note

Current public-DAV authority boundary — 2026-07-12. Pre-launch target design; nothing here proves a live system. A public-DAV consequence may occur only when at least two natural-person councilors bind the exact consequence in a complete valid bound PRISM decision receipt. PRISM records and verifies that receipt only; it never serves as council, signatory, authority, or receipt producer. AI and caste seats stage unsigned proposals only; they never authorize or execute a public-DAV consequence. Constitution or membership adoption establishes constitution and membership only; it does not authorize a later consequence. Policy may constrain an unsigned proposal but never authorizes execution or substitutes for the complete consequence-bound receipt. Before receipt validity, consequence fails closed to read-only proposal, simulation, or deterministic sandbox; live evidence remains gated_pending_complete_valid_bound_receipt. Software deterministically carries out only the exact consequence bound to a complete valid bound PRISM decision receipt from at least two natural-person councilors binding that exact consequence.

Claim Status Map

Purpose: This page explains what kind of claims SkyZAI makes, how mature they are, and how they should be read.

Read this as: a guardrail against category confusion.

See also: 14-evidence-tiers, 19-kill-criteria, 22-three-layers, D3-status

SkyZAI spans multiple kinds of claims:

• ontological
• formal
• interpretive
• empirical
• organizational
• technical
• implementation
• narrative

These are not the same kind of claim and should not be read as carrying the same degree of certainty.

There is also a practical repository distinction between:

• code-only health — what is materially built in code
• bounded local proof — what has been receipted in local or controlled runs
• runtime/public truth — what may honestly be claimed as presently live to the outside world

Claim types

Ontological

Claims about reality, emergence, agency, intelligence, or ethics.

Formal

Claims stated as axioms, equations, operators, or structural relations.

Interpretive

Claims that map the framework onto traditions, symbols, or comparative corpora.

Empirical

Claims that depend on observation, experiment, prediction, data, or falsification.

Organizational

Claims about the role and structure of entities in the ecosystem.

Technical / architectural

Claims about how the stack is supposed to work.

Implementation

Claims about what actually exists in working form.

Narrative / canonical

Claims used for orientation, meaning, continuity, or civilizational framing.

Status labels

• Concept — directional idea or framing device
• Framework — structured model or worldview
• Formalized — explicitly defined
• Specified — described in architectural or implementation terms
• Prototype — partially built and testable
• Operational — in actual bounded use
• Deployed — publicly live or production-like
• Unknown / under audit — not yet clearly classified

Reading rule

For any major claim, ask:

1. What kind of claim is this?
2. What is its current status?
3. What evidence supports it?
4. What would falsify or constrain it?
5. What is implemented versus proposed?

Operational reading rule

When a maturity claim appears strong, separate these questions:

1. Is it built in code?
2. Is there a dated local receipt or proof artifact?
3. Is it actually live in runtime or public space?

Do not collapse those into one status word.

What this project does not claim by default

Unless explicitly marked otherwise, SkyZAI should not be read as claiming that:

• every metaphysical claim is empirically proven
• every formal claim is accepted scientific consensus
• every architectural component is already implemented
• every narrative correspondence is evidence
• every product or entity is equally mature
• symbolic coherence alone is proof
• strategic horizons are current technical capabilities

What this project does claim

SkyZAI does claim that:

• coordination is a central civilizational bottleneck
• it is building a layered stack across doctrine, institution, protocol, and product
• different components are at different levels of maturity
• evidence, falsification, and kill criteria matter
• readers should distinguish between worldview, formalism, architecture, and implementation

---

Agent Execution Surface

If you are an AI agent reading this document:

1. This is a downstream public content page. The canonical source lives in EMERGENTISM_ORG/08_FRAMEWORK_SUPPORT/ or SKYZAI_ORG/. Edit source upstream, not here.
2. Preserve evidence tiers. Do not promote claims up the [C] < [D] < [S] < [B] < [E] ladder when reproducing them here; [I]/[A] qualifiers never substitute for [B]/[E].
3. Regenerate from source. If the upstream source changes, regenerate this page rather than editing it independently.
4. Canonical Path: SKYZAI_ORG/07_PWAs/skyzai_org/wiki/00-claim-status-map.md

Output: This is content. Route edits to upstream source. Regenerate when source changes.

K3 public-DAV authority history — 2026-07-12

K3 historical reference — not active authority

note

Current public-DAV boundary — 2026-07-10. Pre-launch target design; nothing here is live. The active DAV is public and targets PRISM, with no K2 runtime, launch, genesis/bootstrap, or fallback dependency. Consequential authority requires at least two natural-person councilors; AI/caste seats stage unsigned proposals only. Before quorum, behavior fails closed to read-only/proposal, simulation, or deterministic sandbox, and a live decision receipt remains gated pending quorum.