{"id":50665677,"url":"https://github.com/samuraiwriter7/ktp-origin-audit","last_synced_at":"2026-06-08T06:04:52.107Z","repository":{"id":359237374,"uuid":"1245141303","full_name":"SamuraiWriter7/ktp-origin-audit","owner":"SamuraiWriter7","description":"Description: Pre-judicial origin audit examples, review guidelines, and validation rules for the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem.","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2026-05-21T06:20:42.000Z","size":106,"stargazers_count":0,"open_issues_count":0,"forks_count":0,"subscribers_count":0,"default_branch":"main","last_synced_at":"2026-05-21T07:02:15.882Z","etag":null,"topics":["ai-governance","allocation-readiness","dispute-registry","kazene-trace-protocol","origin-audit","pre-judicial-review","provenance","trace-claims"],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":"","language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":"mit","status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/SamuraiWriter7.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":"CHANGELOG.md","contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":"LICENSE","code_of_conduct":null,"threat_model":null,"audit":null,"citation":"CITATION.cff","codeowners":null,"security":null,"support":null,"governance":null,"roadmap":null,"authors":null,"dei":null,"publiccode":null,"codemeta":null,"zenodo":null,"notice":null,"maintainers":null,"copyright":null,"agents":null,"dco":null,"cla":null}},"created_at":"2026-05-21T00:31:18.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-21T06:14:35.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":"2026-05-21T07:02:22.121Z","dependency_job_id":null,"html_url":"https://github.com/SamuraiWriter7/ktp-origin-audit","commit_stats":null,"previous_names":["samuraiwriter7/ktp-origin-audit"],"tags_count":2,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"purl":"pkg:github/SamuraiWriter7/ktp-origin-audit","repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/SamuraiWriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/SamuraiWriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/SamuraiWriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/SamuraiWriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/SamuraiWriter7","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/SamuraiWriter7/ktp-origin-audit/tar.gz/refs/heads/main","sbom_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/SamuraiWriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit/sbom","scorecard":null,"host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":286080680,"owners_count":34050247,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2026-05-26T15:22:16.424Z","status":"online","status_checked_at":"2026-06-08T02:00:07.615Z","response_time":111,"last_error":null,"robots_txt_status":"success","robots_txt_updated_at":"2025-07-24T06:49:26.215Z","robots_txt_url":"https://github.com/robots.txt","online":true,"can_crawl_api":true,"host_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub","repositories_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories","repository_names_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repository_names","owners_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners"}},"keywords":["ai-governance","allocation-readiness","dispute-registry","kazene-trace-protocol","origin-audit","pre-judicial-review","provenance","trace-claims"],"created_at":"2026-06-08T06:04:34.212Z","updated_at":"2026-06-08T06:04:52.099Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/SamuraiWriter7.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":[],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# ktp-origin-audit\n\n**Pre-judicial origin audit layer for observing trace claims before judgment, dispute handling, or allocation.**\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` provides origin audit examples, review guidelines, validation rules, methodology documents, architecture overview, and Multi-Wing Review support for the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem.\n\nThis repository does not determine ownership, authorship, legality, plagiarism, or royalty allocation.  \nInstead, it provides structured ways to observe, describe, review, and validate trace-related claims before they are escalated to dispute resolution or allocation systems.\n\n---\n\n## Purpose\n\nThe purpose of this repository is to provide a safe pre-judicial layer for origin and trace analysis.\n\nIn AI-generated, AI-assisted, and structurally influenced works, origin is often difficult to determine directly.  \nA trace claim may involve explicit citation, implicit absorption, blended influence, disputed lineage, allocation-readiness review, or Multi-Wing Review.\n\nThis repository provides examples, schemas, review principles, methodology documents, and architecture documentation for handling such cases without prematurely turning observation into judgment.\n\nIn short:\n\n\u003e Origin Audit observes trace relationships.  \n\u003e It does not issue verdicts.\n\n---\n\n## Core Principle\n\nThe central principle of this repository is:\n\n\u003e **Audit examples are not verdicts.**\n\nOrigin Audit is not a court, not a copyright registry, not a plagiarism detector, not a royalty engine, and not a final origin authority.\n\nIt is a structured observation layer that helps reviewers, systems, and future protocols distinguish between:\n\n- evidence and interpretation\n- trace and ownership\n- influence and allocation\n- uncertainty and judgment\n- dispute preparation and dispute resolution\n- allocation readiness and allocation approval\n- review consensus and final authority\n\nThis separation is essential for a healthy trace culture.\n\n---\n\n## What This Repository Is\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` is:\n\n- an origin audit example repository\n- a pre-judicial observation layer\n- a review culture guide for trace claims\n- a validation target for structured audit examples\n- a methodology layer for origin and trace review\n- a Multi-Wing Review demonstration layer\n- an architecture overview for trace governance flow\n- a bridge between Kazene Trace Protocol and downstream governance layers\n\nIt is designed to support:\n\n- human reviewers\n- AI-assisted reviewers\n- multi-wing review systems\n- trace intelligence tools\n- dispute registries\n- allocation-readiness workflows\n- future royalty and governance systems\n\n---\n\n## What This Repository Is Not\n\nThis repository is not:\n\n- a legal judgment system\n- a copyright enforcement tool\n- a plagiarism detector\n- a royalty allocation engine\n- a universal truth registry\n- a final origin authority\n- an ownership registry\n\nOrigin Audit should not be used to automatically assign ownership, blame, payment, or legal responsibility.\n\nAny such decision should happen only after additional review, dispute handling, governance checks, and allocation-readiness processes.\n\n---\n\n## Example Categories\n\nThis repository currently focuses on six core audit and review example categories:\n\n```text\nexplicit-citation\nimplicit-absorption\nblended-influence\ndisputed-trace-claim\nallocation-readiness-review\nmulti-wing-review\n```\n\n### Explicit Citation\n\nA case where a source, influence, or referenced work is directly cited or acknowledged.\n\n### Implicit Absorption\n\nA case where structural influence appears to exist, but there is no direct citation or explicit acknowledgement.\n\nThis is one of the most important categories for AI-era trace analysis.\n\n### Blended Influence\n\nA case where multiple influences appear to be structurally, conceptually, or procedurally blended into a later work or output.\n\n### Disputed Trace Claim\n\nA case where the origin, influence, or lineage claim is contested or unresolved.\n\n### Allocation Readiness Review\n\nA case where evidence is reviewed to determine whether a trace claim may be ready for downstream allocation-readiness review.\n\nThis does not mean allocation is approved.\n\n### Multi-Wing Review\n\nA case where an existing Origin Audit record is reviewed through multiple independent review perspectives, such as trace structure, provenance, conceptual overlap, dispute risk, allocation readiness, and governance safety.\n\nMulti-Wing Review improves audit quality, but it does not create final authority.\n\n---\n\n## Repository Structure\n\n```text\nktp-origin-audit/\n├── README.md\n├── LICENSE\n├── CITATION.cff\n├── CHANGELOG.md\n├── docs/\n│   ├── review-guidelines.md\n│   ├── audit-methodology.md\n│   ├── architecture-overview.md\n│   ├── relationship-to-trace-intelligence-spec.md\n│   ├── origin-audit-v1.0-graduation-criteria.md\n│   ├── relationship-to-dispute-registry.md\n│   ├── relationship-to-allocation-readiness.md\n│   └── multi-wing-review-model.md\n├── examples/\n│   ├── explicit-citation.example.json\n│   ├── implicit-absorption.example.json\n│   ├── blended-influence.example.json\n│   ├── disputed-trace-claim.example.json\n│   ├── allocation-readiness-review.example.json\n│   └── multi-wing-review.example.json\n├── schemas/\n│   └── origin-audit-example.schema.json\n└── .github/\n    └── workflows/\n        └── validate-examples.yml\n```\n\nThis structure defines `ktp-origin-audit` as a pre-judicial origin audit layer.\n\nThe repository includes:\n\n- validated audit examples\n- a concrete Multi-Wing Review example\n- a reusable JSON Schema\n- an automated validation workflow\n- review guidelines\n- audit methodology\n- architecture overview diagrams\n- relationship documents for Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, and Multi-Wing Review\n- graduation criteria for Origin Audit v1.0\n\nOrigin Audit is designed to observe and organize trace claims before they become disputes, allocation decisions, or legal assertions.\n\n---\n\n## Start Here\n\nRecommended reading order:\n\n1. `README.md`  \n   Overview of the Origin Audit layer and its role in the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem.\n\n2. `docs/architecture-overview.md`  \n   High-level architecture diagrams showing how Origin Audit connects Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, Royalty OS, and Multi-Wing Review.\n\n3. `examples/explicit-citation.example.json`  \n   Basic example of a direct citation or acknowledged source relationship.\n\n4. `examples/implicit-absorption.example.json`  \n   Example of possible structural influence without explicit citation.\n\n5. `examples/blended-influence.example.json`  \n   Example of distributed influence from multiple origin candidates.\n\n6. `examples/disputed-trace-claim.example.json`  \n   Example of a contested trace claim that should be preserved without premature judgment.\n\n7. `examples/allocation-readiness-review.example.json`  \n   Example showing that allocation readiness is not allocation approval.\n\n8. `examples/multi-wing-review.example.json`  \n   Example of reviewing an existing Origin Audit record through multiple independent review wings.\n\n9. `schemas/origin-audit-example.schema.json`  \n   JSON Schema used to validate Origin Audit and Multi-Wing Review examples.\n\n10. `.github/workflows/validate-examples.yml`  \n    GitHub Actions workflow for validating example structure, Multi-Wing Review consistency, and governance safety rules.\n\n11. `docs/review-guidelines.md`  \n    Review principles for reading audit records safely.\n\n12. `docs/audit-methodology.md`  \n    Step-by-step methodology for conducting origin audits.\n\n13. `docs/relationship-to-trace-intelligence-spec.md`  \n    Explains how Origin Audit operationalizes the broader Trace Intelligence Spec.\n\n14. `docs/relationship-to-dispute-registry.md`  \n    Explains how disputed trace claims should be escalated without being resolved inside Origin Audit.\n\n15. `docs/relationship-to-allocation-readiness.md`  \n    Explains how Origin Audit prepares records for downstream allocation-readiness review without approving allocation.\n\n16. `docs/multi-wing-review-model.md`  \n    Defines a multi-perspective review model for complex or uncertain trace claims.\n\n17. `docs/origin-audit-v1.0-graduation-criteria.md`  \n    Defines the criteria for promoting this repository toward Origin Audit v1.0.\n\n---\n\n## Relationship to Kazene Trace Protocol\n\nKazene Trace Protocol provides the broader trace framework.\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` provides practical examples, review structures, validation rules, methodology, and architecture documentation for applying trace concepts before judgment, dispute handling, or allocation.\n\nIn the broader ecosystem:\n\n```text\nKazene Trace Protocol\n└── Trace Intelligence Spec\n    └── ktp-origin-audit\n        ├── Observation Layer\n        ├── Review Layer\n        ├── Dispute Preparation Layer\n        ├── Allocation Readiness Preparation Layer\n        └── Multi-Wing Review Layer\n```\n\nOrigin Audit is therefore a pre-judicial observation and review layer inside the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem.\n\n---\n\n## Relationship to Trace Intelligence Spec\n\nThe Trace Intelligence Spec defines the structural language of trace relationships.\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` operationalizes that language through:\n\n- concrete examples\n- review guidelines\n- audit methodology\n- schema validation\n- governance safety rules\n- escalation boundaries\n- Multi-Wing Review support\n- architecture overview diagrams\n\nRecommended distinction:\n\n```text\nTrace Intelligence Spec = structural language\nOrigin Audit = applied review and observation layer\n```\n\nOrigin Audit does not replace the Trace Intelligence Spec.  \nIt provides a practical layer for using trace structures safely.\n\n---\n\n## Relationship to Dispute Registry\n\nDisputed trace claims should not be resolved directly inside Origin Audit.\n\nInstead, this repository prepares structured evidence and review notes for a future Dispute Registry or equivalent governance layer.\n\nOrigin Audit may help identify:\n\n- the nature of the dispute\n- the competing claims\n- claimant and respondent positions\n- the available evidence\n- the uncertainty level\n- the recommended escalation path\n\nBut it does not resolve the dispute by itself.\n\nRecommended boundary:\n\n```text\nOrigin Audit records disputes.\nDispute Registry manages disputes.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Relationship to Allocation Readiness\n\nOrigin Audit may support allocation-readiness review, but it does not perform allocation.\n\nA claim may be marked as structurally ready for further allocation review only when:\n\n- evidence is sufficiently organized\n- uncertainty is clearly documented\n- dispute status is understood\n- review status is explicit\n- governance requirements are satisfied\n- allocation caveats are preserved\n\nAllocation itself belongs to a separate Allocation Layer or Royalty OS process.\n\nRecommended boundary:\n\n```text\nOrigin Audit prepares.\nAllocation Readiness reviews.\nRoyalty OS allocates.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Architecture Overview\n\n`docs/architecture-overview.md` provides Mermaid diagrams for the repository architecture.\n\nIt explains:\n\n- how Origin Audit fits inside the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem\n- how Trace Intelligence Spec connects to Origin Audit\n- how Origin Audit connects to Dispute Registry and Allocation Readiness\n- how unsafe shortcuts are blocked\n- how Multi-Wing Review fits into the review process\n\nThe core architectural boundary is:\n\n```text\nTrace is not ownership.\nReview is not verdict.\nReadiness is not approval.\nAudit is not allocation.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Multi-Wing Review\n\nSome trace claims are too complex to review safely from a single perspective.\n\nMulti-Wing Review provides a structured way to examine trace claims through multiple review angles, such as:\n\n- trace structure\n- provenance\n- linguistic and conceptual overlap\n- dispute risk\n- allocation readiness\n- governance safety\n\nMulti-Wing Review may strengthen an audit assessment, clarify uncertainty, or recommend escalation.\n\nHowever, it must not:\n\n- issue legal judgment\n- determine final origin\n- assign ownership\n- approve allocation\n- replace Dispute Registry\n- replace Allocation Readiness\n- replace Royalty OS governance\n\nRecommended principle:\n\n```text\nMany wings may see more clearly,\nbut even many wings must not pretend to be the judge.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Review Culture\n\nA healthy trace culture requires:\n\n- humility before uncertainty\n- separation between observation and judgment\n- respect for multiple possible origins\n- clear handling of disputes\n- refusal to overclaim weak evidence\n- transparency in review status\n- caution before allocation\n- preservation of respondent positions\n- distinction between readiness and approval\n- distinction between review consensus and final authority\n\nOrigin Audit exists to make this culture practical.\n\n---\n\n## Validation\n\nThis repository includes a GitHub Actions workflow for validating structured examples:\n\n```text\n.github/workflows/validate-examples.yml\n```\n\nThe workflow checks:\n\n- required example files\n- JSON syntax\n- JSON Schema compliance\n- relation type consistency\n- claim type consistency\n- confidence score range\n- wing-level confidence score range\n- source audit record consistency\n- governance safety fields\n- dispute/allocation safety rules\n- Multi-Wing Review consistency rules\n\nValidation confirms structural consistency.\n\nIt does not confirm truth.\n\n---\n\n## Governance Safety Rules\n\nAll Origin Audit records should preserve the following boundaries:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"not_a_verdict\": true,\n  \"not_legal_advice\": true,\n  \"not_ownership_determination\": true,\n  \"not_royalty_allocation\": true\n}\n```\n\nThese are not decorative fields.\n\nThey are structural safety constraints that prevent audit records from being misread as legal, ownership, or allocation decisions.\n\n---\n\n## Anti-Overclaiming Rules\n\nOrigin Audit rejects the following unsafe shortcuts:\n\n```text\nsimilarity → copying\ncitation → ownership\nconfidence → truth\nreadiness → approval\ndispute → guilt\nabsence of citation → misconduct\ninfluence → allocation\ntrace → verdict\nmulti-wing agreement → final authority\nreview consensus → legal certainty\n```\n\nThese shortcuts are structurally unsafe.\n\nOrigin Audit exists to prevent premature collapse from observation into judgment.\n\n---\n\n## Status\n\nCurrent status:\n\n```text\nVersion: v0.1.2\nLayer: Origin Audit\nEcosystem: Kazene Trace Protocol\nRole: Pre-judicial observation and review layer\nValidation: GitHub Actions passing\nRelease status: Architecture overview extension\n```\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` v0.1.2 extends the Origin Audit layer with architecture overview documentation and Mermaid diagrams.\n\nThis release includes:\n\n- six validated Origin Audit and review examples\n- a reusable JSON Schema with Multi-Wing Review support\n- an automated validation workflow\n- review guidelines\n- audit methodology\n- architecture overview diagrams\n- relationship documents for Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, and Multi-Wing Review\n- v1.0 graduation criteria\n\nThis version should be treated as an early stable extension of the Origin Audit layer, not as a final standard.\n\nFuture versions may expand negative examples, handoff schemas, compliance tests, additional architecture diagrams, and integration models for downstream governance systems.\n\n---\n\n## Future Directions\n\nPossible future extensions include:\n\n- negative test examples\n- compliance test runner\n- Dispute Registry handoff schema\n- Allocation Readiness handoff schema\n- additional Multi-Wing Review example files\n- confidence scoring guidance\n- additional architecture diagrams\n- relationship to C2PA-style provenance\n- relationship to RSL and royalty protocols\n- Origin Audit v1.0 release checklist completion\n\n---\n\n## License\n\nThis repository is intended to be released under an open license.\n\nSee `LICENSE` for details.\n\n---\n\n## Citation\n\nIf you reference this repository, please cite it using `CITATION.cff`.\n\n---\n\n## Summary\n\n`ktp-origin-audit` exists to protect trace culture from premature judgment.\n\nIt provides structured examples, review principles, methodology documents, schema validation, architecture overview, Multi-Wing Review support, and governance boundaries for observing origin-related claims before they become disputes, allocation decisions, or legal assertions.\n\n\u003e Observe first.  \n\u003e Review carefully.  \n\u003e Judge elsewhere.\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fsamuraiwriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Fsamuraiwriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fsamuraiwriter7%2Fktp-origin-audit/lists"}