ADR 003 Topological Framework Documented as Future Work

ADR-003: Topological Framework Documented as Future Work

Status: Accepted Date: 2026-05-16 Deciders: Michael Zargham Related: ADR-003a v0.1 Ships Traditional Analysis Only; ADR-018 V minus F Invariant Deferred with Topological Framework; ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026; ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom; Topological Framework Future Work; Design Spec

Context

The Zargham 2026 RTM paper introduces a typed simplicial complex framework in which requirements, design elements, and verification activities form vertices of typed faces (assurance triangles), and a complete RTM is one whose assurance complex is closed: every claim has a face, every face has a named approver, every approver is bound. The framework is mathematically interesting and shares philosophical kinship with flexo-rtm's named-approver accountability discipline. The question is whether v0.1 should ship the topological framework as its certification engine, or document the framework as a related research line and ship the traditional analysis plus named-signer attestation that flexo-rtm actually is. The blocking issue surfaced during the v0.1 design pass: a proper topological audit requires recursive completeness — every evidence artifact has its own assurance triangle — and that recursion only terminates against a community-curated registry of pre-approved artifact types. That registry is a research and community-engagement effort, internal to the topological research line. Per ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom (which generalizes this ADR's commitment), flexo-rtm is methodology-agnostic: the topological framework is one possible downstream-analysis path on top of flexo-rtm's data, not flexo-rtm's eventual destination. See Design Spec §4.10 and Topological Framework Future Work for the full elaboration.

Decision

flexo-rtm v0.1 does not commit to the typed simplicial complex topological framework. The framework is documented as a related research line in flexo-rtm-research (see Topological Framework Future Work): vision, motivation, recursion-termination challenge, registry concept, and open research questions are recorded comprehensively. The framework's vocabulary ships in v0.1 ontology as forward-compatible interop per ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026, so that adopters who choose to run topological analysis as a downstream-analysis mode can do so without translation. Adopters who choose other downstream-analysis paths (SLSA, GSN, ARP4754A, in-house) read the same data. No v0.1 audit, SHACL profile, or certification predicate depends on the topological framework's completeness predicate, and flexo-rtm does not commit to it as an eventual destination (see ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom).

Consequences

Positive

• v0.1 ships on a tractable timeline; the registry of pre-approved artifact types belongs to the topological research line, not flexo-rtm's critical path
• The research repo's documentation of the framework gives the community something concrete to engage with — registry types can be proposed, debated, and converged in the open as the research line matures (or not), without coupling that progress to flexo-rtm's release schedule
• Vocabulary alignment as forward-compatible interop (per ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026) means adopters who choose to run topological analysis as a downstream-analysis mode read v0.1 data natively; adopters who choose other downstream-analysis paths read the same data; adopters who run no downstream analysis are unaffected
• Decouples "is the RTM complete by traditional bidirectional analysis plus named signers?" (flexo-rtm v0.1) from "is the RTM topologically closed against a registry?" (one specific possible downstream-analysis path) — the two are different artifacts, and conflating them forced premature scope

Negative / Tradeoffs

• flexo-rtm's scope is a deliberately modest claim — bidirectional traceability plus named signers reduced to practice. Some readers may expect "the topological RTM oracle" promised by the paper and have to read ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom to recalibrate
• The topological research line may never mature into an applied audit (registry research may stall, invariants may stay unresolved). That is fine — flexo-rtm does not depend on the research line maturing, and per ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom no specific downstream-analysis methodology is privileged. Other paths (SLSA, GSN, ARP4754A, in-house) can mature in its absence

Neutral

• Forces explicit separation between flexo-rtm's bidirectional analysis (see ADR-003a v0.1 Ships Traditional Analysis Only) and flexo-rtm's attestation infrastructure (named-approver SHACL, see ADR-021 Three Attestation Subclasses Ship in v0.1); both are part of what flexo-rtm IS, and both produce data that any downstream-analysis path (topological, SLSA, GSN, ARP4754A, in-house) can consume

Alternatives Considered

• Adopt typed simplicial complex as the primary v0.1 certification model: Make closed-triangle audit the v0.1 certification predicate. Rejected: would commit flexo-rtm to one specific assurance methodology (against ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom), and requires the registry of pre-approved artifact types to terminate the recursion. The registry conversation is unresolved research, internal to the topological line.
• Ship the topological framework with a thin / placeholder registry: Define a starter registry inside v0.1 with a few obvious types (e.g., test reports, signed-off requirement documents) and ship the audit against it. Rejected: would lock in poor registry decisions before research and community engagement, and would still commit flexo-rtm to one specific downstream-analysis methodology against ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom.
• Chosen approach (this ADR): Treat the topological framework as a related research line, not part of flexo-rtm. Document it comprehensively in the research repo. Ship the framework's vocabulary as forward-compatible interop in v0.1 ontology per ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026, so adopters who later choose to run topological analysis as a downstream-analysis mode can do so without translation. Ship traditional bidirectional analysis (see ADR-003a v0.1 Ships Traditional Analysis Only) and named-approver attestation (see ADR-021 Three Attestation Subclasses Ship in v0.1) as what flexo-rtm IS.

Implementation Notes

The topological research line lives entirely in the research repo: Topological Framework Future Work documents the vision, recursion challenge, registry concept, and open research questions. v0.1 ontology in flexo-rtm includes the Zargham-2026 vocabulary (rtm:AssuranceComplex, rtm:AssuranceFace, rtm:AssuranceTriple — see ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026) as forward-compatible interop, but no v0.1 SHACL profile or certification predicate enforces the framework's completeness predicate. The knowledgecomplex optional extras (see ADR-017 knowledgecomplex as Optional Extras) provide derived-view tooling for research users who want to experiment with simplicial-complex views on v0.1 data; the topological audit is not a flexo-rtm product feature, and flexo-rtm does not commit to ever shipping one.

References

• Design Spec §4.10 (topological framework as related research line), §4.2 (vocabulary alignment as forward-compatible interop)
• Topological Framework Future Work — the canonical reference for the related research line
• ADR-003a v0.1 Ships Traditional Analysis Only — what flexo-rtm v0.1 IS
• ADR-018 V minus F Invariant Deferred with Topological Framework — the topological invariant whose maturity tracks the research line, not flexo-rtm's roadmap
• ADR-020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026 — vocabulary alignment as forward-compatible interop
• ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom — the foundational axiom that names this ADR's position as one instance of flexo-rtm's methodology-agnostic stance
• Zargham (2026), Formalizing Document Assurance: A Topological Framework for Verification, Validation, and Human Accountability (forthcoming)