{ "$schema": "https://inferenslab.org/research-protocol-schema.json", "schema_version": "1.1.0", "domain": "inferenslab.org", "id": "risk-control-evidence-crosswalk", "order": 60, "version": "0.1.0", "program_id": "risk-control-evidence", "protocol_status": "preregistered", "execution_status": "not-started", "results_status": "none-published", "registered_on": "2026-08-23", "updated": "2026-08-23", "behavioral_results_published": false, "routes": { "fr": "/fr/protocoles/risque-controle-preuve-v0-1/", "en": "/en/protocols/risk-control-evidence-v0-1/" }, "artifact": "/protocols/risk-control-evidence-crosswalk/0.1.0.json", "canonical_sources": { "fr": "https://gautierdorval.com/doctrine/referentiel-externe-ne-gouverne-pas-canon/", "en": "https://gautierdorval.com/en/doctrine/external-framework-does-not-govern-canon/" }, "dependencies": [ "/research-programs.json", "/external-authority-control.json", "/source-precedence.json", "/claims.json", "/publication-policy.json" ], "study_design": { "study_type": "claim-level-risk-control-evidence-crosswalk", "pilot_scope": "descriptive-pilot-no-population-inference", "design_family": "crosswalk", "unit_of_analysis": { "fr": "Une correspondance versionnée reliant une assertion canonique, un risque externe, un contrôle interne, une preuve admissible et leur statut d’autorité.", "en": "One versioned mapping connecting a canonical claim, external risk, internal control, admissible evidence, and their authority status." }, "comparison_dimensions": [ { "id": "authority-preservation", "fr": "Conservation de la juridiction propre à la source canonique, au référentiel externe et au contrôle interne.", "en": "Preservation of the distinct jurisdiction of the canonical source, external framework, and internal control." }, { "id": "scope-transformation", "fr": "Traçabilité des restrictions, extensions, incompatibilités et non-correspondances introduites par la projection.", "en": "Traceability of restrictions, expansions, incompatibilities, and non-matches introduced by the projection." }, { "id": "evidence-adequacy", "fr": "Adéquation entre la classe de preuve déclarée et le niveau de contrôle ou de conclusion soutenu.", "en": "Fit between the declared evidence class and the supported control or conclusion level." } ], "unit_plan": { "selection": { "fr": "Jeu synthétique de revendications, risques et contrôles couvrant correspondances directes, partielles, conflictuelles et absentes, figé avant revue.", "en": "Synthetic claim, risk, and control set covering direct, partial, conflicting, and absent mappings, frozen before review." }, "factors": [ { "id": "claim-archetype", "count": 12, "fr": "Douze archétypes d’assertion couvrant identité, portée, interdiction, condition, temporalité et état de preuve.", "en": "Twelve claim archetypes covering identity, scope, prohibition, condition, temporality, and evidence state." }, { "id": "authority-relation", "count": 3, "fr": "Trois relations d’autorité : informative, contrainte compatible ou conflit de juridiction.", "en": "Three authority relations: informative, compatible constraint, or jurisdiction conflict." }, { "id": "evidence-state", "count": 3, "fr": "Trois états de preuve : adéquate, insuffisante ou absente selon les exigences figées.", "en": "Three evidence states: adequate, insufficient, or absent under frozen requirements." } ], "repetitions_per_cell": 2, "planned_units": 216, "window_days": 7, "stopping_rule": { "fr": "Aucun arrêt discrétionnaire. Évaluer les 216 unités, sauf corruption du manifeste ou indisponibilité supérieure à 5 % ; publier chaque arrêt et dénominateur.", "en": "No discretionary stopping. Assess all 216 units unless manifest integrity fails or more than 5% are unavailable; publish every halt and denominator." }, "reviewer_count": 2, "agreement_metric": "cohens-kappa", "agreement_threshold": 0.8, "disagreement_resolution": { "fr": "Deux juges classent indépendamment relation d’autorité, transformation de portée et adéquation de preuve. Un troisième tranche les désaccords.", "en": "Two judges independently classify authority relation, scope transformation, and evidence adequacy. A third judge adjudicates disagreements." }, "agreement_failure_rule": { "fr": "Si le kappa de Cohen est inférieur à 0.80, ne pas publier de métrique agrégée ; publier l’échec et versionner la grille avant reprise.", "en": "If Cohen's kappa is below 0.80, publish no aggregate metric; publish the failure and version the rubric before rerunning." }, "reference_snapshots_required": true, "source_access_recorded": true }, "execution_sequence": [ { "id": "freeze-authority-sources", "fr": "Figer chaque assertion canonique, extrait externe, contrôle, preuve et statut d’autorité avec leurs condensats.", "en": "Freeze every canonical claim, external excerpt, control, evidence item, and authority status with their digests." }, { "id": "produce-independent-crosswalks", "fr": "Faire coder séparément les correspondances, restrictions, conflits et absences sans imposer une équivalence préalable.", "en": "Independently code mappings, restrictions, conflicts, and absences without presuming equivalence." }, { "id": "adjudicate-scope-and-evidence", "fr": "Trancher les désaccords en conservant séparés autorité, risque, contrôle, décision et preuve.", "en": "Adjudicate disagreements while keeping authority, risk, control, decision, and evidence separate." }, { "id": "publish-crosswalk-matrix", "fr": "Publier la matrice complète, les non-correspondances et les conflits sans verdict automatique de conformité.", "en": "Publish the complete matrix, non-matches, and conflicts without an automatic compliance verdict." } ] }, "freeze_requirements": [ "unit-manifest", "factor-manifest", "reference-snapshot-manifest", "review-rubric-version", "review-panel-and-agreement-rule", "review-window", "source-access-policy", "expected-state-manifest", "canonical-claim-snapshots", "external-framework-snapshots", "evidence-class-registry", "exclusion-policy-version" ], "metrics": [ { "id": "authority-preservation-rate", "scale": "mapping-level-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des correspondances qui conservent explicitement la juridiction et le statut de chaque source mobilisée.", "en": "Share of mappings explicitly preserving the jurisdiction and status of every source used." }, { "id": "scope-expansion-rate", "scale": "mapping-level-ratio", "direction": "lower-is-better", "fr": "Part des correspondances qui élargissent silencieusement une assertion, un risque ou un contrôle au-delà de sa portée.", "en": "Share of mappings silently expanding a claim, risk, or control beyond its scope." }, { "id": "evidence-link-completeness-rate", "scale": "required-link-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des liens requis présents entre assertion, risque, contrôle, preuve, décision et statut temporel.", "en": "Share of required links present among claim, risk, control, evidence, decision, and temporal status." }, { "id": "non-equivalence-detection-rate", "scale": "eligible-unit-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des cas partiels, conflictuels ou absents correctement marqués comme non équivalents.", "en": "Share of partial, conflicting, or absent cases correctly marked as non-equivalent." } ], "decision_rules": [ { "id": "mapping-is-not-equivalence", "fr": "Une correspondance descriptive ne devient jamais une équivalence normative sans autorité et preuve explicites.", "en": "A descriptive mapping never becomes normative equivalence without explicit authority and evidence." }, { "id": "external-framework-does-not-redefine-canon", "fr": "Un référentiel externe peut qualifier un risque, mais ne peut redéfinir l’identité, la portée ou les interdictions canoniques.", "en": "An external framework may qualify risk but cannot redefine canonical identity, scope, or prohibitions." }, { "id": "conflict-remains-explicit", "fr": "Toute incompatibilité de juridiction ou de portée demeure explicite et ne peut être résolue par proximité lexicale.", "en": "Every jurisdiction or scope incompatibility remains explicit and cannot be resolved through lexical proximity." }, { "id": "no-compliance-verdict", "fr": "La matrice pilote ne produit aucun verdict de conformité, certification ou autorisation opérationnelle.", "en": "The pilot matrix produces no compliance verdict, certification, or operational authorization." } ], "validity_threats": [ { "id": "framework-selection-bias", "fr": "Le choix des référentiels et contrôles peut favoriser certaines familles de risques ou formulations institutionnelles.", "en": "Selecting frameworks and controls may favor particular risk families or institutional formulations.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Publier les critères de sélection, les exclusions et les référentiels non retenus avant toute cartographie.", "en": "Publish selection criteria, exclusions, and omitted frameworks before mapping." } }, { "id": "lexical-equivalence-bias", "fr": "Des termes proches peuvent être classés équivalents malgré des juridictions, portées ou exigences différentes.", "en": "Similar terms may be classified as equivalent despite different jurisdictions, scopes, or requirements.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Exiger une justification au niveau de l’assertion et publier les non-correspondances et conflits.", "en": "Require claim-level justification and publish non-matches and conflicts." } }, { "id": "evidence-class-ambiguity", "fr": "Une classe de preuve vague peut faire apparaître un contrôle documenté comme exécuté ou efficace.", "en": "A vague evidence class may make a documented control appear executed or effective.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Figer les classes, séparer conception, exécution et observation, puis mesurer l’accord des juges.", "en": "Freeze classes, separate design, execution, and observation, then measure reviewer agreement." } } ], "publication_requirements": [ "protocol-version", "unit-manifest", "factor-manifest", "reference-snapshots", "source-access-log", "expected-state-manifest", "review-rubric-and-disagreements", "canonical-claim-snapshots", "external-framework-snapshots", "mapping-rationales", "complete-denominators", "exclusions-and-halts", "limitations", "null-and-nonidentifiable-outcomes" ], "fr": { "title": "Risque, contrôle et preuve : cartographie pilote 0.1", "program_title": "Alignement risque, contrôle et preuve", "meta_description": "Protocole préinscrit de cartographie entre assertions canoniques, risques externes, contrôles internes et preuves admissibles.", "summary": "Préinscription d’une matrice de correspondance préservant séparément autorité canonique, référentiel externe, contrôle, décision et preuve.", "research_question": "Une cartographie au niveau de l’assertion peut-elle relier risque, contrôle et preuve sans transférer silencieusement l’autorité d’un référentiel externe ?", "design_summary": "Le pilote croise douze archétypes d’assertion, trois relations d’autorité et trois états de preuve. Chaque correspondance est doublement codée.", "evidence_state": "Protocole 0.1 préinscrit ; sources d’exécution et matrice de résultats non publiées, revue non démarrée et aucun verdict de conformité disponible.", "boundaries": [ "Une correspondance publiée ne constitue pas une équivalence normative ou juridique.", "Un référentiel externe ne devient pas la source de l’identité ou du canon interne.", "La présence d’un contrôle documenté ne prouve ni son exécution ni son efficacité.", "Aucune certification, conformité, préparation produit ou autorisation opérationnelle n’est revendiquée." ] }, "en": { "title": "Risk, control, and evidence: pilot crosswalk 0.1", "program_title": "Risk, control, and evidence alignment", "meta_description": "Preregistered crosswalk protocol linking canonical claims, external risks, internal controls, and admissible evidence.", "summary": "Preregistration of a mapping matrix that keeps canonical authority, external framework, control, decision, and evidence separate.", "research_question": "Can claim-level mapping connect risk, control, and evidence without silently transferring authority from an external framework?", "design_summary": "The pilot crosses twelve claim archetypes, three authority relations, and three evidence states. Every mapping is double-coded.", "evidence_state": "Protocol 0.1 preregistered; execution sources and result matrix not published, review not started, and no compliance verdict available.", "boundaries": [ "A published mapping does not constitute normative or legal equivalence.", "An external framework does not become the source of internal identity or canon.", "The presence of a documented control proves neither execution nor effectiveness.", "No certification, compliance, product readiness, or operational authorization is claimed." ] } }