The Admissibility Wiki is the StegVerse vocabulary, terminology convergence, AI-governed proposal-review, and proof-path explanation layer for transition governance.
This page exists so public visitors can understand what the Admissibility Wiki is, why it exists, and how the wiki's own proposal system is described using transition-table language.
It does not accept proposals, issue receipts, approve terminology, or activate proof authority. It points to the governed wiki surface and explains the current role split.
Public navigation and bridge surface for status pages, proof mirrors, source-geometry provenance links, and explanatory entry points. Site must not become the authority for wiki decisions or receipts.
public bridgeVocabulary, terminology convergence, glossary pages, source-geometry provenance, proposal lifecycle, decision records, ontology, and public proof-path explanations.
governed vocabulary layerExecutable proof/test authority that produces formalism results and receipts where executable proof is required.
proof authorityThe Admissibility Wiki now records the original hand-drawn source artifact as SG-001, a pre-BCAT/GCAT recoverability geometry created by Rigel Randolph.
The currently earliest preserved copies are photographs dated 2026-03-05. Earlier uploads, drafts, scans, or preservation copies may have existed, but they have not yet been located.
This record preserves provenance posture only. It does not prove derivation, priority, correctness, implementation authority, or admissibility.
The AI-governed proposal system is the wiki process by which user-submitted, maintainer-submitted, browser-originated, LLM-assisted, and AI-entity-suggested changes enter structured review.
A proposal may request a new term, revised definition, equivalence claim, overlap claim, adjacent-term mapping, implementation mapping, external reference, counterexample, dispute, or proof-path example.
Submission creates a proposal record and a submission receipt. It does not create acceptance authority. Acceptance, rejection, deferral, escalation, refusal, or supersession requires a decision record.
User proposal receipts should include timing for the submission process itself: when the proposal was received, when the receipt was issued, which submission-stage tasks ran, and when each task started and completed.
Timing supports reconstructability. Timing does not prove the submitted claim, accept the proposal, or replace the decision record.
| Element | Current wiki meaning |
|---|---|
Transition | A proposed change to wiki content, ontology, governance policy, proof-path examples, status mirrors, source-geometry provenance, or terminology mappings. |
Actor / proposer | Maintainer, contributor, external user, browser-originated flow, LLM-assisted draft, or AI Entity suggestion. |
Authority class | The declared standing of the actor or process, such as wiki maintainer, vocabulary editor, contributor suggestion, or AI Entity review. |
Policy reference | The rule basis for the wiki decision, including page-review policy and related governance pages. |
Evidence posture | The state of supporting information: none, partial, present, sufficient, conflicting, stale, or insufficient. |
Review posture | The state of review: submitted, receipt issued, triaged, under review, needs evidence, entity reviewed, maintainer reviewed, or quorum reviewed. |
Drift | A relevant change in page state, ontology state, evidence, proposal content, external terminology, or review context. |
Decision result | ALLOW, DENY, ESCALATE, REFUSE, DEFER, SUPERSEDE, or another declared wiki-governance result. |
Receipt | A durable record of the proposal, timing, review, decision, replay, and reconstruction links. |
Commit-time validity | Whether the page or governance change had standing when accepted into the wiki. |
| Block | Purpose | Authority boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Submission block | Captures proposal ID, proposer class, target page, claim class, evidence posture, and receipt link. | Produces a receipt, not acceptance. |
| Intake timing block | Records received time, task timing, receipt issue time, and timing posture. | Supports reconstruction only. |
| Relationship classification block | Classifies terminology claims as equivalent, overlapping, adjacent, broader, narrower, contradictory, or unresolved. | Classification is review input, not final disposition. |
| Review block | Applies declared wiki policy and authority class. | Produces or informs a decision record. |
| Decision block | Records ALLOW, DENY, ESCALATE, REFUSE, DEFER, or SUPERSEDE with authority, policy, evidence, and review posture. | Only the decision record gives the proposal standing. |
| Publication block | Publishes accepted changes to pages, ontology, governance records, or status mirrors. | Publication must not erase rejected, deferred, or disputed records. |
| Replay and reconstruction block | Provides evidence and replay pointers for mature decisions. | Makes the decision path visible; does not replace proof authority. |
| Outcome | Meaning | Wiki status |
|---|---|---|
ALLOW | The transition has standing to bind under declared commit-time conditions. | installed |
DENY | The transition does not have standing to bind consequence under declared commit-time conditions. | installed |
ESCALATE | The evaluator cannot allow or deny without higher, different, or additional review. | installed |
REFUSE | The evaluator declines the request as framed because it is outside declared scope or lacks valid transition basis. | installed |
DRIFT DENIAL | A prior review no longer supplies standing because relevant state changed before commit time. | installed |
Commit-Time Admissibility is the governing formalism. It asks whether execution still has standing at the moment of commitment.
Open CTA repositoryThe Irreversibility-Inference Convergence Theorem is a theorem candidate that may explain why admissibility systems converge toward CTA-shaped structures.
Open IICT repositoryThe Irreversibility-Inference Convergence Theorem, or IICT, is a proposed theorem candidate under commit-time admissibility. It does not replace commit-time admissibility. Commit-time admissibility asks whether execution still has standing at the moment of commitment. IICT proposes a convergence behavior that may emerge when admissibility systems are repeatedly optimized and tested.
The core question is: how close should the final valid inference be to the first irreversible action?
Theorem candidate: a governance system subjected to repeated admissibility optimization will converge toward structures that minimize the distance between irreversible commitment and the final admissible inference while preserving reconstructability.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
Inference Window | The interval in which authority, policy, evidence, context, delegation, and memory are still valid enough to support a standing determination. |
Point of Irreversibility | The moment after which a proposed action cannot be fully undone without residual consequence. |
Distance | The temporal, procedural, evidentiary, and authority gap between final admissible inference and irreversible commitment. |
Convergence | The tendency of mature governance structures to compress that distance while preserving reconstruction evidence. |
Explain and link to the Admissibility Wiki, summarize public surfaces, and point to source records.
Accept proposals, issue receipts, validate claims, or override wiki decision records.
Host vocabulary, proposal lifecycle pages, public proof-path examples, source-geometry provenance, and governance records.