SRF·Semantic Resonance Field v2.0

Culture Full kernel

Depends on: AD‑25 [CP], AD‑08 [SO], AD‑03 [CS], AD‑19 [CI], AD‑21 [RM] · All cards

Cultural Provenance Ledger (CPL), gate localisation rules (local sources + strictest jurisdiction), cultural challenge suites (proverb, honourifics, indirect refusal, register shift), and dissent visibility.

AD‑26 [CA] — Cultural Anchors & Tests

Aliases: none Naming lineage: draft‑era tags [CAX] and (V4) [CL] retired; [CA] is canonical. Cluster: Culture Depends on: AD‑25 [CP], AD‑08 [SO], AD‑03 [CS], AD‑19 [CI], AD‑21 [RM]

(aka Cultural Audit / Cultural Provenance Ledger & Challenge Suites) From the Cognitive Anthropology & Cultural Semiotics block: AD‑26 [CA] Cultural Audit (new) Cultural Provenance Ledger: logs locale/script/register, pack version, norm quorum IDs, dissent weights, unassimilated motif count. Gate localisation: G4/G5 vetoes must cite local sources; JURIS_CONFLICT_RESOLVED uses strictest effective jurisdiction. Later status list renames it as: AD‑26 [CA] Cultural Anchors & Tests (v0.2) The adopted identity is “Cultural Anchors & Tests”, with the Cultural Provenance Ledger as the card’s main audit artefact.

0. For humans

What question does this answer?

“If someone asks ‘whose norms were you using when you made this call, and how did you test that?’, where do I point them?”

How do I know it’s live?

Check:

  • FHR fields:
  • locale_id, script_id, register_id, code_switch_events, culture_pack_id, culture_pack_version.
  • unassimilated_motif_count, dissent_weights[], norm_quorum_source_ids, effective_jurisdiction, juris_conflict_resolved.
  • Audit artefacts:
  • Exports labelled as Cultural Provenance Ledger with those fields present; hash‑anchored via EVID_CHAIN.
  • Behaviour:
  • Gate veto reasons in contentious decisions cite local norm sources and, when relevant, strictest‑jurisdiction rationale.
  • Cultural challenge dashboards show pass/fail on proverb, honourifics, indirect refusal and register‑shift suites per locale.

Where do I see it?

  • Admin / audit UI
  • Cultural audit panel listing CPL entries (per pack/locale), unassimilated motif counts, dissent statistics.
  • Drill‑down for any gate veto to see local sources + jurisdiction resolution.
  • Benchmarks / CI view
  • Cultural challenge results: per‑locale PR/ROC or pass/fail counts on the cultural anchor families.
  • Compliance bundle
  • Cultural Provenance Ledger export (JSON/Parquet) + EVID_CHAIN anchors, alongside other FHR artefacts and policy docs.

Quick checklist

  • Implemented if: (1) Cultural Provenance Ledger exists and logs required fields; (2) cultural audit hooks present in FHR; (3) gate localisation obeys local‑source + strictest‑jurisdiction rule; (4) cultural challenge suites exist and wired to anchors; (5) dissent visible (not washed out); (6) audit outputs hash‑chained via EVID_CHAIN
  • Key artefacts: CPL export (cpl_export_v1.jsonl), cultural challenge suite, anchor families
  • Key FHR fields: culture_audit_id, unassimilated_motif_count, dissent_weights[], norm_quorum_source_ids, effective_jurisdiction, juris_conflict_resolved
  • Key failure codes: JURIS_CONFLICT_RESOLVED
  • Escalation path: gate veto → local source citation → CPL record → EVID_CHAIN anchor (AD‑21 [RM])

1. Role & questions AD‑26 answers

AD‑25 defined what a Culture Pack is and how culture enters the runtime (registers, refusal forms, framings, etc.).

AD‑26 is the audit side of that:

  1. “Where can I see, concretely, which cultural norms were in play?” → Cultural Provenance Ledger entries per session/interval, logging locale/script/register, pack version, norm quorum IDs, dissent weights, unassimilated motif count.
  2. “How do I test that the system actually behaves correctly across cultures?” → Cultural anchor & challenge suites (proverbs, honourifics, indirect refusal, register shift) and their ties into AD‑03 [CS]’s challenge families and AD‑17 [AM]’s acceptance matrix.
  3. “How do gates use local norms without pretending those norms are universal?” → Gate localisation rules: G4/G5 vetoes must cite local sources; when jurisdictions conflict, use the strictest effective jurisdiction and record how that was decided.
  4. “How are minority frames and unassimilated motifs treated?” → Dissent weights and unassimilated motif counts linked into Group SRF dissent machinery: speaker‑linked dissent and preserved dissent anchors (AD‑02 [GS]); slice‑aware dvi_by_slice (AD‑22 [EC] / AD‑08 [SO]).

So: AD‑25 says “what’s in a pack”; AD‑26 says “how we log it, test it, and prove we actually used it.”

2. Scope & invariants

2.1 Scope

AD‑26 covers:

  • The Cultural Provenance Ledger (CPL) as an audit artefact.
  • FHR‑level “Cultural Audit Hooks” (locale/script/register, code‑switching, unassimilated motif count).
  • Dissent weights and how they are recorded for group‑level cultural analysis.
  • Gate localisation semantics: local norm sources + strictest‑jurisdiction rule.
  • The cultural challenge suites and anchors that live in AD‑03 [CS] but are conceptually owned here (proverbs, honourifics, indirect refusal, register shift).

2.2 Hard invariants

You only get to claim AD‑26 [CA] if:

  1. Cultural Provenance Ledger exists and logs the required fields. Each CPL entry logs at least: - locale_id, script_id, register_id, - culture_pack_id + culture_pack_version, - norm_quorum_source_ids[], - dissent_weights[], - unassimilated_motif_count.
  2. Cultural Audit Hooks are present in FHR. FHR v2.0 (AD‑08) includes: - locale, script, register, code‑switching, - unassimilated motif counter.
  3. Gate localisation obeys the local‑source + strictest‑jurisdiction rule. - Every G4/G5 veto citing normative grounds references one or more local norm sources (from the active Culture Pack or Local Norm Bundle). - When jurisdictions conflict, JURIS_CONFLICT_RESOLVED uses the strictest effective jurisdiction and records the rationale.
  4. Cultural challenge suites exist and are wired to anchors. Per AD‑25 inv‑5, the challenge families: - Proverb/Maxim, - Honorifics & Face‑work, - Indirect Refusal, - Register Shift suites, are added to anchors and external challenge families (AD‑03 [CS]); AD‑26 owns the cultural framing of those tests (§4).
  5. Dissent is visible, not washed out. AD‑02 [GS] preserves dissent as speaker‑linked objects and defines session‑level DVI. AD‑22 [EC] defines opt‑in slice‑aware DVI; AD‑08 [SO] registers dvi_by_slice and dissent_weights[]; AD‑26 owns their cultural‑audit dimensions. AD‑26 must ensure: - CPL entries carry versioned dissent_weights[] consistent with the AD‑08 [SO] registry and the cultural dimensions defined here, and - preserved dissent anchors remain traceable at least at the level of “present/not present in summary.”
  6. Audit outputs are hash‑chained via EVID_CHAIN. CPL exports (e.g. per‑release or per‑month cultural audit bundles) are treated as audit artefacts and anchored into the EVID_CHAIN layer (AD‑21).

Degrees of freedom:

  • Exact shape of dissent_weights[] (by slice, by cluster, etc.), as long as it is consistent with the AD‑08 [SO] registry and the cultural dimensions defined here.
  • How fine‑grained “unassimilated motifs” are (per motif vs aggregate counter).
  • How often CPL is exported (per session, per batch, per release), provided it’s frequent enough to make audits meaningful.

3. Cultural Provenance Ledger (CPL)

3.1 Concept

Think of CPL as a shadow ledger for culture, analogous to EVID_CHAIN + DUTY_LEDGER for governance:

  • It tells you which norms were in play,
  • which packs they came from and
  • how minority frames and motifs behaved.

3.2 Record structure

Per CPL record (e.g. per session or per coherent interaction segment):

  • Context & culture
  • culture_audit_id
  • session_id or segment_id
  • locale_id, script_id, register_id
  • culture_pack_id, culture_pack_version
  • Norm quorum
  • norm_quorum_source_ids[] — IDs of the norm sources consulted (G4/G5 docs, community bundles, etc.).
  • norm_quorum_confidence (semantics borrowed from AD‑25; recorded here as well for audit tables).
  • Dissent & motifs
  • dissent_weights[] — how much weight dissenting/alternative frames carried in summaries / decisions (registered in AD‑08 [SO]; AD‑26 owns the cultural‑audit dimensions).
  • unassimilated_motif_count — count of motifs that persisted as “unassimilated” (e.g. recurring themes not integrated into the system’s summary line).
  • Jurisdiction & gate localisation
  • effective_jurisdiction
  • juris_conflict_resolved (bool)
  • juris_conflict_rationale (short code/string)
  • gate_localisation_notes (optional narrative pointer referencing specific PEL sources used).

3.3 Anchoring & export

  • CPL records are:
  • Stored alongside FHR, but can be exported as separate tables (per release, per tenant, per pack).
  • Hash‑chained and anchored via EVID_CHAIN (AD‑21) to make provenance tamper‑evident.
  • Export formats (example, not prescriptive):
  • cpl_export_v1.jsonl (raw)
  • cpl_summary_v1.parquet (aggregated stats per pack/locale)

These exports are part of the “cultural audit bundle” for regulators or independent verifiers.

4. Cultural anchors & tests

AD‑26 co‑owns these anchor families; AD‑03 [CS] co‑owns their evaluation.

Anchor families:

  1. Proverb / Maxim anchors - Pairs of proverb + neutral paraphrase in multiple locales. - Test: system must preserve core normative thrust; deviations count as ODS‑δ hits.
  2. Honorifics & Face‑work anchors - Scenarios involving deference, titles, honourifics and face‑saving behaviour. - Test: indirect refusals and politeness registers recognised; not mis‑classified as high persuasion.
  3. Indirect Refusal anchors - High‑context “no” patterns; tests whether the system reads these as refusal rather than “unclear” or “agreeing”.
  4. Register Shift anchors - Same content across Direct/Academic/Formal/High‑context registers; tests CRR_adj stability per register band.

AD‑26 responsibilities:

  • Ensure these anchor families are present in the challenge inventory and flagged with cultural metadata (locale, register, pack).
  • Ensure each anchor family is tagged in FHR so that CPL and CI can be correlated.

5. Gate localisation

AD‑26 adds two rules on top of AD‑06/AD‑21:

  1. Local sources requirement Any G4/G5 veto whose rationale is normative must: - Reference at least one norm_quorum_source_id from the active Culture Pack or Local Norm Bundle. - Propagate that ID into FHR / CPL via norm_quorum_source_ids[].
  2. Strictest jurisdiction rule When multiple jurisdictions apply: - The resolver picks the strictest effective jurisdiction for that decision. - FHR / CPL record:
    • effective_jurisdiction,
    • juris_conflict_resolved = true,
    • juris_conflict_rationale (e.g. strictest_wins_cross_border).

6. FHR & telemetry (AD‑26 slice)

AD‑26 leans on the cultural hooks added in AD‑25 and adds interpretation:

FHR Fields

  • locale_id, script_id, register_id, code_switch_events
  • culture_pack_id, culture_pack_version (the canonical FHR name; mapped from the active AD‑25 pack release).
  • unassimilated_motif_count
  • norm_quorum_source_ids / norm_quorum_confidence
  • dissent_weights[] (session‑level DVI from AD‑02 [GS]; registered in AD‑08 [SO]).
  • effective_jurisdiction, juris_conflict_resolved, juris_conflict_rationale
  • culture_audit_id linking rows to CPL exports. Local/legacy cpl_id values are ingestion aliases only and must be normalised to culture_audit_id before FHR validation.

These fields sit within the >200‑field Field Health Report schema.

  • AD‑25 [CP] — Culture Packs / Localisation & Provenance
  • Defines Culture Packs; AD‑26 logs which pack/version was active and which norms were actually used.
  • AD‑02 [GS] — Group SRF
  • Uses dissent_weights[], dvi_by_slice and preserved dissent anchors; AD‑26 ensures these are recorded in CPL and FHR.
  • AD‑03 [CS] — External Challenge Suite
  • Owns evaluation of the cultural challenge suites (the Cultural/SPD challenge pack); AD‑26 defines which anchor families must exist and how they’re labelled. The suites are executed in CI through AD‑19 [CI]’s runners.
  • AD‑21 [RM]
  • CPL exports are audit artefacts anchored via EVID_CHAIN; cultural audits are thus tamper‑evident.
  • AD‑08 [SO]
  • Hosts the FHR schema where all cultural audit hooks live.
  • AD‑06 / AD‑20
  • PEL and data‑protection policies refer to culture packs and CPL as part of “cultural provenance” and “contestable norm” handling.

8. Acceptance: when can you say "AD‑26 is implemented"?

You can claim AD‑26 [CA] is live if:

  1. The Cultural Provenance Ledger exists and each entry logs at least locale_id, script_id, register_id, culture_pack_id + culture_pack_version, norm_quorum_source_ids[], dissent_weights[] and unassimilated_motif_count.
  2. Cultural Audit Hooks are present in FHR v2.0: locale, script, register, code‑switching, and the unassimilated motif counter.
  3. Gate localisation obeys the local‑source + strictest‑jurisdiction rule: G4/G5 vetoes on normative grounds cite local norm sources, and JURIS_CONFLICT_RESOLVED records the rationale.
  4. The cultural challenge suites (Proverb/Maxim, Honorifics & Face‑work, Indirect Refusal, Register Shift) exist per AD‑25 inv‑5, wired to anchors and the external challenge families (AD‑03 [CS]).
  5. Dissent is visible, not washed out: CPL entries carry dissent_weights[] consistent with AD‑02 [GS], and preserved dissent anchors are trackable.
  6. CPL exports are hash‑chained via EVID_CHAIN (AD‑21 [RM]) as audit artefacts.

Related cards:

  • AD‑32 [PG] (cultural challenge suites and CPL support AD‑32's accountability requirements).