Defines neutral constraints under which explainability is possible without embedding interpretation.

Some information systems make decisions that affect people, attribute claims to sources, record contested facts, or coordinate across institutions that disagree. When those systems collapse what should be distinct layers (what is structurally recorded, what is governed, what is interpreted, what is attested) into a single record, they lose the ability to represent the disagreement they exist to handle.

That collapse is often invisible until the system is challenged: in court, in audit, in appeal, in public review, or in cross-institutional reconciliation. By then, the records may already have committed to interpretations, authority claims, or judgments that the system never explicitly declared.

Structural Explainability defines the structural conditions under which this collapse can be prevented. It identifies what must be kept separate for an information system to remain durable, inspectable, and contestable under persistent disagreement:

• identity from graph continuity
• attribution from authority
• governance status from correctness
• evidence from interpretation
• dependency from validity
• explanation from proof
• record from judgment

SE does not replace domain vocabularies, standards, ontologies, or existing data systems. It constrains how systems implement them so that disagreement remains visible, attributable, and useful over time.

Structural Explainability defines constraints that information systems must satisfy to handle persistent disagreement without collapsing identity, structure, governance, interpretation, evidence, or explanation. The core SE repositories define those constraints. Accountable Record systems are user-facing applications that implement them.

The Accountable Record system repositories are in active development. They track main on their SE dependencies during this phase to allow the contract, implementations, and verification profiles to co-evolve. Pinned versions follow once the contract stabilizes.

The core SE repositories define substrate-level constraints. Accountable Record systems are user-facing applications of those constraints: they produce durable, inspectable records of decisions, relationships, claims, dependencies, sources, interpretations, or processes in ways that support inspection, contestation, audit, and continued use under disagreement.

These repositories are application-layer systems. They are real systems, not demonstrations, built to use ordinary domain vocabularies while satisfying SE verification.

Real systems that implement the Accountable Record contract using ordinary domain vocabularies.

SE verification implementations that check whether each domain system satisfies the Accountable Record contract.

SE Verification checks whether an Accountable Record system keeps certain distinctions intact: between identity and graph continuity, between attribution and authority, between evidence and interpretation, between record and judgment. Systems that collapse these distinctions make it harder to represent disagreement accurately.

Structural Explainability does not replace domain ontologies or standards. Domain systems may use Akoma Ntoso, LegalRuleML, FAIR principles, CIDOC-CRM, schema.org vocabularies, or any other appropriate standard. SE Verification checks whether a system's operational use of its chosen standard preserves the distinctions needed for accountable representation under persistent disagreement.

All SE repositories include an SE Manifest describing the repo contents.

These repositories contain evolving Lean 4 theorem development that derives and justifies the formal contract. They are not consumed directly by operational systems.

The transformation repository is the upstream vocabulary layer for describing kinds of change independently of persistence or regime-specific survival claims. The persistence repository defines identity persistence under admissible transformation.

Note: Each theory repo contains both 1) a TOML encoding and 2) a Lean proof encoding of its core classification structures. Before the theory layer can be considered complete, every cell in every matrix must agree across both encodings, and the theoretical justification for each cell value must be traceable to the SE papers.

The resolution process is: identify a discrepancy between TOML and Lean counts, isolate the cell, formulate the question the discrepancy represents, resolve it by appeal to relevant SE definitions, update the wrong encoding, and confirm counts align. See Issue 1 for a worked example. A single disputed cell (REC x PV) where TOML and Lean assigned different verdicts, the question that must be resolved to fix it, and why resolution is part of the theory layer.

These repositories define the neutral structural substrate of Structural Explainability. They define admissibility constraints under which identity regimes may be applied, without encoding identity or persistence behavior themselves. They establish the minimal, stable constraints under which identity, structure, change, and explanation can coexist without embedding interpretation.

The formal contract layer provides machine-checked authorization of these constraints. Operational foundation repositories consume this contract and enforce it. They are authoritative and define what must be true for admissibility. They do not contain domain semantics, applications, or analytics.

These repositories implement the executable identity and persistence regimes over the neutral structural substrate. They encode regime profiles, transformation families, and identity responses (PRS / BRK / INH) as testable artifacts where:

• PRS = Preserves identity. The transformation does not change identity under the regime.
• BRK = Breaks identity. The transformation produces a distinct identity under the regime.
• INH = Inherits identity. The transformation does not act on the identity criteria tracked by the regime; identity is inherited from the prior state without regime-level evaluation.

These executables provide a stress-testing layer used to validate regime behavior and to evaluate mappings under controlled transformations without introducing causal or normative interpretation at the substrate level. They do not introduce domain semantics and do not alter admissibility constraints defined in the foundational repositories.

These repositories apply Structural Explainability mapping rules to bounded domain examples.

They are maintained in this organization only as conformance examples. They are not part of the neutral core and do not extend or modify the substrate. They demonstrate how mappings may be constructed across independent systems while preserving neutrality and keeping interpretation external.

Applied source registries, dashboards, analytics, and public participation systems belong in downstream organizations.

These repositories contain traceable source materials from governmental or official public bodies.

They preserve source artifacts in a stable, inspectable form so that mappings, profiles, and rules can reference them without copying, altering, or embedding interpretation.

They do not define structure, identity, or behavior. They do not introduce semantics beyond what is present in the source.

flowchart TD

  %% --- Theory Layer ---
  subgraph Theory
      NS[se-theory-neutral-substrate]
      TR[se-theory-transformation]
      PE[se-theory-persistence]
      IR[se-theory-identity-regimes]
      SE[se-theory-structural-explainability]
  end

  %% --- Boundary Specs ---
  subgraph Boundaries
      GB[spec-gb<br/>Governance Boundary]
      IB[spec-ib<br/>Interpretation Boundary]
  end

  %% --- Contract / Governance ---
  FC[se-formal-contract]
  C[se-constitution]
  A[se-admin]

  %% --- Downstream Core ---
  subgraph Downstream_Core
      K[se-kernel]
      M[se-mapspec]
      R[se-regimes]
      MAP[se-mapping-*]
      GOV[se-govsrc-*]
  end

  %% --- Applications ---
  subgraph Applications
      AE[Accountable Entities]
      EP[Evolution Protocol]
      CEE[Contextual Evidence & Explanations]
  end

  NS -->|grounds contract terms| FC
  TR -->|grounds contract terms| FC
  PE -->|grounds contract terms| FC
  IR -->|grounds contract terms| FC
  SE -->|grounds contract terms| FC

  GB -->|constrains governance of| C
  IB -->|constrains interpretation of| C

  FC -->|specifies verified structural contract| C
  C -->|encodes governance and interpretation boundaries| A

  A -->|validates conformance of| K
  A -->|validates conformance of| M
  A -->|validates conformance of| R
  A -->|validates conformance of| MAP
  A -->|validates conformance of| GOV

  K -->|supports structural primitives for| AE
  M -->|supports mappings for| AE
  R -->|supports regime behavior for| AE

  AE -->|provides accountable entity graph for| EP
  EP -->|supports exchangeable explanation records for| CEE
  CEE -->|renders explanations from| EP

  IB -->|prevents interpretive leakage from| AE
  IB -->|prevents interpretive leakage from| EP
  IB -->|prevents interpretive leakage from| CEE
  GB -->|governs structural artifact use in| AE
  GB -->|governs structural artifact use in| EP
  GB -->|governs structural artifact use in| CEE

All repositories in this diagram declare an SE_MANIFEST.toml conforming to se-manifest-schema, which has no upstream SE dependencies.

This organization is structured around roles:

These repositories define the admissible representational space for structurally explainable systems. They are normative only in the sense of defining structural constraints, not interpretations.

Defines neutrality and boundary constraints that apply to all downstream systems.

These repositories define the core representational substrate for structurally explainable systems.

The Contextual Evidence and Explanation (CEE) layer defines a structural interface to the neutral substrate. It does not alter identity, structure, or recorded change.

These repositories define additional structural boundaries that operate relative to the neutral substrate. They do not alter identity, structure, or recorded change. They serve as guardrails that prevent interpretation from leaking into the neutral substrate.

These repositories do not define meaning or behavior. They demonstrate that the specifications are internally consistent, coherent, and composable under formal reasoning.

⚠️ The repositories below are archived. Active development has moved to the se-theory-* series.

Repository	Purpose	CI	Description
StructuralExplainability	Cross-cutting constraints		Neutrality and conformance predicates
NeutralSubstrate	Neutrality theorem		Substrates stable under incompatible extensions must be pre-causal and pre-normative
IdentityRegimes	Identity regimes		Six identity-and-persistence regime (families) are necessary and sufficient for accountability-oriented substrates under neutrality assumptions

These repositories formalize the neutral substrate defined by AE and EP.

Repository	Purpose	CI	Description
AccountableEntities	Entity-regime instantiation		Formalization of AE identity regimes
EvolutionProtocol	Neutral exchange substrate		Formalization of EP graph evolution

This repository formalizes the structural interface layer over the neutral substrate.

Repository	Purpose	CI	Description
CEE	Explanation overlay		Structural forms for contextual explanation and evidence

These repositories formalize additional structural boundaries that operate relative to the neutral substrate. They keep interpretation from leaking into the neutral substrate.

Repository	Purpose	CI	Description
GovernanceBoundary	Governance boundary		Governance
InterpretationBoundary	Interpretation boundary		Conditions under which external frameworks may interpret substrate records

Structural Explainability consists of a small formal core (SE-100: Neutrality; SE-200: Identity Regimes) and a parallel stewardship track (SE-ST-Gx) addressing governance over time. The stewardship track examines how neutral systems are defined, audited, stressed, and repaired in real institutional contexts.

The two formal papers provide theoretical justification for foundational specifications. They are explanatory rather than normative (they describe what must be true for such systems to work, not what people should believe or do).

Stewardship papers build on the formal core but do not modify or extend it.

• Neutrality: If you want to build an information system for domains where people legitimately disagree (like law or politics), the core of the system must be neutral; if you bake in causes, values, or conclusions, the system cannot represent disagreement accurately.

• Identity Regimes: To represent identity and persistence under structural change, information must distinguish between regime-relative ways that entities persist, break, or become irrelevant under transformation. The current framework organizes this through six regime families refined into nine profile kinds.

Across all repositories:

• Identity and persistence are profile-relative.
• Structure and change are recorded without interpretation.
• Transformation does not by itself determine persistence.
• Graph continuity does not by itself imply identity continuity.
• Interpretation remains external, attributable, and contestable.
• Governance records do not imply authority, legitimacy, obligation, or enforcement.
• Disagreement is representable and not forced to resolve.
• No domain semantics are embedded in the core.
• Verification is optional; systems may be useful in their domain without being SE-verified, and may seek verification as a quality property.

The following are intentionally excluded from this core organization:

• domain vocabularies (except clearly labeled examples and Accountable Record systems)
• application schemas or data models (except in Accountable Record systems)
• analytics, inference, optimization, recommendation, or decision systems
• governance authority, legitimacy, obligation, or enforcement frameworks
• interpretation, explanation, evidence, or attestation as substrate facts
• visualization or presentation layers

Domain projects may claim conformance with these specifications, but are outside this core.

• To understand the justification, start with the papers.
• To understand the architecture, start with the specifications.
• To verify formal coherence, consult the Lean formalizations.
• To consume stable definitions, use the formal contract artifacts.
• To validate repositories, use the manifest and conformance tooling.

Structural Explainability defines a neutral structural substrate for recording identity, structure, transformation, and change without embedding interpretation, authority, causality, or judgment.

At its core, Structural Explainability is concerned with identity and persistence. Stable, inspectable identity is a precondition for explanation, provenance, mapping, and disagreement over time. Identity and persistence are profile-relative: the same structural change may preserve identity under one profile, break identity under another, and be irrelevant under another.

Structural Explainability does not claim to remove interpretation. It separates structural commitments from interpretive, causal, epistemic, normative, and governance commitments so that disagreement can remain explicit, attributable, and contestable.

Within the core substrate, structure, transformation, persistence, and profile behavior may be recorded. Interpretation, explanation, evidence, authority, legitimacy, obligation, and enforcement remain outside the substrate unless attached through explicitly constrained downstream mechanisms.

• Neutral substrate defines admissible structural description without interpretive commitment.
• Transformation theory defines structural change pressures.
• Persistence theory defines profile-relative preservation, breakage, and irrelevance under transformation.
• Identity regimes define six regime families refined into nine profile kinds.
• Structural Explainability integrates these layers into an explainable structural account without collapsing disagreement.

Two boundary specifications protect this separation:

• Governance Boundary (GB) prevents governance records from becoming claims of authority, legitimacy, obligation, or enforcement.
• Interpretation Boundary (IB) prevents interpretive attachments from becoming substrate semantics.

Downstream specifications then use the core without redefining it:

• Accountable Entities (AE) defines accountability-facing entity kinds as a controlled projection of the nine SE profile kinds.
• Evolution Protocol (EP) defines accountable-entity graph states, deltas, and histories as they move through time, without deriving identity persistence from graph continuity alone.
• Contextual Evidence & Explanations (CEE) defines an interpretation overlay for context tags, explanations, evidence references, attestations, and provenance without modifying substrate records.

Interpretation does not disappear. It is made explicit, attributable, external, and contestable.

Structural Explainability is not anti-interpretation; it is anti-implicit interpretation. Interpretive artifacts may exist only in forms that do not alter identity, structure, transformation, persistence, or recorded change.

Structural Explainability is designed for plural systems: independent implementations that represent related phenomena without requiring one shared ontology, uniform naming, or centralized authority. Differences are addressed through explicit mappings and boundary-respecting attachments rather than forced normalization or consensus.

Domains such as science, model development, education, and law do not alter the substrate. They may contribute controlled vocabularies, examples, mappings, and contextual explanations, but those additions remain external to the neutral core and do not assert truth, causality, authority, legitimacy, obligation, or enforcement as substrate facts.

The result is a system that records structural commitments without deciding their ultimate meaning, enables explanation without enforcing agreement, and supports long-term coordination across disagreement, institutional change, and time.