Pre-judicial origin audit layer for observing trace claims before judgment, dispute handling, or allocation.
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.
This repository does not determine ownership, authorship, legality, plagiarism, or royalty allocation.
Instead, it provides structured ways to observe, describe, review, and validate trace-related claims before they are escalated to dispute resolution or allocation systems.
The purpose of this repository is to provide a safe pre-judicial layer for origin and trace analysis.
In AI-generated, AI-assisted, and structurally influenced works, origin is often difficult to determine directly.
A trace claim may involve explicit citation, implicit absorption, blended influence, disputed lineage, allocation-readiness review, or Multi-Wing Review.
This repository provides examples, schemas, review principles, methodology documents, and architecture documentation for handling such cases without prematurely turning observation into judgment.
In short:
Origin Audit observes trace relationships.
It does not issue verdicts.
The central principle of this repository is:
Audit examples are not verdicts.
Origin Audit is not a court, not a copyright registry, not a plagiarism detector, not a royalty engine, and not a final origin authority.
It is a structured observation layer that helps reviewers, systems, and future protocols distinguish between:
- evidence and interpretation
- trace and ownership
- influence and allocation
- uncertainty and judgment
- dispute preparation and dispute resolution
- allocation readiness and allocation approval
- review consensus and final authority
This separation is essential for a healthy trace culture.
ktp-origin-audit is:
- an origin audit example repository
- a pre-judicial observation layer
- a review culture guide for trace claims
- a validation target for structured audit examples
- a methodology layer for origin and trace review
- a Multi-Wing Review demonstration layer
- an architecture overview for trace governance flow
- a bridge between Kazene Trace Protocol and downstream governance layers
It is designed to support:
- human reviewers
- AI-assisted reviewers
- multi-wing review systems
- trace intelligence tools
- dispute registries
- allocation-readiness workflows
- future royalty and governance systems
This repository is not:
- a legal judgment system
- a copyright enforcement tool
- a plagiarism detector
- a royalty allocation engine
- a universal truth registry
- a final origin authority
- an ownership registry
Origin Audit should not be used to automatically assign ownership, blame, payment, or legal responsibility.
Any such decision should happen only after additional review, dispute handling, governance checks, and allocation-readiness processes.
This repository currently focuses on six core audit and review example categories:
explicit-citation
implicit-absorption
blended-influence
disputed-trace-claim
allocation-readiness-review
multi-wing-review
A case where a source, influence, or referenced work is directly cited or acknowledged.
A case where structural influence appears to exist, but there is no direct citation or explicit acknowledgement.
This is one of the most important categories for AI-era trace analysis.
A case where multiple influences appear to be structurally, conceptually, or procedurally blended into a later work or output.
A case where the origin, influence, or lineage claim is contested or unresolved.
A case where evidence is reviewed to determine whether a trace claim may be ready for downstream allocation-readiness review.
This does not mean allocation is approved.
A 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.
Multi-Wing Review improves audit quality, but it does not create final authority.
ktp-origin-audit/
├── README.md
├── LICENSE
├── CITATION.cff
├── CHANGELOG.md
├── docs/
│ ├── review-guidelines.md
│ ├── audit-methodology.md
│ ├── architecture-overview.md
│ ├── relationship-to-trace-intelligence-spec.md
│ ├── origin-audit-v1.0-graduation-criteria.md
│ ├── relationship-to-dispute-registry.md
│ ├── relationship-to-allocation-readiness.md
│ └── multi-wing-review-model.md
├── examples/
│ ├── explicit-citation.example.json
│ ├── implicit-absorption.example.json
│ ├── blended-influence.example.json
│ ├── disputed-trace-claim.example.json
│ ├── allocation-readiness-review.example.json
│ └── multi-wing-review.example.json
├── schemas/
│ └── origin-audit-example.schema.json
└── .github/
└── workflows/
└── validate-examples.yml
This structure defines ktp-origin-audit as a pre-judicial origin audit layer.
The repository includes:
- validated audit examples
- a concrete Multi-Wing Review example
- a reusable JSON Schema
- an automated validation workflow
- review guidelines
- audit methodology
- architecture overview diagrams
- relationship documents for Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, and Multi-Wing Review
- graduation criteria for Origin Audit v1.0
Origin Audit is designed to observe and organize trace claims before they become disputes, allocation decisions, or legal assertions.
Recommended reading order:
-
README.md
Overview of the Origin Audit layer and its role in the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem. -
docs/architecture-overview.md
High-level architecture diagrams showing how Origin Audit connects Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, Royalty OS, and Multi-Wing Review. -
examples/explicit-citation.example.json
Basic example of a direct citation or acknowledged source relationship. -
examples/implicit-absorption.example.json
Example of possible structural influence without explicit citation. -
examples/blended-influence.example.json
Example of distributed influence from multiple origin candidates. -
examples/disputed-trace-claim.example.json
Example of a contested trace claim that should be preserved without premature judgment. -
examples/allocation-readiness-review.example.json
Example showing that allocation readiness is not allocation approval. -
examples/multi-wing-review.example.json
Example of reviewing an existing Origin Audit record through multiple independent review wings. -
schemas/origin-audit-example.schema.json
JSON Schema used to validate Origin Audit and Multi-Wing Review examples. -
.github/workflows/validate-examples.yml
GitHub Actions workflow for validating example structure, Multi-Wing Review consistency, and governance safety rules. -
docs/review-guidelines.md
Review principles for reading audit records safely. -
docs/audit-methodology.md
Step-by-step methodology for conducting origin audits. -
docs/relationship-to-trace-intelligence-spec.md
Explains how Origin Audit operationalizes the broader Trace Intelligence Spec. -
docs/relationship-to-dispute-registry.md
Explains how disputed trace claims should be escalated without being resolved inside Origin Audit. -
docs/relationship-to-allocation-readiness.md
Explains how Origin Audit prepares records for downstream allocation-readiness review without approving allocation. -
docs/multi-wing-review-model.md
Defines a multi-perspective review model for complex or uncertain trace claims. -
docs/origin-audit-v1.0-graduation-criteria.md
Defines the criteria for promoting this repository toward Origin Audit v1.0.
Kazene Trace Protocol provides the broader trace framework.
ktp-origin-audit provides practical examples, review structures, validation rules, methodology, and architecture documentation for applying trace concepts before judgment, dispute handling, or allocation.
In the broader ecosystem:
Kazene Trace Protocol
└── Trace Intelligence Spec
└── ktp-origin-audit
├── Observation Layer
├── Review Layer
├── Dispute Preparation Layer
├── Allocation Readiness Preparation Layer
└── Multi-Wing Review Layer
Origin Audit is therefore a pre-judicial observation and review layer inside the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem.
The Trace Intelligence Spec defines the structural language of trace relationships.
ktp-origin-audit operationalizes that language through:
- concrete examples
- review guidelines
- audit methodology
- schema validation
- governance safety rules
- escalation boundaries
- Multi-Wing Review support
- architecture overview diagrams
Recommended distinction:
Trace Intelligence Spec = structural language
Origin Audit = applied review and observation layer
Origin Audit does not replace the Trace Intelligence Spec.
It provides a practical layer for using trace structures safely.
Disputed trace claims should not be resolved directly inside Origin Audit.
Instead, this repository prepares structured evidence and review notes for a future Dispute Registry or equivalent governance layer.
Origin Audit may help identify:
- the nature of the dispute
- the competing claims
- claimant and respondent positions
- the available evidence
- the uncertainty level
- the recommended escalation path
But it does not resolve the dispute by itself.
Recommended boundary:
Origin Audit records disputes.
Dispute Registry manages disputes.
Origin Audit may support allocation-readiness review, but it does not perform allocation.
A claim may be marked as structurally ready for further allocation review only when:
- evidence is sufficiently organized
- uncertainty is clearly documented
- dispute status is understood
- review status is explicit
- governance requirements are satisfied
- allocation caveats are preserved
Allocation itself belongs to a separate Allocation Layer or Royalty OS process.
Recommended boundary:
Origin Audit prepares.
Allocation Readiness reviews.
Royalty OS allocates.
docs/architecture-overview.md provides Mermaid diagrams for the repository architecture.
It explains:
- how Origin Audit fits inside the Kazene Trace Protocol ecosystem
- how Trace Intelligence Spec connects to Origin Audit
- how Origin Audit connects to Dispute Registry and Allocation Readiness
- how unsafe shortcuts are blocked
- how Multi-Wing Review fits into the review process
The core architectural boundary is:
Trace is not ownership.
Review is not verdict.
Readiness is not approval.
Audit is not allocation.
Some trace claims are too complex to review safely from a single perspective.
Multi-Wing Review provides a structured way to examine trace claims through multiple review angles, such as:
- trace structure
- provenance
- linguistic and conceptual overlap
- dispute risk
- allocation readiness
- governance safety
Multi-Wing Review may strengthen an audit assessment, clarify uncertainty, or recommend escalation.
However, it must not:
- issue legal judgment
- determine final origin
- assign ownership
- approve allocation
- replace Dispute Registry
- replace Allocation Readiness
- replace Royalty OS governance
Recommended principle:
Many wings may see more clearly,
but even many wings must not pretend to be the judge.
A healthy trace culture requires:
- humility before uncertainty
- separation between observation and judgment
- respect for multiple possible origins
- clear handling of disputes
- refusal to overclaim weak evidence
- transparency in review status
- caution before allocation
- preservation of respondent positions
- distinction between readiness and approval
- distinction between review consensus and final authority
Origin Audit exists to make this culture practical.
This repository includes a GitHub Actions workflow for validating structured examples:
.github/workflows/validate-examples.yml
The workflow checks:
- required example files
- JSON syntax
- JSON Schema compliance
- relation type consistency
- claim type consistency
- confidence score range
- wing-level confidence score range
- source audit record consistency
- governance safety fields
- dispute/allocation safety rules
- Multi-Wing Review consistency rules
Validation confirms structural consistency.
It does not confirm truth.
All Origin Audit records should preserve the following boundaries:
{
"not_a_verdict": true,
"not_legal_advice": true,
"not_ownership_determination": true,
"not_royalty_allocation": true
}These are not decorative fields.
They are structural safety constraints that prevent audit records from being misread as legal, ownership, or allocation decisions.
Origin Audit rejects the following unsafe shortcuts:
similarity → copying
citation → ownership
confidence → truth
readiness → approval
dispute → guilt
absence of citation → misconduct
influence → allocation
trace → verdict
multi-wing agreement → final authority
review consensus → legal certainty
These shortcuts are structurally unsafe.
Origin Audit exists to prevent premature collapse from observation into judgment.
Current status:
Version: v0.1.2
Layer: Origin Audit
Ecosystem: Kazene Trace Protocol
Role: Pre-judicial observation and review layer
Validation: GitHub Actions passing
Release status: Architecture overview extension
ktp-origin-audit v0.1.2 extends the Origin Audit layer with architecture overview documentation and Mermaid diagrams.
This release includes:
- six validated Origin Audit and review examples
- a reusable JSON Schema with Multi-Wing Review support
- an automated validation workflow
- review guidelines
- audit methodology
- architecture overview diagrams
- relationship documents for Trace Intelligence Spec, Dispute Registry, Allocation Readiness, and Multi-Wing Review
- v1.0 graduation criteria
This version should be treated as an early stable extension of the Origin Audit layer, not as a final standard.
Future versions may expand negative examples, handoff schemas, compliance tests, additional architecture diagrams, and integration models for downstream governance systems.
Possible future extensions include:
- negative test examples
- compliance test runner
- Dispute Registry handoff schema
- Allocation Readiness handoff schema
- additional Multi-Wing Review example files
- confidence scoring guidance
- additional architecture diagrams
- relationship to C2PA-style provenance
- relationship to RSL and royalty protocols
- Origin Audit v1.0 release checklist completion
This repository is intended to be released under an open license.
See LICENSE for details.
If you reference this repository, please cite it using CITATION.cff.
ktp-origin-audit exists to protect trace culture from premature judgment.
It 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.
Observe first.
Review carefully.
Judge elsewhere.