The repository does not contain an implementation or a governance system. It defines: - a minimal invariant core (S0): subjects, shared input φ, reactions, state space X, and a single deterministic transition function F : (x, φ, R) → x' - a threat model (T1–T4) for structural failures: subject loss/suppression, input/reaction divergence, incorrect transitions, and architectural monopolization - stability levels S1–S7 (Sn) that sit on top of S0 to detect, verify, and repair violations without changing the core protocol - a meta-architecture X = {τ, ρ, δ} that decides when to activate/deactivate stability layers based on observed threats and history - governance and contribution rules that try to keep the specification invariant and non-political
Repo: https://github.com/jengbeng/s0-protocol
What I’m looking for: - structural critique of the core model (subjects, F, threats, stability layering) - feedback on the way the spec is organized in the repo (foundation / threats / stability / dynamics / governance / spec) - pointers to prior work this might overlap with (distributed systems, protocols, coordination, fault tolerance, etc.) - arguments for where this approach obviously breaks in real systems
There is no code and no implementation details here on purpose; the goal is to keep the protocol as minimal and invariant as possible, and only then decide whether it is useful enough to be implemented.