Attestor is governed by foundational rules that constrain how assertions, evidence, authoritative references, evaluation, corrections, and Trust Statements may be handled.
These rules preserve provenance, scope, traceability, institutional authority, and reviewability while preventing Attestor from claiming authority it does not own.
An Attestation, evidence source, authoritative reference, evaluation, correction, or Trust Statement should preserve sufficient attribution to identify who or what is responsible for the relevant assertion, source, or action.
Attestor should preserve sufficient provenance to explain the origin, relationship, status, and relevant history of the inputs and Attestor objects used in an evaluation.
Assertions, evidence relationships, evaluations, and Trust Statements must remain bounded by the scope in which they are supported. A narrow conclusion must not silently become a universal one.
Attestor may reference authoritative objects governed elsewhere, but it does not inherit, replace, or redefine their authority. The originating institution remains authoritative for its own canonical objects.
Evidence should remain connected to the assertion and evaluation for which it is relevant, including material limitations, conflicting information, and source status where applicable.
Relationships among Attestations, evidence, authoritative references, evaluations, corrections, and Trust Statements should remain sufficiently traceable for review and validation.
Corrections, clarifications, withdrawals, supersession, and other changes to Attestor-owned objects must not silently erase the prior state or the provenance of the change.
Attestor should preserve historically relevant prior states while clearly distinguishing them from the currently effective state of an Attestation or Trust Statement.
A Trust Statement is a bounded Attestor conclusion produced under Attestor rules. It does not establish universal truth, and its language should preserve the scope, evidence, limitations, and authority supporting the conclusion.
No single evidence item, verification result, certification, discovery signal, historical event, or other input automatically determines a Trust Statement. Attestor must perform its own governed evaluation.
When eligible inputs are incomplete, conflicting, qualified, or insufficient, Attestor should preserve that uncertainty rather than manufacture a stronger conclusion than the evidence supports.
Attestor should exchange and reference governed information across the Satoshium Suite without changing the canonical ownership, meaning, identifiers, lifecycle, or authority of the referenced objects.
The rules operate together rather than as a simple trust-producing chain. A valid Attestor evaluation should preserve the relevant attribution, provenance, scope, authority, evidence context, traceability, lifecycle state, and uncertainty before a Trust Statement is produced.
These rules establish Attestor's institutional operating constraints. The operational architecture carries those constraints into applicable normative requirements, controlled values, schemas and profiles, lifecycle and versioning rules, Validation, governed Review, and Conformance.
Not every institutional rule requires an identical machine check. Executable Validation is operational, while requirements that genuinely require institutional judgment remain governed Review requirements. Machine execution must preserve the meaning of the governing rule rather than replace it.
The first controlled production operation exercised the twelve foundational rules across governed inputs, canonical Attestation, Rule-Constrained Evaluation, bounded Trust Statement, correction, Validation, governed Review, Conformance, lifecycle, Publication, and final-state revalidation.
The Rules architecture is established and production-proven. The first production operation demonstrated that institutional rules can govern a real Attestor operation without collapsing Evaluation, Validation, Review, Conformance, lifecycle, or Publication into one another.
Production proof does not predetermine future Evaluation Outcomes, Review dispositions, Conformance outcomes, corrections, or lifecycle decisions.
Attestor may require procedures for review, disputes, correction authorization, publication, and other institutional operations. Those procedures should be defined only where Attestor's own responsibility requires them and should not silently create a reputation system, generic trust framework, or Suite-wide governance authority.
Back to Attestor →