PRD: make museum publication authority explicit - #28
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this proposes
Make museum publication authority explicit and auditable, separately from authorship.
Source / credit
This PR is based on the 2026-08-17 static close read by Emanuela Tvrtkovic with Claude. Their finding: the publisher verifies that Sprout said the words, but does not expose the basis on which those words may be published; the governing curator policy is also not reviewable beside the shipped publication path.
Their repair direction — publish the governing charter and state the actual publication basis, without fabricating consent — is accepted in substance.
Extension added here
Model publication as an external-plane act:
entity -> local member/role -> external role/effector -> public domainand preserve both:
operator_asserted,instance_granted,standing_charter, etc.).Admission is under local law ∩ role law ∩ applicable external law/policy. The emitted act should carry role/effector provenance and bind into R6/R7 accountability when that path is available.
At Sprout's present scale the honest basis may simply be
operator_asserted; instance_not_consultable_at_this_scale. The point is to expose the real basis, not manufacture consent.Scope
Docs-first PRD only; no runtime publication behavior changed yet.