| title | AWO v2 — Design Envelope (Minimal) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| filetype | documentation | ||||||
| type | guidance | ||||||
| version | 2.0.0 | ||||||
| doi | 10.5281/zenodo.18201829 | ||||||
| status | Active | ||||||
| created | 2026-01-07 | ||||||
| updated | 2026-01-09 | ||||||
| author |
|
||||||
| maintainer |
|
||||||
| license | Apache-2.0 | ||||||
| copyright |
|
||||||
| ai_assisted | partial | ||||||
| ai_assistance_details | AI-assisted drafting; human-reviewed structure, terminology, and acceptance. | ||||||
| dependencies |
|
||||||
| anchors |
|
Scope: Aurora Workflow Orchestration (L1 — Method Layer)
Aurora Workflow Orchestration (AWO) defines the methodological layer of the Aurora Ecosystem.
Its purpose is to structure, record, and standardize governed reasoning workflows so that work performed under higher-order epistemic and governance constraints can be:
- reconstructed,
- audited,
- validated downstream,
- and preserved over time.
AWO exists to make how work was done explicit — not to judge whether it was correct, legitimate, or approved.
AWO operates exclusively at L1 (Method / Operational Semantics).
- Governance authority is defined by ARI / NTD / NTS (L0).
- Validation and enforcement are performed by CRI-CORE (L4).
- Publication and distribution are handled by Forge / Stamp (L5).
AWO implements process under upstream authority and produces artifacts for downstream evaluation.
AWO does not and must not define legitimacy, truth, authority, or enforcement outcomes.
AWO explicitly does not:
- define epistemic legitimacy or truth
- assign or evaluate authority
- approve, reject, or attest claims
- enforce compliance or validation rules
- resolve disputes or conflicts
- score contributors or reputation
- perform audits
- execute workflows
- encode ideology or normative values
All such functions belong to other layers and may only interface with AWO through declared contracts.
AWO produces method artifacts (structural records), including:
- workflow phase definitions
- artifact classes and structural schemas
- required metadata fields (referential to NTS)
- provenance recording structures
- phase transition rules
- methodological invariants
All AWO outputs are descriptive and non-authoritative.
AWO depends on:
- ARI — for governance authority
- NTS — for metadata and disclosure requirements
AWO references these systems but does not redefine or enforce them.
AWO produces artifacts intended for:
- CRI-CORE — validation and enforcement
- Forge / Stamp — publication and freezing
AWO must remain internally coherent and meaningful even if downstream systems do not exist.
To preserve layer integrity, AWO documentation and artifacts must adhere to the following constraints:
AWO must not use terms implying authority or enforcement, including:
- govern / governs / governance (when referring to AWO)
- authorize / authorization
- legitimate / legitimacy
- enforce / enforcement
- approve / reject
- validate (as an action performed by AWO)
AWO may use terms such as:
- specifies
- structures
- records
- declares
- requires (structurally, not normatively)
- produces
- describes
AWO contracts define expected structure and method semantics, not outcomes.
- Contracts express what must be present, not what must happen
- Violations are detectable, not resolved by AWO
- Enforcement responsibility lies entirely outside the method layer
AWO enforces epistemic responsibility, not epistemic correctness.
The role of AWO is to ensure that reasoning is:
- traceable,
- reconstructible,
- and structurally legible,
so that legitimacy and correctness can be assessed by appropriate authority layers.