Overview
A consent-ledger instrument for projects. It maintains a ledger of the parties a project affects and what they actually recorded at a review date; absence of consent is recorded — the UNRECORDED state — never inferred from silence, absence, or convenience. An executable review returns one of three verdicts (ACCOUNTED, UNACCOUNTED, OUT_OF_SCOPE); an ACCOUNTED reading never authorizes an action, a release, or a use outside the scope a party named. Subtitle: Absence of consent recorded, never inferred Apache-2.0 licensed; see LICENSE in the repository.
Overview source: Curated paper metadata.
Methods and contributions
Read the source for the full argument, qualifications, and evidence.
Findings and contributions
- In the worked interview example, one UNRECORDED moderator entry causes the review to return UNACCOUNTED, with absence recorded rather than inferred.
- Empty, fully set-aside, or unscorable inputs return UNACCOUNTED with a note rather than raising an exception or a fabricated value.
- No verdict, including ACCOUNTED, grants or implies permission; it describes ledger coverage only.
- The author notes the instrument cannot verify that a recorded state was given honestly, freely, or recently, and that ACCOUNTED is coverage, not safety.
Methods
- Per-project consent ledger with four recorded states — Defines a ledger of (party, state, scope, date) records where absence of consent is represented only by an explicit UNRECORDED state.
- Staged, fail-closed intake with set-aside codes — Intake dispositions every submitted record as KEPT or one of four set-aside codes with a preserving note, never dropping or inventing states.
- Tag-matched rule registry producing three verdicts — Versioned consent rules are matched to projects by declared tags and scored against the kept ledger to yield ACCOUNTED, UNACCOUNTED, or OUT_OF_SCOPE.
- Formal definitions and propositions bound to tests — States the instrument's behaviour as definitions and propositions (non-permission, fail-closed, declines persist, scope travels) linked to a claim-ledger test.
- Worked example reviews — Illustrates behaviour with a community interview study, a fully set-aside submission, and an out-of-scope project.
Key concepts
- consent
- affected parties
- research ethics
- governance
Summary sources: Paper metadata and evidence · Learning guide · Extracted source text.
Document downloads
PDFs are hosted here; supporting sources may use pinned archives.
- violet_line_combined.pdf PDF · 0.09 MiB · extracted-text source
Citation
Citation metadata follows the unified bibliography.
Catalog details and resources
Related works
Ranked by recorded methods, topics, contributors and associated software, with contributor roles and domain-only matches labelled. Metadata overlap is not a citation or a scientific equivalence.