> > > SpecAdr013InterpretiveAuthorityJurisdiction

ADR-013: Interpretive Authority and Jurisdiction

Status

Proposed

Context

SOTER assumes that an organization does not access objective reality directly. It observes phenomena, records testimony, and constructs operational interpretations. Multiple readers may interpret the same tape differently, but an organization must still act. Action requires a binding operational interpretation for each operational question.

The design must allow domain authorities such as accounting, warehouse, and production without allowing two authorities to answer the same question contradictorily.

Decision

Authority attaches to an interpretive question, not globally to a raw fact.

The cardinality rule is:

(fact or fact set, interpretive question) -> zero or one authority

Observational facts have no authority. Interpretive facts carry authority and jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction partitions the question space so every operational question has at most one owning authority. The same observation may be relevant to several questions, and each question may be owned by a different domain authority.

Revision is append-only. An authority changing its ruling emits a new interpretive fact that corrects or supersedes the previous ruling. The previous ruling remains on the tape.

Operational truth for a question is the latest non-corrected ruling within its jurisdiction. It is binding for action but not objective truth.

Rationale

Attaching authority directly to raw facts would fail for cross-domain events. A single goods receipt can affect warehouse availability, accounting recognition, production planning, and compliance. These are different questions, not contradictory interpretations of one question.

The actual organizational risk is not interpretive plurality. The risk is either two authorities ruling the same question or one authority drifting away from the evidence without confrontation.

Consequences

Positive

Domain authorities can coexist without organizational split-brain.
Changes of interpretation become auditable.
SOTER can confront binding interpretations against the raw tape.

Negative

A jurisdiction registry becomes necessary.
Cross-domain questions need explicit escalation or arbitration rules.

Neutral or Operational

Interpretive facts should include authority, jurisdiction, corrects, and provenance of triggering observations.

Alternatives Considered

One Authority Per Fact

Rejected. It cannot model cross-domain phenomena without artificially splitting facts.

Many Authorities Per Question

Rejected. It permits contradictory operational truth inside the organization.

Migration or Adoption

Define a jurisdiction registry before interpretive facts become operationally binding. Until then, interpretive facts should be treated as proposed rulings.