready for merge (user's discretion)
• FAILS → return to appropriate phase with remediation instructions
• REQUIRES AMENDMENT → amendment proposal drafted, awaiting ratification