Source Authority defines how Satoshium Registry identifies the institution responsible for an Authoritative Source Record and preserves the path back to that institution without transferring or recreating its authority.
Registry may catalog a source. It may not become the source merely by registering it.
Source Authority operates within the Satoshium Suite constitutional hierarchy and the Registry's canonical operational model.
Registry must know who is responsible for a source before it can represent that source accurately.
Without clear authority, a SREG may misidentify ownership, reproduce an unofficial copy, preserve outdated information, or imply institutional approval that does not exist.
Source Authority asks:
Registry must identify, document, and preserve the Source Institution, Source-System Identifier, canonical source reference, source version, and available source-status information.
Registry does not create source authority, legal authority, ownership, certification authority, attestation authority, governmental authority, or editorial authority merely by cataloging a record.
The Source Institution owns the source-domain meaning of the record. Registry preserves the structured public path back to it.
Registry should determine Source Authority by reviewing the strongest available evidence of institutional responsibility.
The institution with direct responsibility for creating, issuing, publishing, or maintaining the Authoritative Source Record.
An institution that provides evidence, hosting, preservation, publication, or interoperability support without owning the Source Record's institutional meaning.
A technical service may host or distribute a record without becoming the Source Institution.
Ownership or licensing authority may belong to a rights holder distinct from the Source Institution that created or issued the record.
A SREG should preserve the following authority information when applicable:
Registry should preserve enough evidence to explain why a particular institution was identified as the Source Institution.
Evidence may be direct, corroborating, historical, or archival. The evidence type and confidence should be clear when authority is not self-evident.
The Source Institution publishes or issues the record through its own canonical channel.
A Source Institution authorizes another platform, repository, or publisher to distribute the record while retaining institutional authority.
The original Source Institution may no longer operate, but historical records establish who created or controlled the source.
Registry may catalog approved external sources when institutional ownership, provenance, registrability, and scope are sufficiently established.
Multiple institutions may publish information about the same subject. Registry must determine whether they represent:
When two or more institutions claim authority over the same Source Record, Registry should not silently choose one without documented review.
Registry may:
A mirror, copy, transcript, export, cached page, archived snapshot, translated version, or derived representation may support discovery or preservation.
It should not be treated as the Authoritative Source Record unless the Source Institution explicitly designates it as authoritative.
A Source Record may become unavailable because a page moved, a repository was deleted, access was restricted, a platform removed content, or an institution ceased operation.
Registry may preserve:
Source unavailability does not automatically erase prior authority or require deletion of the SREG.
Institutional responsibility for a Source Record may change through:
Registry should preserve both prior and current authority context rather than silently overwriting the historical record.
The institution responsible for the same continuing Source Record changes.
A new Source Record replaces the prior object and may require supersession or a new SREG.
A successor institution assumes responsibility for records created by a predecessor.
An archive preserves the record without necessarily inheriting the original institution's substantive authority.
A source-authority review should document:
Potential review outcomes may include:
Source Authority is a prerequisite for Registrability.
A source should not proceed to operational SREG creation when Registry cannot identify who controls the Source Record or cannot explain the basis for its authority determination.
Source Authority identifies who controls the Source Record.
Provenance preserves the traceable path from the SREG back through references, versions, custody, publication, and institutional history.
Source-authority validation should confirm:
Atlas is authoritative for Atlas jurisdiction resources, canonical jurisdiction records, evidence layers, and Atlas machine-readable packages.
Certifier is authoritative for Certification Packages, SCPR, SCR, SCRD, Certification Outcome, and Certification Status.
Chronicle is authoritative for Chronicle-created historical events and institutional chronology records.
Anchor is authoritative for Anchor-created integrity references, hashes, timestamps, signatures, and verification points.
Beacon is authoritative for Beacon-created signals and discovery metadata.
Attestor is authoritative for attestations, trust statements, validation records, and Attestor-controlled status.
Navigator is authoritative for Navigator-created workflow definitions and coordination records.
Registry is authoritative for SREGs and Registry-owned metadata, not for the substantive source objects created by other institutions.
Registry must be able to explain who controls the source, what record is authoritative, where that record can be found, and what evidence supports the determination.