Cross-corpus responsibility map¶
A shared word is not an implementation contract. This map classifies relationships rather than drawing an implied deployed universal stack. This map accompanies edition 2026.10.9 and retains the relationships described in 2026.10.7. Each endpoint retains its own source edition and assurance limits.
| Relationship | Classification | Responsibility and unresolved boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional doctrine → MIRAGE | Explicit authored contract | The contract proposes scoped refinement of institutional constraints to an enforcement reference. It does not certify all doctrine claims or a hostile-host deployment. |
| Freehold ↔ Cuttlefish | Implemented relationship, per retained dated report | Persistent institution-originated work connects to host authority and execution. Evidence separates source inspection from workload observation and customer fulfillment. |
| AD8 ↔ institutional thesis | Conceptual alignment | Both separate identity, authority, evidence and continuity; no vault-wide supersession or production control-plane identity is inferred. |
| AD8 ↔ CSSL | Unresolved dependency | Canonical identity and causally justified change need consistent construction and preservation rules. Construction states a logical limit, not a native composition. |
| CSSL ↔ IC/POAR | Proposed integration | Premise-aware changes could feed realization and validation. A complete implementation/refinement relation remains missing. |
| IC/POAR ↔ Semantic OS | Conceptual alignment | Explicit meaning and obligations inform projections; full application equivalence and authorized repair need evidence. |
| Cuttlebone ↔ Freehold | Authored contract | Founding scope and origin constrain effect ceilings in the specification. A separate operating profile and component-level conformance are required. |
| MIRAGE ↔ AD8 | Proposed integration | Final effect enforcement could consume qualified authority. No public teaching model implements that native interface. |
| SEPION ↔ AD8 | Conceptual alignment | Generated-artifact evaluation must retain scope, distinguishing evidence and nonclaims. No transferable certificate equivalence is established. |
| RCFS ↔ institutional thesis | Conceptual alignment | Amendments and resources remain constrained by declared laws; unresolved constructors and real custody cannot be skipped. |
| CHROMATIC ↔ operating environment | Proposed integration | User-visible actions and recourse must reflect actual effect state and authority. Irreversible effects limit universal undo claims. |
| Experience Economy ↔ The Reckoning | Unresolved dependency | Reuse and reputation depend on evaluation and governance scope; precedence and learned-influence revocation remain unresolved. |
| Human–LLM elicitation ↔ Engineering Methodology | Conceptual alignment | Substantive AI collaboration motivates empirical study. Methodology attribution is not a measured elicitation result. |
| Architecture synthesis ↔ all sixteen areas | Conceptual alignment | The synthesis is a responsibility map and research program, not proof of an integrated deployed machine. |
Research Depth & Proof provides technical synopses and falsifiable paths for every maintained area. The public evidence catalog deliberately contains no private source graph, operational topology or generated native interface.