Execution Governance 5.0 (EG5) Research Architecture v0.1.4 proposes a candidate major-version research direction extending Execution Governance from authority-preserving Governed Effect Fabrics to the time-evolving Governed Effect Regime that determines how such fabrics, authority roots, policies, comparators, composition rules, reconciliation rules, adaptation mechanisms, and evidence requirements may themselves be created, changed, combined, suspended, or replaced. The central research question is: Who authorizes a material change to the governance system that determines what counts as authorized? EG5 treats a material governance-state transition as consequential when it can alter the future admissible effect space or the authority, semantic, commitment, reconciliation, or evidence rules applied to future effects. Its candidate governing principle is: Governance may evolve, but no governance change may create the authority that legitimizes itself. A companion composition principle is: Valid governed fabrics do not imply a valid governance composition. EG5 retains the effect-centered discipline of earlier Execution Governance generations and does not introduce a new source of normative authority. It does not claim to invent administrative authorization, policy administration, compositional authorization, recursive governance, governance-of-governance, governed runtime mutation, learning/authority separation, non-widening composition, cryptographic authorization proofs, or evidence-chain composition. These areas have substantial antecedent and adjacent work. The proposed research distinction is narrower: the effect-centered conjunction of authorization requirements at a material governance-state boundary. The candidate EG5-Core v0.1 defines six Recursive Integrity properties: Governance-Change Authority Provenance Non-Self-Authorization Authority Composition Closure Multi-Root Reconciliation Integrity Consequence-Bounded Adaptation Evolution-Witnessed Closure The accompanying deterministic executable guard-ablation harness provides six hand-constructed minimal counterexamples, one for each property. In each named scenario, omission of the relevant property admits the bad state while the complete candidate guard blocks it. A separate regression confirms that participating EG4 fabric validity remains a non-substitutable prerequisite. These results are executable falsification evidence only. They are not bounded model checking, exhaustive state-space exploration, formal proof, independent reproduction, certification, production assurance, or evidence of governance completeness. The first proposed implementation profile is the Minimal Federated Governance-Evolution Profile v0.1, designed around two independently administered EG4-class digital fabrics, two authority roots, one separate verifier, one reversible synthetic cross-fabric effect, one material governance change, explicit composition and reconciliation rules, and bounded consequence-feedback semantics. The principal next evidence milestone is to demonstrate an executable case in which: Fabric A is EG4-valid.Fabric B is EG4-valid.Their composite effect is not authorized.EG5 correctly blocks the composition. Stable EG5.0 status is intentionally not claimed by this publication. It should be earned through a profile-bounded formal model, two-domain implementation, public reproducibility, and independent reconstruction. EG4 baseline:KU, H. W. (2026). Execution Governance 4.0: From Authorization-Bound Execution to Governed Effect Fabrics (Version 0.3.6.2). Zenodo.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22157731 Research programme: https://executiongovernance.org Status: Independent research and pre-standardization candidate. This publication does not constitute a standard, certification scheme, legal authorization determination, production-safety claim, or proof of governance completeness.
Ho Wa KU· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
Execution Governance 5.0 (EG5) Research Architecture v0.1.4 proposes a candidate major-version research direction extending Execution Governance from authority-preserving Governed Effect Fabrics to the time-evolving Governed Effect Regime that determines how such fabrics, authority roots, policies, comparators, composition rules, reconciliation rules, adaptation mechanisms, and evidence requirements may themselves be created, changed, combined, suspended, or replaced. The central research question is: Who authorizes a material change to the governance system that determines what counts as authorized? EG5 treats a material governance-state transition as consequential when it can alter the future admissible effect space or the authority, semantic, commitment, reconciliation, or evidence rules applied to future effects. Its candidate governing principle is: Governance may evolve, but no governance change may create the authority that legitimizes itself. A companion composition principle is: Valid governed fabrics do not imply a valid governance composition. EG5 retains the effect-centered discipline of earlier Execution Governance generations and does not introduce a new source of normative authority. It does not claim to invent administrative authorization, policy administration, compositional authorization, recursive governance, governance-of-governance, governed runtime mutation, learning/authority separation, non-widening composition, cryptographic authorization proofs, or evidence-chain composition. These areas have substantial antecedent and adjacent work. The proposed research distinction is narrower: the effect-centered conjunction of authorization requirements at a material governance-state boundary. The candidate EG5-Core v0.1 defines six Recursive Integrity properties: Governance-Change Authority Provenance Non-Self-Authorization Authority Composition Closure Multi-Root Reconciliation Integrity Consequence-Bounded Adaptation Evolution-Witnessed Closure The accompanying deterministic executable guard-ablation harness provides six hand-constructed minimal counterexamples, one for each property. In each named scenario, omission of the relevant property admits the bad state while the complete candidate guard blocks it. A separate regression confirms that participating EG4 fabric validity remains a non-substitutable prerequisite. These results are executable falsification evidence only. They are not bounded model checking, exhaustive state-space exploration, formal proof, independent reproduction, certification, production assurance, or evidence of governance completeness. The first proposed implementation profile is the Minimal Federated Governance-Evolution Profile v0.1, designed around two independently administered EG4-class digital fabrics, two authority roots, one separate verifier, one reversible synthetic cross-fabric effect, one material governance change, explicit composition and reconciliation rules, and bounded consequence-feedback semantics. The principal next evidence milestone is to demonstrate an executable case in which: Fabric A is EG4-valid.Fabric B is EG4-valid.Their composite effect is not authorized.EG5 correctly blocks the composition. Stable EG5.0 status is intentionally not claimed by this publication. It should be earned through a profile-bounded formal model, two-domain implementation, public reproducibility, and independent reconstruction. EG4 baseline:KU, H. W. (2026). Execution Governance 4.0: From Authorization-Bound Execution to Governed Effect Fabrics (Version 0.3.6.2). Zenodo.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22157731 Research programme: https://executiongovernance.org Status: Independent research and pre-standardization candidate. This publication does not constitute a standard, certification scheme, legal authorization determination, production-safety claim, or proof of governance completeness.
Ho Wa KU· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations