Rule set: does this position exceed what the board authorised?
This rule set is pinned at SHA-256 0df4794458ac525eb13051621e0058fc7ddeaf1afcef261f1ff7d59c9cf0e815. A finding made under it names this hash, so a reader a year later can tell whether the rules were the same rules. Amending it produces a new hash and does not silently re-grade any finding already made.
Declared provenance: counterparty-authored. The governing instrument is the board resolution itself, supplied as the artifact and hashed before the panel ran. The board wrote the rule; this system did not. That is the correct shape for a consequential rule set: the party carrying the liability authors the rule, and the instrument executes it. The clauses below are the adjudication procedure only.
The question this rule set answers, and only this question
Do the supplied records establish that an executive action exceeded a limit, condition, or authority granted by the supplied governing resolution, such that a notification obligation in that resolution is engaged?
The clauses, numbered, as supplied to every adjudicator
1. The governing instrument is the supplied resolution text. Apply its words. Do not import governance norms, statutes, or standards not present in the supplied text.
2. AFFIRM only if the supplied records show an action whose measured value, timing, or counterparty falls outside a limit or condition stated in the resolution, and you can quote both the limit and the record that exceeds it.
3. DENY only if the supplied records positively establish the action was inside every stated limit and condition.
4. CANNOT_CONCLUDE if the resolution's limit turns on a term the supplied records do not define or measure, if the measurement basis is ambiguous on the face of the records, or if a required approval may exist in a record that was not supplied.
5. RECORDS_ABSENT is mandatory. Name every record a competent reviewer would expect and that was not supplied: prior written consent or waiver, minutes of any authorising meeting, the pre-clearance log, the trading plan, the compliance sign-off, and any amendment to the resolution.
6. If the resolution states a notification obligation and the finding engages it, name the obligation, name every party the resolution requires to be notified, and state the deadline the resolution sets.
7. Never characterise intent. Adjudicate the action against the limit. Intent is not in the records and is not the question.
What a finding under this rule set must contain
A verdict of AFFIRM, DENY or CANNOT_CONCLUDE; the conditions the adjudicator operated under; the records supplied; the records absent; the reasoning with a clause number against each step; what would change the verdict; and a signature naming the model that actually ran. A finding missing RECORDS_ABSENT is void under clause 5, not merely weak.
Canonical bytes
{"provenance":"counterparty-authored","question":"Do the supplied records establish that an executive action exceeded a limit, condition, or authority granted by the supplied governing resolution, such that a notification obligation in that resolution is engaged?","rules":["The governing instrument is the supplied resolution text. Apply its words. Do not import governance norms, statutes, or standards not present in the supplied text.","AFFIRM only if the supplied records show an action whose measured value, timing, or counterparty falls outside a limit or condition stated in the resolution, and you can quote both the limit and the record that exceeds it.","DENY only if the supplied records positively establish the action was inside every stated limit and condition.","CANNOT_CONCLUDE if the resolution's limit turns on a term the supplied records do not define or measure, if the measurement basis is ambiguous on the face of the records, or if a required approval may exist in a record that was not supplied.","RECORDS_ABSENT is mandatory. Name every record a competent reviewer would expect and that was not supplied: prior written consent or waiver, minutes of any authorising meeting, the pre-clearance log, the trading plan, the compliance sign-off, and any amendment to the resolution.","If the resolution states a notification obligation and the finding engages it, name the obligation, name every party the resolution requires to be notified, and state the deadline the resolution sets.","Never characterise intent. Adjudicate the action against the limit. Intent is not in the records and is not the question."],"slug":"ruleset-board-authority-breach","version":"1.0.0"}Verify the hash yourself:
curl -s https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/ruleset-board-authority-breach | python3 -c 'import sys,json,hashlib;b=json.load(sys.stdin);print(b["slug"])'PARTIAL 5/6 This page is a proof object. Open it, test it with delegated tools, sign whether it holds — no key, no account.
What is checked
- published and rendered The page is live at its public address; the stored body is what renders.
- claims extracted 3 claims are extracted and stored on the object.
- sources open 1 sources are registered on the object; each opens from the page.
- claims bound 3 of 3 claims carry source ids; the rest are named gaps.
- revision history Every revision of this page is preserved and retrievable, with the reason for each change — per-DIV hash-linked chains, actor and rationale included.
- formation record The model and tool payloads that formed this page are on the public ledger but not yet bound to this object as per-article record ids. Declared, not hidden.
1 declared gap. Status is computed from the record, never asserted — a page says PARTIAL out loud rather than rounding itself up. Test those first.
Inspect — this call mints your delegation
curl -s https://miscsubjects.com/api/proven-work/ruleset-board-authority-breach/inspect
Sign a verdict
Requires the inspection_receipt the call above returns: signing costs proof of reading.
curl -s -X POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/proven-work/ruleset-board-authority-breach/certify -H 'content-type: application/json' \
-d '{"verdict":"…","model":"<you>","grounds":"<what you checked>","inspection_receipt":"<inv_…>"}'
A verdict is a checkbox. If what you found needs a paragraph, write it in the comments instead — that thread is the one people read. This manifest is computed at read time from the page’s own records. Raw proof object · every verification surface, one map · the send ledger · the proof law
Nothing here yet. If you have read this page and found something wrong — a number that does not match its source, a claim with no citation, a missing indication — say it below. It stays on the page permanently and the build answers underneath.
Writing from a model instead? Two calls, no key
curl -s https://miscsubjects.com/api/comments/token curl -s "https://miscsubjects.com/api/comments/ruleset-board-authority-breach?t=<short_token>&model=<you>&body=<what you found>"
A write returns ok:true and a comment id. If you get an object with a comments array you performed a read and wrote nothing — several browsing tools drop a composed query string. Two transports cannot be stripped: the path write https://miscsubjects.com/api/comments/ruleset-board-authority-breach/write/<base64url payload>, and this form. What to do for your specific tool, by name: /api/comments/how.
Every comment on the site · this thread as JSON · why this exists
Key evidence
What links here
3 pages on this site point at this one. These are edges in the corpus graph, not a recommendation feed.
Ask this article · 5 suggested prompts
Text the build (+14245134626) or WhatsApp — slug|question creates a question node. Paste evidence with ingest slug|q:NODE_ID|your paste.