Scope
Included and excluded products, processes, populations, jurisdictions, and dependencies.
Evaluation surface, not exchange surface
Show the evidence. Name the boundary.
An implementation may publish a scoped claim describing which requirements it meets, partly meets, or does not meet. The claim must expose evidence, exclusions, risks, assessor independence, and expiry.
Minimum claim shape
Legibility before legitimacy.
A usable declaration must make it possible to know exactly what is being claimed and what remains outside the claim.
Requirement status
Conformant, partial, nonconformant, not assessed, or not applicable for each named CO-REQ node.
Inspectable evidence
Current artifacts, controls, records, tests, and public explanations supporting each status.
Exceptions and risks
Known departures, unresolved harms, dependencies, and cases where withdrawal or repair may fail.
Assessor position
Who made the claim and whether assessment is internal, independent, conflicted, or incomplete.
Expiry and revision
A claim must expire or be revisited when context, authority, implementation, or charter version changes.
Assessment targets
Claim against named requirements.
Generic statements such as “consent-first” or “privacy-respecting” are insufficient. A claim should address the canonical requirement identifiers directly.
Capacity must be supported
Consent claims must account for the affected agent’s capacity to understand, choose, refuse, and revise.
Purpose, scope, and duration must be legible
Authorization must identify what may happen, for what purpose, within which boundary, for how long, and with which downstream effects.
Action and witness permissions must be separable
Permission to act does not automatically include permission to observe, retain, score, disclose, or repurpose the relation.
Authority must travel with action
Every consequential action must be traceable to its current scope, delegation, context, and consent lineage.
Affected flows must be accounted for
Value, burden, risk, information, attention, labor, responsibility, and externalities crossing boundaries must be legible at appropriate granularity.
Power determines governance burden
Governance, evidence, review, and repair obligations must increase with impact radius, asymmetry, irreversibility, and externality.
Constitutional comparators outrank operational metrics
Throughput, engagement, growth, profit, compliance velocity, or convenience may not silently override dignity, consent, boundary, or repair commitments.
Breach and changed context must propagate
Material changes, expired authority, invalidated capacity, boundary violations, and downstream breaches must update dependent actions and affected parties.
Return paths must be usable
Refusal, correction, appeal, revocation, renegotiation, repair, and exit must be discoverable and proportionate rather than merely theoretical.
Conformance must be scoped and evidenced
Any claim of Consentocracy conformance must identify covered requirements, evidence, exceptions, assessment authority, expiry, and unresolved risks.
Consentwashing guardrails
A citation is not a constitution in operation.
The schema is designed to make weak or incomplete claims visible, not to make every adopter look compliant.
No inherited endorsement
Use of the schema, charter, vocabulary, or logo does not imply approval by Consentocracy or Consentful Cybernetics.
No scope laundering
A narrow conformant feature may not be presented as proof that the whole organization, platform, or value chain conforms.
No permanent claim
Claims expire when evidence ages, dependencies change, authority shifts, or a new charter version materially changes the comparator.
Example only
Example digital platform
The bundled example is deliberately partial. It excludes third-party advertising systems, names historical lineage gaps, and records that withdrawal may not propagate to every model derivative.