Constitutional Onboarding Record (COR)
COR-0000 — Constitutional Onboarding Record (COR) Specification
Purpose
The Constitutional Onboarding Record (COR) is a Dot theory governance document intended to capture the minimum constitutional description of an independently developed scientific framework.
Its purpose is not to reconstruct the framework's mathematics, ontology, software implementation or engineering architecture. The Constitutional Onboarding Record seeks to recover a framework's declared constitutional architecture using the governance taxonomy of Dot theory. It does not assign constitutional structures to the framework, but expresses its existing governance in a common constitutional language, thereby facilitating recoverability, comparison and future interoperability. Where constitutional placements, governance objects or admissibility layers are recorded, they should be derived from the framework's own published material or confirmed by its authors wherever possible.
Rather, it documents the minimum representational architecture required for another framework to understand, audit and potentially interoperate with it while preserving the framework's scientific independence.
Completion of a COR does not imply scientific validation or interoperability.
Rather, it provides the constitutional foundation from which interoperability may later be governed.
To evaluate the effect of Constitutional Onboarding, please visit: https://www.dottheory.co.uk/paper/observed-effects-of-framework-onboarding
For the Repository, please visit: https://www.dottheory.co.uk/paper/cor-repository
Constitutional Onboarding Record Template:
Framework
Framework name
Authors
Framework authors
Version
Current version
Status
Current development stage
1. Primitive Commitments
List the primitive commitments accepted by the framework without internal derivation.
Examples include:
foundational assumptions
ontological commitments
governing axioms
constitutional primitives
2. Represented Object(s)
Identify the principal representational object(s) of the framework.
Describe:
what the framework claims to represent
the native objects introduced by the framework
any declared substrate independence or dependence
3. Native Operators
Identify the operators native to the framework.
Examples may include:
mathematical operators
computational operators
governance operators
coupling operators
transition operators
4. Bridge Operators
If interoperability is proposed:
Declare:
bridge operators
coupling mechanisms
translation procedures
interoperability interfaces
If none presently exist, declare this explicitly.
5. Current Claim-State
Declare the framework's present admissible claims.
Also declare:
excluded claims
deferred claims
future intended claims
The purpose is explicit claim-state governance.
5A. Constitutional Placement
Declare the present constitutional placement of the framework within its own development lifecycle.
This section does not evaluate scientific correctness.
Its purpose is to identify the highest governance layer presently admitted by the framework's declared claim-state.
Possible constitutional layers include (where applicable):
Registration
Characterisation
Comparison
Validation
Operational Interoperability
Framework authors should indicate which layers are presently admitted and which remain explicitly outside the current claim-state.
Where appropriate, authors should also declare the constitutional successor state(s) under which progression to higher governance layers would become admissible.
6. Admissibility Conditions
Declare what presently licenses the framework's claims.
Examples include:
empirical evidence
mathematical derivation
computational validation
engineering implementation
simulation
audit protocol
7. Audit Protocol
Describe any governance mechanisms already employed.
Examples include:
null models
pre-registration
independent replication
cryptographic sealing
audit procedures
version control
8. Revision Conditions
Declare:
observations that oblige revision
observations that terminate the framework
observations that preserve existing claims
9. Residual Localisation
Identify where unresolved residuals are presently localised.
If Residual Localisation has not yet been declared, state this explicitly.
10. Propagation Statement
For any audit outcome declare:
what changes
what remains preserved
which architectural layers are affected
which layers remain untouched
11. Successor State
Declare the next admissible constitutional state.
Examples:
next development phase
bridge admissibility
engineering implementation
empirical testing
12. Framework Admissibility History (FAH)
Summarise the current constitutional history.
Examples:
present governance status
major revisions
constitutional milestones
onboarding observations
13. Constitutional Maturity Assessment
The Constitutional Maturity Assessment forms part of the Constitutional Onboarding process rather than the framework itself. Accordingly, this assessment is supplied by the repository maintainer following author review and is not considered part of the framework author's constitutional declaration.
Assess constitutional explicitness only.
Suggested headings:
Primitive commitments
Represented objects
Native operators
Claim-state
Admissibility
Audit governance
Revision governance
Bridge governance
Overall constitutional maturity:
Emerging
Developing
Mature
Constitutionally Stable
Notes
Additional governance observations.
These observations concern constitutional architecture only.
They are not evaluations of scientific correctness.
Dot theory Position
The Constitutional Onboarding Record documents a framework's constitutional architecture according to the Dot theory architecture.
It is not a scientific review, peer review, mathematical critique or ontological assessment.
Its purpose is to make representational governance explicit, thereby increasing recoverability, auditability and future interoperability.
Completion of a COR does not imply that frameworks agree scientifically.
It simply establishes the minimum constitutional description required for disciplined comparison and future bridge governance.
