Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
75 lines (52 loc) · 3.96 KB

File metadata and controls

75 lines (52 loc) · 3.96 KB

Constitutional Axioms (Clan OS Post-100)

Clan OS scopes 1–100 built kernel mechanics. Post-100 work defines constitutional law for semantic integrity: authority, IPC, temporal visibility, and native identity.

Axioms are the highest normative layer. They change only by explicit charter revision (rare). All documents in INDEX.md § Post-100 must remain consistent with these axioms.

See also: NATIVE_MODEL.md, SEMANTIC_JURISDICTION.md, RIGHTS_ALGEBRA.md.


Anti-entropy pair (most strategically important)

Axiom Statement Role
A7 Semantic laws override implementation convenience Prevents convenience-driven corruption of the model over years
A10 Semantic minimization — no new law without justification (see below) Prevents doctrinal sprawl and unmaintainable semantic surface

Together: controlled semantic evolution. Without A7, implementation erodes architecture. Without A10, architecture becomes too heavy to reason about.


Full axiom table

ID Axiom Role
A1 Authority never amplifies implicitly Prevents hidden privilege inflation
A2 Native code has no ambient authority (no unrestricted global namespace) Foundational post-Unix principle
A3 All cross-domain authority transfer is explicit (move / borrow / delegate per RIGHTS_ALGEBRA.md) Formalizes propagation
A4 Endpoint semantics are deterministic within documented bounds Prevents IPC drift
A5 Compat never defines native semantics Preserves architectural identity
A6 Revocation visibility is always documentable (TEMPORAL_SEMANTICS.md) Prevents temporal ambiguity
A7 Semantic laws override implementation convenience Anti-entropy (see above)
A8 Architecture-preservation spec cases are authoritative for behavior claims Invariant preservation
A9 Semantic law versioning is explicit (clan-semantics-v* in ABI_STABILITY.md) Semantics are platform ABI
A10 Semantic minimization — every new law must pass review (below) Occam’s Razor for OS semantics

A10 — minimization review (required for new laws after scope 110)

Question Must answer
Can this derive from existing axioms or laws? Yes → do not add a new law
Is it fundamental (cross-cutting), not subsystem-local? No → keep in subsystem notes only
Is it the smallest statement that carries the guarantee? No → rewrite smaller
Should this be a spec case ID instead of prose? Prefer spec ID

Scope 110 performs a minimization audit (law count per hierarchy layer).


Governance gates (implementation blocked until scope 110 sign-off)

Gate Blocks Requires
G1 Scope 115+ new handle semantics KERNEL_OBJECT_MODEL.md
G2 Scope 112–113 cap lifecycle code RIGHTS_ALGEBRA.md
G3 Scope 134+ native endpoint code ABI_IPC.md
G4 Scope 128+ native-only enforcement NATIVE_MODEL.md
G5 Scope 111+ authority/IPC contradicting specs SEMANTIC_SPECS.md, TEMPORAL_SEMANTICS.md

Scopes 111+ must not ship kernel behavior that violates ratified axioms or signed gates.


Charter revision

To amend an axiom:

  1. Document conflict with existing laws and spec cases
  2. Propose clan-semantics-v* bump if guarantees change
  3. Update SEMANTIC_SPECS.md and run minimization audit
  4. Record decision in ROADMAP_POST100.md scope 110+ notes

Default: reject charter changes that weaken A1, A2, A5, A7, or A10 without extraordinary rationale.