Visual schema
Implementation chain
A framework converts doctrine into protocol, then method, then usable instrumentation.
Doctrine
What must hold inside the frame.
Framework
The intermediate operational frame.
Protocol
Sequence or discipline of application.
Measurement
Observability, score, audit, proof.
Usage
Concrete deployment in an environment.
Frameworks and applicable frameworks
Public registry of frameworks derived from the interpretive governance doctrine developed by Gautier Dorval.
This page serves as an internal linking hub to connect operational frameworks (/frameworks/) to canonical concepts (/definitions/) and doctrine (/doctrine/). Each framework is an application surface: it makes mechanisms usable, auditable, and enforceable.
For the lexical registry, see Definitions and canonical concepts. For the doctrinal table, see Doctrine. For field analyses, see Interpretive phenomena.
Navigation
- Framework chains (by usage)
- Pillars (architecture)
- Foundations (canon, authority, response)
- Evidence, audit, observability
- Correction, sustainability, version
- Identity, collisions, identifiers, graphs
- RAG, agentic, closed environments
- Exogenous, multi-AI, maturity
Projection rule
The frameworks in this registry are application surfaces. When a concept is defined in /definitions/ and formalized in /doctrine/, doctrine constitutes the canonical source and the framework acts as a structured projection designed to be usable in real context.
In case of perceived discrepancy between a framework and a doctrinal page, the doctrinal page prevails.
Associated articles (phenomena)
Frameworks are fed by analyses published in Interpretive phenomena. Reference series:
- Post-semantics: when AI thinks, decides, and overrides the text
- Post-semantics: authority drift as jurisdictional default
- Post-semantics on the open web: why governing output is not enough
Authority and scope
Author:
Gautier Dorval
Scope:
Interpretive governance, agentic (open web and closed environments), semantic stabilization, response conditions, auditability, enforceability, variance reduction, entity disambiguation, interpretive debt, interpretive sustainability.
Primary language:
French (Canada). English versions may exist as equivalents, without modifying canonical meaning.
For contextual framing, see Positioning.
Canonical repo: https://github.com/GautierDorval/interpretive-seo
In this section
Canonical framework: respond, refuse, stay silent, redirect, escalate. Enforceable conditions based on perimeters, source hierarchy, inference prohibitions, and auditability.
Operational framework for understanding, measuring, and remediating interpretive debt: accumulation mechanisms, thresholds, symptoms, correction playbooks, evidence, versioning, and LTS monitoring.
Canonical framework of interpretive drifts in agentic systems: silent extrapolation, moral hallucination, unjustified refusal, paternalistic redirection, false audit. Audit and interpretive governance grid.
Canonical framework for governing agentic AI: perimeters, source hierarchy, inference prohibitions, mandatory silences, and auditability. Applicable to the open web and closed business environments.
Agentic risk matrix: agent type, possible action, interpretive risk, typical drift, and required governance mechanism. Discussion tool for open web and closed environments.
A citation does not guarantee the fidelity of an AI response. Doctrinal framework: distinguishing factual, inference, and false, and understanding the risks of narrative distortion.
Endogenous governance process for structuring and versioning an entity's on-site canon: identity, interpretability perimeter, authority boundary, and response conditions.
Advanced approach to entity collision management in an interpreted web: homonymy, semantic fusion, graph contamination, identity conflicts, and multi-surface stabilization.
Exogenous governance process for stabilizing an entity's external graph: reducing neighborhood contamination, neutralizing capture, correcting dominant sources, and improving AI response fidelity.
Machine-first framework for stabilizing an entity's identity via persistent identifiers, multigraph mappings, and enforceable disambiguation in the interpreted web, RAG, and agentic systems.
Framework for handling conflicting authorities without collapsing them into a false consensus or an arbitrary narrative shortcut.
Framework for resisting interpretive capture when repeated, proximate, or dominant signals saturate a system and begin to replace the canon.
Framework for distinguishing canon from inference and for producing proof of fidelity that keeps high-impact outputs inside declared canonical bounds.
CTIC defines the minimum coherence required across interpretive, governance, and execution layers when a state change or transactional effect is involved.
Framework for handling volatile states, changing variables, and time-bounded truths without turning temporary data into stable doctrine.
Framework for handling entity collisions and preventing one entity from absorbing the properties, evidence, or authority of another.
Framework for governing closed environments where AI systems do not only answer but trigger or influence execution inside bounded business systems.
Public bounded method for running IIP-Scoring™ without disclosing private thresholds or internal calibration logic.
Framework for understanding why AI recommendations drift across contexts and how interpretive governance can bound recommendation instability.
End-to-end public protocol for an interpretation integrity audit: perimeter, snapshot, evidence chain, runs, findings, validity conditions, and reporting discipline.
Framework for correcting interpretive drift over time by identifying debt, prioritizing remediation, and preventing recurrence after publication.
Analytical framework for identifying, classifying, and monitoring interpretive debt as the accumulation of unresolved distortions in an interpreted web.
Maturity model for interpretive governance: levels, evidentiary expectations, and minimum requirements for moving from ad hoc publication to governed interpretability.
Framework for building an observability layer around interpretive stability, using metrics, logs, and evidence without confusing observation with attestation.
Analytical framework for evaluating whether an interpretive governance regime can remain stable, maintainable, and governable over time.
Framework for allocating correction budget and establishing long-term support discipline for interpretive governance surfaces.
Protocol defining when an AI system should abstain, request clarification, or explicitly refuse to conclude because the canon does not authorize the answer.
Framework for reducing interpretive variance across several AI systems by stabilizing the canonical surface rather than optimizing isolated prompts.
Full framework for governing the conditions under which a response may be produced, qualified, narrowed, or refused.
Framework for governing retrieval-augmented systems so that retrieval does not silently substitute for canon and inference does not exceed the authorized perimeter.
Framework explaining why RAG governance is not equivalent to interpretive governance and why the latter remains broader than retrieval architecture.
Framework for treating interpretive correction like software maintenance: release discipline, change visibility, rollback logic, and continuity over time.
Strategic external references
These references extend the doctrine, the test suite, the manifest, and the related public corpora.
External doctrine and reference site.
Main doctrine and implementation repository.
Public manifest and orientation principles.
Simulation reference for authority governance.
Test suite for expected governance behaviors.
SSA-E + A2 doctrine and dual web corpus.
Agentic reference and closed-environment corpus.