Skip to content

FREEDOM_THEORY_POSITION.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
66 lines (49 loc) · 2.86 KB

FREEDOM_THEORY_POSITION.md

File metadata and controls

66 lines (49 loc) · 2.86 KB
Raw

Freedom Theory — final positioning

Decision date: 2026-08-20
Decision: Theory of Freedom is retained as an optional upstream normative layer, not as the primary industrial or security-capability claim.

The question

Should the stack be reordered as:

Theory of Freedom
  → rights ontology
  → legitimacy / FDK
  → delegation / capability
  → AuthGate execution
  → tools / MCP

…or should freedom-theory remain an independent philosophical contribution while AuthGate is pitched as systems/security engineering?

Evidence that decided it

  1. Kill-tests on AuthGate authorization (STATUS.md, WHY_NOT_OPA.md) — authorization is absorbed by Cedar / OPA / Zanzibar. The surviving industrial thesis is purpose/flow governance and non-amplifying composition, not a new moral theory.
  2. Ownership discriminant experiment (REVIEW_REQUEST_2026-08-10.md §3–4) — the claim that deriving legitimacy from an ownership/consent ontology is a unique contribution was falsified after pre-registration and blind audit.
  3. Pattern across the program — ideas collapsed toward philosophy and survived toward runtime enforcement, distributed systems, and capability management.

The arrangement (locked)

Layer Role Public claim
Theory of Freedom (freedom-theory-work, PHILOSOPHY/) Optional normative interpretation of why veto-only legitimacy exists Academic / lineage only; never a product differentiator
Legitimacy (ex-FDK; Freedom Formal engine) Veto-only evaluator (DENY/DEFER); co-equal under lattice meet Constraint input, not grant authority — see authgate.integrations.legitimacy
AuthGate / decision-os-min Authority, attenuation, PEP, audit Primary claim — executable AE-1…AE-10 under non-amplification
MCP Standardization surface for tool mediation Adoption path (not a new RFC)

Invariant that does not depend on the theory being true:

compose(a, k₁…kₙ) ⊑ a — No Amplification. Constraint inputs (including any legitimacy evaluator derived from any ontology) are veto-only.

What this forbids in outreach

  • Pitching AuthGate as “the Theory of Freedom made executable” as the main hook.
  • Claiming philosophical correctness of A1–A7 as a security result.
  • Letting normative vocabulary outrun the ASSUMPTIONS table.

What this still allows

  • Keeping PHILOSOPHY/ on the nazariye-azadi branch as lineage documentation.
  • Using FDK as one veto-only evaluator among others (safety, privacy, budget).
  • Academic papers on the theory as a separate track from the conformance / MCP engineering track.

Revisit when: an external reviewer produces evidence that the ontology discriminant holds on a new, pre-registered corpus — or when a standards body requires a normative annex. Until then, this decision stands.