Skip to main content

Chapter 25 — Constitutional Extension Framework

Part I — Extension Foundations and Architecture​

The Constitutional Extension Framework, abbreviated CEF, is the governed constitutional architecture through which ZAYAZ Core may be extended by jurisdictions, reporting frameworks, sectors, white-label operators, tenants, organisations, Modules, Components and approved external ecosystems without fragmenting, weakening or silently redefining Core constitutional meaning.

ZAYAZ is designed to support:

  • multiple white-label deployments;
  • multiple tenants;
  • different legal and reporting jurisdictions;
  • industry-specific requirements;
  • customer-specific workflows;
  • local terminology;
  • specialised registries;
  • framework mappings;
  • proprietary methodologies;
  • tenant-specific policies;
  • additional data properties;
  • specialised Relationship Types;
  • new Modules and Components;
  • new agents and tools;
  • new publication profiles;
  • external integrations;
  • experimental capabilities.

This extensibility SHALL be governed.

An extension SHALL NOT become constitutionally valid merely because it:

  • is technically deployable;
  • passes a schema parser;
  • is stored in a tenant database;
  • appears in a user interface;
  • is referenced by an agent;
  • is packaged as a plugin;
  • is enabled by a feature flag;
  • is approved by a tenant administrator;
  • is introduced by a white-label operator;
  • is required by an integration;
  • is generated by artificial intelligence;
  • is published in documentation;
  • is used successfully in production.

The governing principles are:

An extension MAY add meaning, specialise meaning, localise meaning or impose stricter controls, but it SHALL NOT silently redefine the identity or meaning of a Core Constitutional Object.

Every extension SHALL operate through an explicit Extension Point, governed Namespace, bounded authority, declared compatibility model and complete provenance.

Core, white-label, tenant, organisation, jurisdictional and experimental layers SHALL remain distinguishable and independently traceable.

A technically valid extension SHALL not become authoritative until it is validated, approved, packaged, activated and bound to an explicit scope.

Extension authority SHALL not become constitutional evolution authority.

The CEF SHALL distinguish:

  • extension from configuration;
  • extension from customisation;
  • extension from integration;
  • extension from projection;
  • extension from override;
  • extension from correction;
  • extension from constitutional evolution;
  • extension from constitutional fork;
  • extension from local runtime state;
  • extension from AI-generated knowledge;
  • extension from undocumented implementation behaviour.

Conceptually:

ZAYAZ Core Constitution
        │
        ├── Core Constitutional Objects
        ├── Core Relationship Types
        ├── Core Schemas
        ├── Core Policies
        ├── Core Rules
        ├── Core Registries
        └── Core Extension Points
        │
        ▼
Extension Admission
        │
        ├── Extension Identity
        ├── Extension Authority
        ├── Namespace
        ├── Extension Class
        ├── Extension Point
        ├── Scope
        ├── Compatibility
        ├── Security
        └── Provenance
        │
        ▼
Extension Definition
        │
        ├── Added Objects
        ├── Added Properties
        ├── Added Relationships
        ├── Added Values
        ├── Added Rules
        ├── Added Profiles
        ├── Added Workflows
        ├── Added Components
        └── Added Integrations
        │
        ▼
Extension Validation and Governance
        │
        ├── Constitutional Compiler
        ├── HECATE
        ├── Authority Resolution
        ├── Compatibility Evaluation
        ├── Isolation Evaluation
        └── Conformance Testing
        │
        ▼
Extension Package and Manifest
        │
        ▼
Scoped Activation
        │
        ├── Jurisdiction
        ├── Framework
        ├── White-Label
        ├── Tenant
        ├── Organisation
        ├── Module
        └── Experimental Environment
        │
        ▼
Runtime, Publication and Provenance

The CEF SHALL remain independent of any one plugin system, application framework, package manager, schema language, ontology technology, workflow engine, cloud provider, agent framework, configuration system or deployment platform.

25.1. Purpose​

The purpose of the Constitutional Extension Framework is to define how ZAYAZ can evolve operationally through bounded additions and specialisations while preserving a single coherent constitutional Core.

The CEF SHALL provide a common extension model for:

  • jurisdictional requirements;
  • reporting-framework specialisations;
  • sector and industry models;
  • white-label deployments;
  • tenant requirements;
  • organisation-specific requirements;
  • registry additions;
  • Value Provider additions;
  • schema and property additions;
  • Relationship Type additions;
  • policy and rule additions;
  • workflow additions;
  • agent and tool additions;
  • Module and Component additions;
  • data mappings;
  • publication profiles;
  • assurance profiles;
  • compatibility adapters;
  • experimental extensions.

The CEF SHALL ensure that every material Extension can answer:

  • who created it;
  • who owns it;
  • who may approve it;
  • which Extension Point it uses;
  • which Namespace it occupies;
  • what it adds or specialises;
  • what it may not change;
  • where it applies;
  • when it applies;
  • which Core release it requires;
  • whether it is compatible;
  • which tenants or deployments may activate it;
  • which validation and conformance evidence exists;
  • which Runtime Bundle contains it;
  • which Module and Components implement it;
  • whether it has been superseded, suspended, withdrawn or migrated;
  • how its effects can be reconstructed.

25.1.1. Extension Question​

The governing question of the CEF is:

How may ZAYAZ be extended for new jurisdictions, frameworks, industries, tenants and capabilities without breaking Core constitutional meaning, runtime determinism, tenant isolation or historical traceability?

This question is distinct from:

Constitutional DomainGoverning Question
Constitutional DefinitionWhat is authoritative Core meaning?
Constitutional CompilationHow is governed meaning compiled into executable artefacts?
Constitutional RuntimeHow is governed meaning resolved and executed in context?
Constitutional PublicationHow are eligible outcomes released to audiences?
Constitutional ExtensionHow may bounded additions and specialisations be introduced safely?
Constitutional EvolutionHow is Core constitutional meaning itself changed over time?

25.1.2. Extension Responsibilities​

The CEF SHALL be responsible for:

  • Extension identity;
  • Namespace governance;
  • Extension Point governance;
  • Extension classification;
  • scope;
  • ownership;
  • authority;
  • compatibility;
  • dependency control;
  • non-overrideable controls;
  • packaging;
  • validation;
  • approval;
  • activation;
  • suspension;
  • withdrawal;
  • migration;
  • provenance;
  • conformance.

The CEF SHALL NOT silently:

  • change Core identity;
  • reinterpret Core semantics;
  • weaken Core security;
  • weaken tenant isolation;
  • weaken legal or regulatory controls;
  • bypass authority;
  • conceal conflicting meaning;
  • convert tenant knowledge into Core knowledge;
  • convert AI-generated content into authoritative knowledge;
  • make experimental behaviour production-authoritative;
  • erase historical extension state;
  • treat configuration as constitutional meaning.

25.1.3. Extension Boundary​

The Extension Boundary is the constitutional boundary between:

  • governed Core meaning; and
  • bounded additional or specialised meaning.

Every extension SHALL declare which side of this boundary each artefact belongs to.

25.1.4. Extension Is Not Configuration​

Configuration selects among already authorised behaviours or values.

Extension introduces a new governed artefact, rule, schema element, capability, mapping, workflow or specialisation.

A configuration value SHALL not be used to conceal an ungoverned extension.

25.1.5. Extension Is Not Customisation​

Customisation may change:

  • branding;
  • visual style;
  • layout;
  • navigation;
  • terminology display;
  • feature presentation.

Customisation becomes an Extension where it changes:

  • semantic meaning;
  • validation;
  • authority;
  • data model;
  • Relationship Types;
  • policy;
  • workflow behaviour;
  • publication obligations;
  • evidence;
  • assurance;
  • runtime execution.

25.1.6. Extension Is Not Integration​

Integration connects systems or capabilities.

An integration becomes an Extension only where it introduces governed constitutional meaning, mappings, rules, objects or profiles.

25.1.7. Extension Is Not Projection​

A projection represents existing meaning for a purpose or audience.

A projection SHALL not be used to introduce new authoritative semantics.

25.1.8. Extension Is Not Override​

An Extension MAY specialise or constrain within an approved Extension Point.

An override changes the effective treatment of an existing artefact.

Overrides SHALL be explicit, authorised, time-bound where applicable and prohibited where the source control is non-overrideable.

25.1.9. Extension Is Not Constitutional Evolution​

Extension creates bounded additions or specialisations outside the immutable identity of Core.

Constitutional Evolution changes Core itself through a separate governed process.

An Extension SHALL not be used to avoid the authority or impact analysis required for Core evolution.

25.1.10. Extension Is Not a Fork​

A fork creates an independent constitutional lineage.

A permitted Extension SHALL retain lineage to ZAYAZ Core.

A deployment that changes Core identity or semantics outside approved Extension Points SHALL be classified as:

  • non-conformant;
  • a prohibited mutation; or
  • an explicit constitutional fork.

25.2. Scope and Applicability​

The CEF SHALL apply whenever a proposed artefact or behaviour extends, specialises, restricts, localises or adapts the governed constitutional system.

25.2.1. In-Scope Extension Subjects​

Extension Subjects MAY include:

  • Constitutional Object Type;
  • Constitutional Object;
  • property;
  • datatype;
  • enumeration;
  • Value Provider;
  • Registry;
  • Relationship Type;
  • relationship constraint;
  • schema;
  • validation rule;
  • inference rule;
  • Resolution Policy;
  • Governance Policy;
  • Security Policy;
  • Reliability Profile;
  • Publication Profile;
  • Assurance Profile;
  • workflow;
  • task;
  • Gate;
  • agent;
  • tool;
  • model profile;
  • methodology;
  • calculation;
  • data mapping;
  • event type;
  • Integration Contract;
  • Module;
  • Component;
  • public projection;
  • passport profile;
  • reporting framework.

25.2.2. In-Scope Extension Authorities​

Extensions MAY be proposed or governed by:

  • ZAYAZ Core governance;
  • Viroway architecture;
  • framework authority;
  • jurisdictional authority;
  • white-label operator;
  • tenant governance;
  • organisation governance;
  • Module owner;
  • Component owner;
  • assurance authority;
  • approved external standards body;
  • approved partner ecosystem.

Authority SHALL be resolved separately from authorship.

25.2.3. In-Scope Extension Scopes​

Scope MAY be:

  • global Core-compatible;
  • jurisdictional;
  • reporting framework;
  • sector;
  • industry;
  • white-label;
  • tenant;
  • organisation;
  • legal entity;
  • Module;
  • Component;
  • workflow;
  • agent;
  • integration;
  • publication channel;
  • assurance engagement;
  • experimental environment.

25.2.4. Out-of-Scope Changes​

The following SHALL NOT be treated as valid Extensions unless admitted through the CEF:

  • ad hoc database columns;
  • undocumented configuration keys;
  • hard-coded tenant logic;
  • tenant-specific branches of Core code;
  • hidden prompt instructions;
  • direct graph mutations;
  • unregistered Value Provider entries;
  • undocumented workflow branches;
  • manual spreadsheet logic;
  • copied schemas without identity;
  • unversioned API fields;
  • unsupported regulator mappings;
  • environment variables that alter constitutional meaning.

25.2.5. Applicability Test​

The CEF applies where a proposed change affects one or more of:

  • identity;
  • meaning;
  • applicability;
  • authority;
  • validation;
  • reasoning;
  • computation;
  • workflow;
  • publication;
  • security;
  • tenant isolation;
  • evidence;
  • assurance;
  • provenance;
  • runtime execution.

25.2.6. Extension Threshold​

A change MAY remain configuration where it:

  • selects an existing approved value;
  • does not create new semantics;
  • does not alter validation;
  • does not alter authority;
  • does not alter scope;
  • does not alter tenant isolation;
  • does not alter published meaning;
  • remains inside an approved Configuration Point.

Where uncertainty exists, the change SHALL be classified as a proposed Extension until governed review determines otherwise.

25.2.7. External Standard Adoption​

The adoption of an external standard SHALL be treated as an Extension where it introduces:

  • new concepts;
  • new identifiers;
  • new relationships;
  • new obligations;
  • new validation;
  • new publication requirements;
  • new assurance requirements;
  • new mappings.

External authority SHALL not automatically become ZAYAZ constitutional authority.

25.2.8. White-Label Applicability​

White-label operators MAY create governed Extensions within approved white-label Extension Points.

They SHALL NOT:

  • change Core object identity;
  • weaken Core security;
  • weaken tenant isolation;
  • conceal the publishing or responsible legal entity;
  • promote operator-local meaning as global Core meaning;
  • bind one tenant’s Extension to another tenant without authority.

25.2.9. Tenant Applicability​

Tenant Extensions SHALL remain tenant-bound unless separately approved for broader scope.

Tenant adoption SHALL not establish Core precedent.

25.2.10. Jurisdictional Applicability​

Jurisdictional Extensions SHALL identify:

  • jurisdiction;
  • legal source;
  • issuing authority;
  • applicable entities;
  • effective time;
  • conflict treatment;
  • publication obligations;
  • transition rules;
  • provenance.

25.2.11. Framework Applicability​

Framework Extensions SHALL preserve:

  • framework identity;
  • version;
  • issuing authority;
  • applicability;
  • mappings;
  • requirements;
  • transition rules;
  • provenance.

25.2.12. Experimental Applicability​

Experimental Extensions SHALL be isolated from authoritative production use unless explicitly activated under an approved Experimental Profile.

25.3. Foundational Extension Principles​

All Extensions SHALL conform to a common set of constitutional principles.

25.3.1. Core Preservation​

Core identity and meaning SHALL remain stable.

An Extension SHALL reference Core; it SHALL not impersonate Core.

25.3.2. Additive by Default​

Extensions SHOULD be additive by default.

An additive Extension introduces new artefacts without altering existing Core semantics.

25.3.3. Restrictive Safety​

An Extension MAY impose stricter requirements where the relevant Extension Point permits restriction.

A restrictive Extension SHALL not create a misleading claim that Core itself contains the stricter requirement.

25.3.4. Explicit Specialisation​

A specialisation SHALL declare:

  • parent artefact;
  • specialised scope;
  • added constraints;
  • inherited meaning;
  • changed applicability;
  • compatibility;
  • provenance.

25.3.5. No Silent Redefinition​

An Extension SHALL NOT silently redefine:

  • canonical name;
  • semantic identifier;
  • datatype;
  • unit;
  • lifecycle;
  • authority;
  • validation;
  • Relationship Type semantics;
  • evidence requirements;
  • assurance meaning;
  • publication status;
  • tenant ownership.

25.3.6. Namespace Isolation​

Every non-Core Extension artefact SHALL belong to a governed Namespace.

Namespace collision SHALL be prevented.

25.3.7. Scope Isolation​

An Extension SHALL apply only within its declared scope.

A tenant Extension SHALL not leak into another tenant.

A white-label Extension SHALL not become Core.

A jurisdictional Extension SHALL not apply outside its jurisdiction without explicit mapping.

25.3.8. Authority Boundaries​

Extension authorship, ownership, approval and activation authority SHALL remain distinct.

Technical maintainers SHALL not automatically possess constitutional authority.

25.3.9. Deterministic Resolution​

Equivalent context, Extension Packages, Core release and authority state SHALL produce semantically equivalent Extension Resolution Outcomes.

25.3.10. Compatibility Before Activation​

An Extension SHALL be evaluated for semantic, schema, runtime, security, publication and historical compatibility before activation.

25.3.11. Provenance Preservation​

Every Extension artefact and runtime effect SHALL preserve:

  • Core lineage;
  • Extension lineage;
  • Namespace;
  • owner;
  • authority;
  • scope;
  • version;
  • effective time;
  • Module lineage;
  • Component lineage;
  • tenant lineage;
  • provenance.

25.3.12. Reversibility​

Where possible, Extension activation SHOULD be reversible.

Irreversible Extensions SHALL require stronger impact analysis, migration planning and authority.

25.3.13. Historical Truth​

Extension withdrawal SHALL not erase historical state.

Historical reconstruction SHALL identify which Extensions were active at the target time.

25.3.14. Security and Isolation​

Extensions SHALL not weaken:

  • identity assurance;
  • authority;
  • tenant isolation;
  • white-label isolation;
  • graph isolation;
  • evidence protection;
  • secret handling;
  • agent isolation;
  • publication security.

25.3.15. Explainability​

The Runtime SHALL be able to explain:

  • which Extension applied;
  • why it applied;
  • which Extension Point authorised it;
  • which Core artefacts it depends on;
  • which requirements it added;
  • which controls it restricted;
  • which authority approved it;
  • which scope it affected;
  • provenance.

25.3.16. Conformance​

An Extension SHALL not claim ZAYAZ conformance merely because it can be loaded.

Conformance SHALL require the applicable Extension conformance criteria and evidence.

25.4. Extension Domain Model​

The CEF SHALL define Extensions through distinct constitutional objects.

These objects SHALL NOT be collapsed into one generic plugin, configuration record or package file.

25.4.1. Extension Proposal​

An Extension Proposal is the governed request to introduce a new Extension or change an existing Extension.

Every proposal SHALL possess:

  • Extension Proposal Identifier;
  • proposer;
  • purpose;
  • problem statement;
  • proposed scope;
  • proposed Extension Class;
  • proposed Extension Point;
  • affected Core artefacts;
  • expected benefits;
  • expected risks;
  • compatibility hypothesis;
  • migration hypothesis;
  • authority;
  • lifecycle;
  • provenance.

25.4.2. Extension Definition​

An Extension Definition is the governed semantic specification of the Extension.

It SHALL identify:

  • Extension Identifier;
  • canonical name;
  • semantic definition;
  • Namespace;
  • Extension Class;
  • Extension Type;
  • owner;
  • authority;
  • Extension Point;
  • scope;
  • included artefacts;
  • dependencies;
  • constraints;
  • compatibility;
  • lifecycle;
  • version;
  • effective time;
  • provenance.

25.4.3. Extension Artefact​

An Extension Artefact is one governed object introduced or specialised by an Extension Definition.

It MAY be:

  • schema element;
  • property;
  • Relationship Type;
  • Value Provider entry;
  • Registry entry;
  • rule;
  • profile;
  • workflow;
  • agent;
  • tool;
  • Component;
  • mapping;
  • event type;
  • publication requirement.

25.4.4. Extension Point​

An Extension Point is the explicit constitutional location at which a class of Extension may attach.

No Extension SHALL attach to Core outside an approved Extension Point.

25.4.5. Extension Package​

An Extension Package is the integrity-protected, versioned collection of Extension Definitions and Extension Artefacts prepared for validation, approval, distribution and activation.

25.4.6. Extension Manifest​

An Extension Manifest is the machine-readable and human-inspectable inventory of an Extension Package.

It SHALL identify:

  • package identity;
  • included Extensions;
  • Namespaces;
  • Extension Points;
  • dependencies;
  • Core compatibility;
  • tenant and white-label scope;
  • jurisdictions;
  • security;
  • migration;
  • conformance results;
  • signatures;
  • digests;
  • provenance.

25.4.7. Extension Profile​

An Extension Profile defines how an Extension applies within a specific context.

It MAY define:

  • jurisdiction;
  • framework;
  • sector;
  • white-label;
  • tenant;
  • organisation;
  • Module;
  • Component;
  • workflow;
  • runtime mode;
  • effective time.

25.4.8. Extension Activation​

An Extension Activation is the governed event and state transition through which an approved Extension Package becomes applicable within a defined scope.

25.4.9. Extension Instance​

An Extension Instance is the scoped runtime application of an Extension Definition.

One Extension Definition MAY have multiple Instances across tenants, jurisdictions or environments.

25.4.10. Extension Resolution Outcome​

An Extension Resolution Outcome determines which Extensions apply in a given Runtime Context.

It SHALL preserve:

  • candidate Extensions;
  • selected Extensions;
  • rejected Extensions;
  • precedence;
  • conflicts;
  • dependencies;
  • effective constraints;
  • explanation;
  • provenance.

25.4.11. Extension Receipt​

An Extension Receipt records a material Extension action, including:

  • validation;
  • approval;
  • signing;
  • activation;
  • suspension;
  • migration;
  • withdrawal;
  • deactivation.

25.4.12. Extension Registry​

The Extension Registry SHALL maintain authoritative records of:

  • Extension identities;
  • Namespaces;
  • owners;
  • Extension Points;
  • Packages;
  • versions;
  • compatibility;
  • lifecycle;
  • activations;
  • suspensions;
  • withdrawals;
  • provenance.

25.4.13. Extension Dependency​

An Extension Dependency SHALL identify:

  • dependent Extension;
  • required Extension or Core artefact;
  • version range;
  • compatibility;
  • optionality;
  • scope;
  • failure treatment;
  • provenance.

25.4.14. Extension Conflict​

An Extension Conflict exists where applicable Extensions impose incompatible meaning, constraints, identities, values, rules, authority or runtime behaviour.

A conflict SHALL be explicit and resolvable through governed policy or SHALL block activation.

25.4.15. Extension Lineage​

Extension lineage SHALL connect:

Core Artefact
      │
      ▼
Extension Point
      │
      ▼
Extension Proposal
      │
      ▼
Extension Definition
      │
      ▼
Extension Package
      │
      ▼
Extension Activation
      │
      ▼
Extension Instance
      │
      ▼
Runtime and Publication Outcomes

25.5. Extension Classes and Types​

Every Extension SHALL be assigned an Extension Class and one or more Extension Types.

Classification SHALL determine permissible behaviour, authority, compatibility and conformance requirements.

25.5.1. Extension Classes​

Extension Classes SHALL include:

  • Additive Extension;
  • Restrictive Extension;
  • Specialising Extension;
  • Localisation Extension;
  • Jurisdictional Extension;
  • Framework Extension;
  • Sector Extension;
  • White-Label Extension;
  • Tenant Extension;
  • Organisation Extension;
  • Module Extension;
  • Component Extension;
  • Integration Extension;
  • Compatibility Extension;
  • Experimental Extension.

25.5.2. Additive Extension​

An Additive Extension introduces a new artefact without changing the meaning of existing Core artefacts.

Examples include:

  • new optional property;
  • new Registry entry;
  • new sector-specific object;
  • new workflow;
  • new publication profile;
  • new Integration Contract.

25.5.3. Restrictive Extension​

A Restrictive Extension imposes stronger constraints within its scope.

Examples include:

  • stricter approval requirement;
  • shorter publication deadline;
  • stronger evidence requirement;
  • stronger security classification;
  • mandatory assurance;
  • narrower access.

A Restrictive Extension SHALL NOT claim that the stricter rule is globally Core unless separately evolved into Core.

25.5.4. Specialising Extension​

A Specialising Extension creates a narrower subtype, profile or rule based on an existing Core artefact.

It SHALL preserve parent identity and inherited semantics.

25.5.5. Localisation Extension​

A Localisation Extension adapts:

  • language;
  • terminology;
  • labels;
  • calendars;
  • number formats;
  • addresses;
  • local legal references;
  • regional units;
  • public notices.

It SHALL not silently alter underlying constitutional meaning.

25.5.6. Jurisdictional Extension​

A Jurisdictional Extension introduces requirements arising from a legal or regulatory jurisdiction.

It SHALL preserve source authority, applicability, effective time and conflict treatment.

25.5.7. Framework Extension​

A Framework Extension introduces concepts, requirements, mappings, validation or publication profiles associated with an external framework.

25.5.8. Sector Extension​

A Sector Extension introduces industry-specific:

  • object types;
  • metrics;
  • methods;
  • relationships;
  • risks;
  • controls;
  • workflows;
  • evidence;
  • publication requirements.

25.5.9. White-Label Extension​

A White-Label Extension applies to one approved white-label deployment or operator scope.

It SHALL preserve Core lineage and tenant isolation.

25.5.10. Tenant Extension​

A Tenant Extension applies only to an identified tenant unless broader activation is separately approved.

25.5.11. Organisation Extension​

An Organisation Extension applies within one organisation or legal-entity hierarchy inside a tenant.

25.5.12. Module Extension​

A Module Extension adds or specialises capabilities within a top-level ZAYAZ Module.

It SHALL preserve Module identity and Component membership.

25.5.13. Component Extension​

A Component Extension adds or specialises a governed engine, micro-engine, registry, agent, service, workflow, validator or supporting system belonging to a Module.

25.5.14. Integration Extension​

An Integration Extension introduces external semantic mappings, contracts, event types, data mappings or trust relationships.

Connectivity alone SHALL not be classified as an Integration Extension.

25.5.15. Compatibility Extension​

A Compatibility Extension provides bounded support for:

  • legacy schemas;
  • deprecated identifiers;
  • prior Runtime Bundles;
  • external formats;
  • migration periods;
  • dual-write or dual-read transitions.

It SHALL be time-bound where possible.

25.5.16. Experimental Extension​

An Experimental Extension evaluates new semantics or capabilities in an isolated scope.

It SHALL be visibly non-authoritative unless separately activated.

25.5.17. Prohibited Semantic Mutation​

A proposed change SHALL be classified as a prohibited semantic mutation where it attempts to:

  • reuse a Core identifier with different meaning;
  • weaken a non-overrideable control;
  • change tenant ownership semantics;
  • change evidence or assurance meaning silently;
  • change a Core Relationship Type endpoint meaning;
  • change a Core unit or datatype incompatibly;
  • conceal a fork as an Extension;
  • make one tenant’s meaning globally applicable without authority.

25.5.18. Multi-Class Extension​

An Extension MAY belong to multiple Classes.

The strictest applicable authority, compatibility, validation and isolation requirements SHALL apply.

25.6. Extension Points​

An Extension Point is a governed constitutional contract specifying where and how Extensions may attach to ZAYAZ Core.

An Extension Point SHALL be explicit, identifiable, versioned and authority-bound.

25.6.1. Extension Point Identity​

Every Extension Point SHALL possess:

  • Extension Point Identifier;
  • canonical name;
  • semantic purpose;
  • owning Core artefact;
  • owning Module;
  • supported Extension Classes;
  • permitted artefact types;
  • prohibited changes;
  • required Namespace;
  • compatibility requirements;
  • validation requirements;
  • authority requirements;
  • security requirements;
  • lifecycle;
  • version;
  • provenance.

25.6.2. Extension Point Types​

Extension Point Types MAY include:

  • object-type Extension Point;
  • property Extension Point;
  • datatype Extension Point;
  • enumeration Extension Point;
  • Value Provider Extension Point;
  • Registry Extension Point;
  • Relationship Type Extension Point;
  • schema Extension Point;
  • validation-rule Extension Point;
  • inference-rule Extension Point;
  • Resolution Policy Extension Point;
  • Governance Policy Extension Point;
  • Security Policy Extension Point;
  • workflow Extension Point;
  • agent Extension Point;
  • tool Extension Point;
  • Module Extension Point;
  • Component Extension Point;
  • event Extension Point;
  • Integration Contract Extension Point;
  • publication-profile Extension Point;
  • assurance-profile Extension Point.

25.6.3. Open Extension Point​

An Open Extension Point permits Extensions from an approved class of authorities subject to validation.

“Open” SHALL NOT mean unauthorised or ungoverned.

25.6.4. Restricted Extension Point​

A Restricted Extension Point permits Extensions only from named authorities, Modules, operators or tenants.

25.6.5. Closed Core Point​

A Closed Core Point does not permit Extension.

A change to a Closed Core Point requires Constitutional Evolution.

25.6.6. Extension Point Contract​

The Extension Point Contract SHALL define:

  • attachment model;
  • inherited semantics;
  • required identifiers;
  • permitted constraints;
  • permitted defaults;
  • conflict policy;
  • precedence;
  • runtime resolution;
  • publication implications;
  • migration;
  • conformance.

25.6.7. Property Extension Point​

A Property Extension Point SHALL define:

  • target object types;
  • permitted property Namespace;
  • datatype constraints;
  • cardinality;
  • units;
  • validation;
  • disclosure;
  • indexing;
  • tenant scope;
  • provenance.

25.6.8. Relationship Extension Point​

A Relationship Extension Point SHALL define:

  • permitted endpoint types;
  • direction;
  • cardinality;
  • temporal semantics;
  • authority;
  • inference permissions;
  • tenant isolation;
  • graph-security requirements;
  • provenance.

25.6.9. Registry Extension Point​

A Registry Extension Point SHALL define:

  • permitted entries;
  • entry identity;
  • ownership;
  • hierarchy;
  • deprecation;
  • aliases;
  • mappings;
  • localisation;
  • provenance.

25.6.10. Rule Extension Point​

A Rule Extension Point SHALL define:

  • rule type;
  • applicable subjects;
  • precedence;
  • conflict treatment;
  • open-world or closed-world assumptions;
  • severity;
  • explanation;
  • provenance.

25.6.11. Workflow Extension Point​

A Workflow Extension Point SHALL define:

  • permitted states;
  • Tasks;
  • Gates;
  • actors;
  • authority;
  • side effects;
  • compensation;
  • provenance.

25.6.12. Agent and Tool Extension Point​

An Agent or Tool Extension Point SHALL define:

  • capability;
  • authority;
  • autonomy;
  • tool scope;
  • input and output schema;
  • tenant isolation;
  • model restrictions;
  • side-effect controls;
  • oversight;
  • provenance.

25.6.13. Module and Component Extension Point​

A Module or Component Extension Point SHALL preserve:

  • owning Module;
  • Component identity;
  • capability;
  • Integration Contracts;
  • authority;
  • security;
  • reliability;
  • deployment;
  • lifecycle;
  • provenance.

25.6.14. Publication Extension Point​

A Publication Extension Point MAY permit:

  • new Publication Profiles;
  • new Audience Profiles;
  • new Channel Profiles;
  • new formats;
  • new framework mappings;
  • new passport profiles.

It SHALL not permit publication without authority, validation, assurance or provenance.

25.6.15. Extension Point Versioning​

A new Extension Point version SHALL be created where changes affect:

  • permitted Classes;
  • attachment semantics;
  • validation;
  • authority;
  • compatibility;
  • conflict treatment;
  • security;
  • runtime behaviour.

25.6.16. Extension Point Withdrawal​

Withdrawal of an Extension Point SHALL trigger impact analysis over all dependent Extensions and activations.

25.6.17. Extension Point Validation​

HECATE SHALL validate:

  • identity;
  • owning Core artefact;
  • supported Classes;
  • permitted artefacts;
  • prohibited changes;
  • authority;
  • compatibility;
  • security;
  • version;
  • provenance.

25.7. Layered Extension Architecture​

ZAYAZ SHALL implement Extensions through an explicit layered architecture.

Layering SHALL preserve the origin, authority, scope and precedence of every Extension artefact.

25.7.1. Reference Extension Layers​

A reference extension stack is:

ZAYAZ Core Constitutional Layer
        │
        ▼
Global Approved Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
Framework and Jurisdictional Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
Sector and Industry Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
White-Label Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
Tenant Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
Organisation and Legal-Entity Extension Layer
        │
        ▼
Runtime Context and Configuration

Each layer SHALL remain identifiable.

25.7.2. ZAYAZ Core Layer​

The Core Layer contains:

  • canonical Core identities;
  • Core Constitutional Objects;
  • Core Relationship Types;
  • Core schemas;
  • Core rules;
  • Core policies;
  • Core Registries;
  • Core Value Providers;
  • Core Extension Points;
  • non-overrideable controls.

No Extension Layer may mutate the Core Layer in place.

25.7.3. Global Approved Extension Layer​

The Global Approved Extension Layer MAY contain Extensions intended for broad ZAYAZ use without becoming Core.

Examples include:

  • optional framework packs;
  • sector packs;
  • shared methodologies;
  • standard adapters;
  • shared publication profiles;
  • approved external vocabularies.

Global availability SHALL not imply automatic activation.

25.7.4. Framework and Jurisdictional Layer​

This layer SHALL preserve:

  • external authority;
  • legal or framework source;
  • version;
  • jurisdiction;
  • applicability;
  • transition rules;
  • conflict treatment;
  • provenance.

25.7.5. Sector and Industry Layer​

This layer MAY add:

  • sector-specific objects;
  • sector-specific metrics;
  • specialised evidence;
  • specialised methodologies;
  • specialised relationships;
  • specialised workflows;
  • specialised disclosure profiles.

25.7.6. White-Label Layer​

The White-Label Layer MAY define:

  • operator-specific capabilities;
  • approved terminology;
  • approved public projections;
  • operator-level workflows;
  • approved tenant administration;
  • operator integrations;
  • stricter security or assurance controls.

It SHALL NOT alter the identity of ZAYAZ Core artefacts.

25.7.7. Tenant Layer​

The Tenant Layer MAY define:

  • tenant-specific properties;
  • tenant-specific Registries;
  • tenant-specific workflows;
  • tenant-specific policies;
  • tenant-specific publication profiles;
  • tenant-specific integrations;
  • tenant-specific calculation methods where permitted.

Tenant Extensions SHALL be isolated from all other tenants.

25.7.8. Organisation Layer​

The Organisation Layer MAY specialise a Tenant Extension for:

  • legal entity;
  • business unit;
  • facility;
  • region;
  • product line;
  • reporting undertaking;
  • portfolio.

It SHALL not broaden authority beyond the parent tenant scope.

25.7.9. Runtime Context Layer​

Runtime Context selects applicable Extensions and configuration for one governed execution.

Runtime Context SHALL not create an Extension that does not exist in an approved Package.

25.7.10. Layer Precedence​

Precedence SHALL consider:

  • Core non-overrideable controls;
  • legal authority;
  • framework authority;
  • Extension Point rules;
  • restrictive-over-permissive treatment where defined;
  • specific-over-general treatment where defined;
  • temporal applicability;
  • tenant scope;
  • organisation scope;
  • explicit approved overrides.

Storage order, deployment order and code-load order SHALL not determine constitutional precedence.

25.7.11. Layer Conflict​

A Layer Conflict exists where requirements from different layers cannot be jointly satisfied.

The Runtime SHALL:

  • apply governed precedence;
  • preserve both source requirements;
  • record the conflict;
  • explain the decision;
  • block activation where unresolved.

25.7.12. Layer Projection​

An Extension Layer MAY be projected into:

  • runtime schemas;
  • validation rules;
  • workflow definitions;
  • agent instructions;
  • publication profiles;
  • APIs;
  • user interfaces;
  • public projections.

The projection SHALL preserve Extension identity and layer lineage.

25.7.13. Extension Control Plane​

The Extension Control Plane SHALL govern:

  • Extension Registry;
  • Namespace Registry;
  • Extension Point Registry;
  • Extension Packages;
  • Extension Manifests;
  • compatibility;
  • approvals;
  • activation;
  • suspension;
  • withdrawal;
  • migration;
  • conformance.

25.7.14. Extension Execution Plane​

The Extension Execution Plane SHALL apply activated Extensions through:

  • CRP resolution;
  • HECATE validation;
  • computation;
  • reasoning;
  • workflows;
  • agents;
  • tools;
  • integrations;
  • publications.

It SHALL not modify Extension Definitions.

25.7.15. Extension Evidence Plane​

The Extension Evidence Plane SHALL preserve:

  • proposals;
  • impact analyses;
  • validation;
  • approvals;
  • signatures;
  • activation receipts;
  • runtime receipts;
  • migration evidence;
  • suspension evidence;
  • withdrawal evidence;
  • conformance evidence.

25.7.16. Extension Operational Plane​

The Extension Operational Plane SHALL govern:

  • package distribution;
  • deployment;
  • activation rollout;
  • capacity;
  • reliability;
  • observability;
  • rollback;
  • recovery;
  • drift detection.

25.7.17. Extension Bundle Integration​

Approved Extension Packages MAY be compiled into Runtime Bundles or referenced through integrity-protected Extension Bundle dependencies.

The exact active extension state SHALL appear in the Runtime Manifest.

25.7.18. Extension Drift​

A difference between approved Extension state and observed runtime state SHALL be classified as Extension Drift.

Material drift SHALL trigger:

  • finding;
  • quarantine;
  • rollback;
  • redeployment;
  • tenant restriction;
  • incident;
  • conformance re-evaluation.

25.8. Namespaces and Extension Identity​

Every non-Core Extension artefact SHALL possess an identity that cannot be confused with Core or another Extension authority.

Namespace governance is mandatory.

25.8.1. Namespace Object​

Every Namespace SHALL possess:

  • Namespace Identifier;
  • canonical prefix;
  • owner;
  • authority;
  • scope;
  • permitted artefact types;
  • parent Namespace where applicable;
  • tenant;
  • white-label deployment;
  • jurisdiction;
  • lifecycle;
  • version;
  • provenance.

25.8.2. Namespace Classes​

Namespace Classes MAY include:

  • Core Namespace;
  • Global Extension Namespace;
  • Framework Namespace;
  • Jurisdiction Namespace;
  • Sector Namespace;
  • White-Label Namespace;
  • Tenant Namespace;
  • Organisation Namespace;
  • Module Namespace;
  • Component Namespace;
  • Integration Namespace;
  • Experimental Namespace.

25.8.3. Core Namespace​

The Core Namespace SHALL be reserved for artefacts approved through Core constitutional authority.

An Extension authority SHALL not mint identifiers in the Core Namespace.

25.8.4. Tenant Namespace​

A Tenant Namespace SHALL be bound to one Tenant Identifier.

It SHALL not be reused by another tenant after tenant offboarding.

25.8.5. White-Label Namespace​

A White-Label Namespace SHALL identify the operator or deployment while preserving ZAYAZ Core lineage.

25.8.6. Namespace Prefix​

A Namespace prefix SHOULD be:

  • globally unique within ZAYAZ;
  • stable;
  • non-semantic where possible;
  • resistant to ownership ambiguity;
  • safe for machine use;
  • version-independent.

Display labels SHALL not be used as canonical Namespace identity.

25.8.7. Extension Identifier​

Every Extension Identifier SHALL encode or reference:

  • Namespace;
  • local identifier;
  • artefact type;
  • owner;
  • version lineage.

An identifier SHALL remain stable across display-name changes.

25.8.8. Semantic Identifier​

Every semantically material Extension Artefact SHALL possess a Semantic Identifier.

A Semantic Identifier SHALL not be reused for incompatible meaning.

25.8.9. External Identifier​

External identifiers MAY be mapped to Extension identifiers.

A mapping SHALL preserve:

  • external authority;
  • external identifier;
  • internal identifier;
  • equivalence type;
  • scope;
  • version;
  • effective time;
  • provenance.

25.8.10. Identifier Collision​

A collision SHALL be resolved before Package approval.

Collision treatment MAY include:

  • reject;
  • rename local identifier;
  • assign new Namespace;
  • create alias;
  • create explicit mapping;
  • classify as incompatible.

25.8.11. Alias​

An alias SHALL preserve:

  • canonical identifier;
  • alias;
  • language;
  • context;
  • effective time;
  • deprecation;
  • provenance.

An alias SHALL not create a second constitutional identity.

25.8.12. Namespace Delegation​

A Namespace owner MAY delegate identifier creation where:

  • delegated scope is explicit;
  • artefact types are limited;
  • time is bounded;
  • review is defined;
  • revocation is possible;
  • provenance is preserved.

25.8.13. Namespace Transfer​

Namespace ownership transfer SHALL preserve:

  • prior owner;
  • new owner;
  • authority;
  • effective time;
  • existing artefacts;
  • compatibility;
  • tenant impact;
  • provenance.

Transfer SHALL not alter artefact meaning.

25.8.14. Namespace Suspension​

Suspension SHALL prevent new authoritative artefacts while preserving existing historical identities.

25.8.15. Namespace Withdrawal​

Withdrawal SHALL define:

  • affected artefacts;
  • existing activations;
  • migration;
  • aliases;
  • historical resolution;
  • archive;
  • provenance.

25.8.16. Namespace Registry​

The Namespace Registry SHALL support:

  • uniqueness validation;
  • ownership resolution;
  • scope resolution;
  • lifecycle;
  • alias resolution;
  • historical reconstruction;
  • conflict detection;
  • provenance.

25.8.17. Namespace Isolation​

Namespace isolation SHALL apply across:

  • graph nodes;
  • graph relationships;
  • schemas;
  • rules;
  • Registries;
  • caches;
  • indexes;
  • vectors;
  • events;
  • workflows;
  • agents;
  • publications;
  • APIs.

25.8.18. Namespace Validation​

HECATE SHALL validate:

  • Namespace identity;
  • owner;
  • authority;
  • scope;
  • uniqueness;
  • identifier formation;
  • aliases;
  • delegation;
  • lifecycle;
  • provenance.

25.9. Extension Ownership, Authority and Governance​

Every Extension SHALL have explicit ownership and bounded constitutional authority.

Authorship, ownership, stewardship, approval, activation and assurance SHALL remain distinguishable.

25.9.1. Extension Owner​

The Extension Owner is accountable for:

  • semantic definition;
  • maintenance;
  • compatibility;
  • documentation;
  • validation;
  • migration;
  • support;
  • deprecation;
  • withdrawal;
  • provenance.

25.9.2. Extension Steward​

An Extension Steward MAY manage:

  • Registry entries;
  • Value Provider entries;
  • mappings;
  • localisation;
  • documentation;
  • conformance evidence;
  • operational health.

Stewardship SHALL not imply approval authority.

25.9.3. Extension Roles​

Extension Roles MAY include:

  • Extension Proposer;
  • Extension Author;
  • Namespace Owner;
  • Extension Owner;
  • Extension Steward;
  • Core Reviewer;
  • Framework Reviewer;
  • Jurisdictional Reviewer;
  • Security Reviewer;
  • Data Reviewer;
  • Graph Reviewer;
  • Runtime Reviewer;
  • Publication Reviewer;
  • Assurance Reviewer;
  • Extension Approver;
  • Package Signer;
  • Activation Authority;
  • Tenant Adoption Authority;
  • Migration Authority;
  • Withdrawal Authority;
  • Extension Auditor.

25.9.4. Extension Authority​

Extension Authority SHALL identify:

  • authority holder;
  • Role;
  • Extension Class;
  • Extension Point;
  • Namespace;
  • subject scope;
  • tenant scope;
  • white-label scope;
  • jurisdiction;
  • Module;
  • effective period;
  • delegation;
  • conditions;
  • provenance.

25.9.5. Proposal Authority​

Any authorised actor MAY propose an Extension where policy permits.

Proposal authority SHALL not imply approval authority.

25.9.6. Definition Authority​

Definition authority SHALL determine who may create or materially modify an Extension Definition within a Namespace.

25.9.7. Approval Authority​

Approval Authority SHALL determine whether the Extension may become an approved Package.

Approval SHALL bind to:

  • Extension Definition versions;
  • Extension Manifest digest;
  • compatibility results;
  • validation results;
  • scope;
  • conditions;
  • effective time.

25.9.8. Activation Authority​

Activation Authority SHALL determine whether an approved Package may become active within a target scope.

Package approval SHALL not automatically activate the Extension.

25.9.9. Tenant Adoption Authority​

Tenant Adoption Authority SHALL determine whether an optional Extension may be activated for a tenant.

A tenant SHALL not adopt an Extension that violates Core, operator or jurisdictional controls.

25.9.10. Separation of Duties​

Separation of duties MAY require distinct actors for:

  • proposal and approval;
  • authorship and validation;
  • package signing and activation;
  • tenant adoption and operator approval;
  • migration and migration verification;
  • withdrawal and audit.

25.9.11. Self-Approval​

Self-approval SHALL be prohibited where the Extension Profile requires independence.

An agent SHALL not approve its own Extension.

A Component SHALL not approve an Extension solely because it compiled or validated it.

25.9.12. Delegated Authority​

Delegation SHALL preserve:

  • delegator;
  • delegate;
  • Role;
  • Extension Class;
  • Namespace;
  • scope;
  • time;
  • conditions;
  • revocation;
  • provenance.

25.9.13. External Authority​

External standards bodies, regulators, assurance providers and partners MAY provide source authority.

Their requirements SHALL enter ZAYAZ through governed mapping and approval.

External authority SHALL not automatically possess tenant activation authority.

25.9.14. White-Label Operator Authority​

A white-label operator MAY approve Extensions within its authorised Namespace and Extension Points.

It SHALL not:

  • activate tenant-specific Extensions without applicable authority;
  • weaken Core controls;
  • redefine Core identifiers;
  • expose one tenant’s Extension to another tenant;
  • represent operator-local Extensions as Core.

25.9.15. Tenant Authority​

Tenant authority SHALL remain bounded to the tenant.

A tenant MAY impose stricter controls within approved points but SHALL not weaken mandatory Core, legal, operator or security controls.

25.9.16. Emergency Extension Authority​

Emergency Extension authority MAY be used for:

  • urgent regulatory change;
  • critical security control;
  • critical compatibility fix;
  • incident containment;
  • mandatory regulator mapping.

Emergency authority SHALL be explicit, bounded, time-limited, retrospectively reviewed and provenance-preserving.

25.9.17. Extension Governance Decision​

An Extension Governance Decision SHALL possess:

  • Decision Identifier;
  • proposal or Package;
  • authority;
  • decision type;
  • scope;
  • conditions;
  • effective time;
  • expiration;
  • rationale;
  • evidence;
  • signature;
  • provenance.

25.9.18. Decision Classes​

Decision classes MAY include:

  • Proposal Admitted;
  • Proposal Rejected;
  • Revision Required;
  • Approved;
  • Approved with Conditions;
  • Approved for Experimental Use;
  • Approved for Restricted Scope;
  • Activation Approved;
  • Activation Rejected;
  • Suspended;
  • Withdrawn;
  • Indeterminate.

25.9.19. Extension Governance Registry​

The governance Registry SHALL preserve:

  • decisions;
  • authorities;
  • delegations;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • approvals;
  • conditions;
  • expirations;
  • suspensions;
  • withdrawals;
  • provenance.

25.9.20. Authority Validation​

HECATE SHALL validate:

  • identity;
  • Role;
  • Authority Assignment;
  • Namespace;
  • Extension Point;
  • Extension Class;
  • scope;
  • tenant;
  • jurisdiction;
  • time;
  • delegation;
  • independence;
  • provenance.

25.10. Extension Lifecycle​

Every Extension SHALL progress through an explicit lifecycle.

Lifecycle state SHALL determine whether an Extension may be evaluated, packaged, activated, used, migrated or withdrawn.

25.10.1. Reference Lifecycle​

Proposed
   │
   ▼
Admitted
   │
   ▼
Defined
   │
   ▼
Under Validation
   │
   ▼
Approved
   │
   ▼
Packaged
   │
   ▼
Available
   │
   ▼
Activated
   │
   ├──► Suspended
   ├──► Deprecated
   ├──► Superseded
   ├──► Migrated
   └──► Withdrawn

25.10.2. Proposed​

A Proposed Extension SHALL not affect authoritative runtime behaviour.

25.10.3. Admitted​

Admission SHALL confirm that:

  • the proposal is in scope;
  • the proposed Extension Class is plausible;
  • an Extension Point exists or is separately proposed;
  • an owner exists;
  • authority exists for further development;
  • initial risk is acceptable;
  • provenance is sufficient.

Admission SHALL not establish approval.

25.10.4. Defined​

A Defined Extension SHALL possess a complete Extension Definition and identified artefacts, dependencies, scope and compatibility requirements.

25.10.5. Under Validation​

Validation SHALL evaluate:

  • semantic correctness;
  • schema correctness;
  • Extension Point conformance;
  • Namespace;
  • authority;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility;
  • security;
  • tenant isolation;
  • runtime behaviour;
  • publication impact;
  • migration;
  • provenance.

25.10.6. Approved​

Approval SHALL bind to the exact Extension Definition and evidence.

Approval MAY be:

  • global;
  • jurisdictional;
  • framework-specific;
  • sector-specific;
  • white-label-specific;
  • tenant-specific;
  • experimental;
  • time-limited;
  • conditional.

25.10.7. Packaged​

A Packaged Extension SHALL be represented through an integrity-protected Extension Package and Manifest.

25.10.8. Available​

An Available Extension may be discovered and considered for adoption but is not necessarily active.

25.10.9. Activated​

Activation SHALL identify:

  • Extension Package;
  • Package version;
  • target scope;
  • Core release;
  • Runtime Bundle;
  • authority;
  • effective time;
  • migration;
  • rollback;
  • conformance state;
  • provenance.

25.10.10. Activation States​

Activation State MAY include:

  • Planned;
  • Approved;
  • Scheduled;
  • Active;
  • Active with Conditions;
  • Partially Active;
  • Suspended;
  • Failed;
  • Rolled Back;
  • Deactivated;
  • Withdrawn.

25.10.11. Partial Activation​

Partial Activation MAY be permitted by:

  • tenant cohort;
  • organisation;
  • region;
  • Module;
  • capability;
  • workflow;
  • environment;
  • publication profile.

Partial state SHALL remain explicit.

25.10.12. Suspension​

Suspension SHALL prevent new authoritative use within the affected scope while preserving historical state.

Suspension MAY be triggered by:

  • security issue;
  • semantic defect;
  • regulator change;
  • dependency failure;
  • failed assurance;
  • failed conformance;
  • tenant request;
  • incident;
  • Package revocation.

25.10.13. Deprecation​

Deprecation SHALL identify:

  • deprecated Extension;
  • replacement;
  • announcement time;
  • effective deprecation;
  • end of support;
  • migration path;
  • affected scopes;
  • provenance.

25.10.14. Supersession​

A superseding Extension SHALL preserve explicit lineage to the superseded Extension.

Supersession SHALL not erase historical activation.

25.10.15. Withdrawal​

Withdrawal SHALL define:

  • affected Package and version;
  • affected activations;
  • reason;
  • authority;
  • effective time;
  • containment;
  • migration;
  • historical treatment;
  • provenance.

25.10.16. Deactivation​

Deactivation removes an Extension Instance from current applicability without deleting the Extension Definition or Package.

25.10.17. Expiration​

An Extension MAY expire due to:

  • legal sunset;
  • framework version end;
  • temporary compatibility window;
  • experimental period;
  • authority expiration;
  • contract end;
  • assurance expiration.

25.10.18. Extension Migration​

Migration SHALL preserve:

  • source Extension;
  • target Extension;
  • affected artefacts;
  • affected data;
  • affected relationships;
  • affected workflows;
  • affected Publications;
  • affected tenants;
  • mapping;
  • validation;
  • rollback;
  • provenance.

25.10.19. Extension Rollback​

Rollback SHALL restore the last valid Extension state without erasing failed activation evidence.

25.10.20. Extension History​

The Extension Registry SHALL preserve the complete lifecycle history of each Extension Definition, Package and Activation.

25.11. Compiler, Runtime and Publication Integration​

The CEF SHALL integrate with the Constitutional Compiler Framework, Constitutional Runtime Framework and Constitutional Publication Framework without duplicating their responsibilities.

25.11.1. Constitutional Compiler Integration​

The Constitutional Compiler SHALL transform approved Extension Definitions into governed implementation artefacts.

Compilation MAY produce:

  • schemas;
  • validation rules;
  • inference rules;
  • Resolution Policies;
  • Runtime Profiles;
  • workflow definitions;
  • agent definitions;
  • tool definitions;
  • event schemas;
  • Integration Contracts;
  • publication profiles;
  • conformance fixtures;
  • manifests.

25.11.2. Compiler Inputs​

Compiler inputs SHALL include:

  • Core release;
  • Extension Definition;
  • Extension Point;
  • Namespace;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility policy;
  • target Runtime Bundle;
  • target scope;
  • effective time;
  • provenance.

25.11.3. Compiler Output Identity​

Every compiled Extension artefact SHALL preserve:

  • source Extension Identifier;
  • source version;
  • compiler version;
  • build identity;
  • target platform;
  • content digest;
  • Core release;
  • dependency versions;
  • provenance.

25.11.4. Extension Compilation Failure​

Compilation failure SHALL identify:

  • failed artefact;
  • source Extension;
  • compiler stage;
  • error;
  • affected dependencies;
  • remediation;
  • provenance.

Failure SHALL not produce an authoritative Package.

25.11.5. Runtime Bundle Integration​

The Runtime Bundle SHALL identify:

  • included Core artefacts;
  • included Extension Packages;
  • Extension Manifest digests;
  • activation scopes;
  • compatibility;
  • tenant overlays;
  • white-label overlays;
  • effective time;
  • provenance.

25.11.6. Runtime Manifest Integration​

The Runtime Manifest SHALL identify the exact active Extension state by:

  • environment;
  • region;
  • white-label deployment;
  • tenant;
  • Module;
  • Component;
  • Package;
  • version;
  • activation;
  • digest;
  • drift state.

25.11.7. CRP Integration​

CRP SHALL resolve applicable Extensions according to:

  • Runtime Context;
  • Core release;
  • Extension Profiles;
  • jurisdiction;
  • framework;
  • sector;
  • white-label;
  • tenant;
  • organisation;
  • effective time;
  • precedence;
  • compatibility;
  • activation state.

25.11.8. Extension Resolution Order​

A reference resolution order is:

Core Artefacts
      │
      ▼
Mandatory Global Extensions
      │
      ▼
Applicable Framework and Jurisdictional Extensions
      │
      ▼
Applicable Sector Extensions
      │
      ▼
White-Label Extensions
      │
      ▼
Tenant Extensions
      │
      ▼
Organisation Extensions
      │
      ▼
Runtime Context

Resolution order SHALL not override explicit constitutional precedence.

25.11.9. HECATE Integration​

HECATE SHALL validate:

  • Extension Definition;
  • Extension Point;
  • Namespace;
  • Package;
  • Manifest;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility;
  • activation;
  • Runtime Context applicability;
  • tenant isolation;
  • runtime outcomes;
  • publication outcomes;
  • provenance.

HECATE SHALL not create Extension authority.

25.11.10. Governance Runtime Integration​

Governance Runtime SHALL resolve:

  • proposal authority;
  • Namespace authority;
  • definition authority;
  • approval authority;
  • signing authority;
  • activation authority;
  • tenant adoption authority;
  • migration authority;
  • suspension authority;
  • withdrawal authority.

25.11.11. Temporal Runtime Integration​

Temporal Runtime SHALL govern:

  • Extension valid time;
  • effective time;
  • transaction time;
  • activation time;
  • expiration;
  • deprecation;
  • migration period;
  • historical reconstruction.

25.11.12. Event Runtime Integration​

Extension events MAY include:

  • ExtensionProposed;
  • ExtensionAdmitted;
  • ExtensionDefined;
  • ExtensionValidationStarted;
  • ExtensionValidationCompleted;
  • ExtensionApproved;
  • ExtensionRejected;
  • ExtensionPackaged;
  • ExtensionSigned;
  • ExtensionAvailable;
  • ExtensionActivationApproved;
  • ExtensionActivated;
  • ExtensionActivationFailed;
  • ExtensionSuspended;
  • ExtensionDeprecated;
  • ExtensionSuperseded;
  • ExtensionMigrated;
  • ExtensionDeactivated;
  • ExtensionWithdrawn;
  • ExtensionDriftDetected.

25.11.13. Workflow Runtime Integration​

Workflow Runtime MAY coordinate:

  • proposal;
  • review;
  • compatibility analysis;
  • validation;
  • approval;
  • signing;
  • tenant adoption;
  • rollout;
  • migration;
  • suspension;
  • withdrawal.

Workflow completion SHALL not itself establish approval or activation.

25.11.14. Agent Runtime Integration​

Agents MAY assist with:

  • Extension drafting;
  • schema proposals;
  • mapping proposals;
  • conflict detection;
  • dependency analysis;
  • migration proposals;
  • conformance generation;
  • documentation.

Agent-generated Extension content SHALL remain proposed or derived until governed validation and approval.

25.11.15. Security Runtime Integration​

Security Runtime SHALL enforce:

  • Namespace isolation;
  • tenant isolation;
  • Package integrity;
  • signing authority;
  • secret isolation;
  • Component admission;
  • Extension distribution;
  • activation authority;
  • supply-chain security;
  • incident response.

25.11.16. Reliability Runtime Integration​

Reliability Runtime SHALL govern:

  • Extension Registry availability;
  • package distribution;
  • activation reliability;
  • rollback;
  • dependency health;
  • compatibility services;
  • migration reliability;
  • Extension drift detection.

25.11.17. Explainability Runtime Integration​

The Runtime SHALL explain:

  • which Extensions were active;
  • why they applied;
  • which Core release they required;
  • which Extension Points they used;
  • which conflicts were resolved;
  • which requirements they added;
  • which authority approved and activated them;
  • provenance.

25.11.18. Audit Runtime Integration​

Audit Runtime SHALL be able to examine:

  • proposal;
  • definition;
  • Extension Point;
  • Namespace;
  • dependencies;
  • validation;
  • approval;
  • signing;
  • activation;
  • runtime use;
  • migration;
  • suspension;
  • withdrawal;
  • provenance.

25.11.19. Publication Framework Integration​

Extensions MAY introduce or specialise:

  • Publication Profiles;
  • Audience Profiles;
  • Disclosure Profiles;
  • Channel Profiles;
  • Format Profiles;
  • passport profiles;
  • framework mappings;
  • correction rules;
  • retention rules.

Publication Extensions SHALL remain subject to the CPF.

25.11.20. Public Extension Disclosure​

Where an Extension affects public or regulatory meaning, the applicable Publication Profile SHOULD disclose:

  • Extension identity;
  • scope;
  • authority;
  • methodology;
  • compatibility;
  • limitations;
  • version;
  • provenance.

25.12. Security, Isolation, Compatibility and Provenance​

Extensions introduce new constitutional and technical attack surfaces.

Every Extension SHALL be evaluated for security, isolation, compatibility, provenance and systemic risk.

25.12.1. Extension Security Context​

Every material Extension action SHALL possess a Security Context including:

  • actor;
  • workload;
  • tenant;
  • white-label deployment;
  • Namespace;
  • Extension Class;
  • purpose;
  • authority;
  • classification;
  • environment;
  • risk state;
  • provenance.

25.12.2. Package Integrity​

Extension Packages SHALL be integrity-protected through:

  • content digests;
  • signed manifests;
  • trusted timestamps;
  • artefact signatures;
  • immutable package storage;
  • provenance.

25.12.3. Package Signing​

Package signing SHALL establish:

  • signer identity;
  • signing authority;
  • Package digest;
  • Manifest digest;
  • signing time;
  • certificate or key;
  • revocation state;
  • provenance.

A valid signature SHALL not prove semantic conformance or signer authority beyond the signed scope.

25.12.4. Dependency Security​

Dependencies SHALL be evaluated for:

  • identity;
  • owner;
  • version;
  • vulnerability;
  • licence;
  • integrity;
  • transitive dependencies;
  • deprecation;
  • revocation;
  • provenance.

25.12.5. Extension Supply Chain​

The Extension supply chain SHALL preserve:

  • source repository;
  • source commit;
  • builder;
  • compiler;
  • build environment;
  • Package;
  • signatures;
  • distribution;
  • deployment;
  • activation;
  • provenance.

25.12.6. Tenant Isolation​

Tenant Extensions SHALL be isolated across:

  • data;
  • graph;
  • schemas;
  • rules;
  • events;
  • workflows;
  • agents;
  • tools;
  • caches;
  • indexes;
  • vectors;
  • logs;
  • backups;
  • publications;
  • conformance evidence.

25.12.7. White-Label Isolation​

White-label Extensions SHALL not leak:

  • operator-specific semantics;
  • tenant lists;
  • branding state;
  • integrations;
  • public profiles;
  • credentials;
  • support workflows

to another white-label deployment without authority.

25.12.8. Graph Isolation​

Extension graph artefacts SHALL preserve:

  • Namespace;
  • node identity;
  • Relationship Type identity;
  • tenant;
  • scope;
  • path restrictions;
  • inference permissions;
  • temporal state;
  • provenance.

25.12.9. Agent and Tool Isolation​

Extension-provided agents and tools SHALL be sandboxed and authority-bound.

They SHALL not gain access to Core mutation capabilities merely because they belong to an approved Package.

25.12.10. Semantic Compatibility​

Semantic compatibility SHALL evaluate:

  • identity;
  • meaning;
  • units;
  • datatypes;
  • lifecycle;
  • authority;
  • validation;
  • evidence;
  • assurance;
  • publication;
  • temporal semantics;
  • tenant semantics.

25.12.11. Schema Compatibility​

Schema compatibility SHALL evaluate:

  • required properties;
  • optional properties;
  • datatypes;
  • cardinality;
  • enumeration changes;
  • null semantics;
  • defaults;
  • serialization;
  • migration.

Schema compatibility SHALL not imply semantic compatibility.

25.12.12. Runtime Compatibility​

Runtime compatibility SHALL evaluate:

  • Core release;
  • Runtime Bundle;
  • Component support;
  • event support;
  • workflow support;
  • agent support;
  • transaction semantics;
  • reliability;
  • replay;
  • rollback.

25.12.13. Publication Compatibility​

Publication compatibility SHALL evaluate:

  • Publication Profiles;
  • audience;
  • disclosure;
  • format;
  • channel;
  • assurance;
  • correction;
  • retention;
  • public explanation.

25.12.14. Historical Compatibility​

Historical compatibility SHALL determine whether:

  • prior Extension state can be reconstructed;
  • prior data remains interpretable;
  • prior events remain replayable;
  • prior Publications remain verifiable;
  • migration preserves lineage.

25.12.15. Compatibility Classes​

Compatibility MAY be:

  • Fully Compatible;
  • Backward Compatible;
  • Forward Compatible;
  • Conditionally Compatible;
  • Migration Compatible;
  • Runtime Compatible Only;
  • Publication Compatible Only;
  • Historically Compatible;
  • Incompatible;
  • Unknown.

Unknown SHALL not be treated as compatible.

25.12.16. Compatibility Matrix​

The Runtime SHOULD maintain a Compatibility Matrix covering:

  • Core releases;
  • Extension Packages;
  • Runtime Bundles;
  • Modules;
  • Components;
  • tenants;
  • white-label deployments;
  • schemas;
  • workflows;
  • agents;
  • publication profiles;
  • external integrations.

25.12.17. Extension Risk​

Extension Risk MAY include:

  • semantic conflict;
  • Namespace collision;
  • tenant leakage;
  • authority overreach;
  • incompatible schema;
  • invalid inference;
  • publication misstatement;
  • assurance misrepresentation;
  • dependency compromise;
  • migration failure;
  • replay failure;
  • lock-in;
  • extension sprawl;
  • Core fragmentation.

25.12.18. Extension Provenance​

Extension provenance SHALL include:

  • Proposal;
  • Definition;
  • Namespace;
  • Extension Point;
  • Extension Class;
  • owner;
  • authority;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility;
  • validation;
  • approval;
  • Package;
  • Manifest;
  • signature;
  • activation;
  • runtime use;
  • publication use;
  • migration;
  • suspension;
  • withdrawal;
  • Module lineage;
  • Component lineage;
  • tenant lineage;
  • temporal lineage.

25.12.19. Extension Provenance Graph​

Core Release
     │
     ▼
Core Artefact
     │
     ▼
Extension Point
     │
     ▼
Extension Proposal
     │
     ▼
Extension Definition
     │
     ├── Namespace
     ├── Owner
     ├── Authority
     ├── Dependencies
     └── Compatibility
     │
     ▼
Extension Package and Manifest
     │
     ▼
Validation and Approval
     │
     ▼
Activation
     │
     ▼
Runtime and Publication Use
     │
     ▼
Migration, Suspension or Withdrawal

25.12.20. Extension Receipt​

High-impact actions SHOULD produce an Extension Receipt containing:

  • action;
  • Extension;
  • Package;
  • Manifest digest;
  • Core release;
  • target scope;
  • authority;
  • decision;
  • effective time;
  • validation;
  • compatibility;
  • Runtime Bundle;
  • Module and Component lineage;
  • provenance.

25.12.21. Historical Reconstruction​

Historical reconstruction SHALL identify:

  • Core release;
  • active Extension Packages;
  • Namespace state;
  • Extension Point versions;
  • activation state;
  • tenant scope;
  • Runtime Bundle;
  • runtime outcomes;
  • publication outcomes;
  • subsequent migrations or withdrawals.

25.12.22. Extension Diff​

An Extension Diff SHOULD identify changes in:

  • identity;
  • semantics;
  • artefacts;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility;
  • scope;
  • authority;
  • Namespace;
  • Extension Point;
  • security;
  • runtime behaviour;
  • publication behaviour;
  • migration;
  • provenance.

25.12.23. Impact Analysis​

A proposed Extension change SHALL support impact analysis over:

  • Core artefacts;
  • dependent Extensions;
  • Runtime Bundles;
  • Modules;
  • Components;
  • tenants;
  • white-label deployments;
  • data;
  • graph;
  • events;
  • workflows;
  • agents;
  • tools;
  • calculations;
  • validations;
  • publications;
  • assurance;
  • audits.

25.12.24. Pergamum Pulse Integration​

Pergamum Pulse MAY derive intelligence including:

  • Extension sprawl;
  • dependency concentration;
  • Namespace collision risk;
  • compatibility fragmentation;
  • tenant divergence;
  • white-label divergence;
  • repeated override use;
  • unbounded Extension Points;
  • stale Extensions;
  • migration risk;
  • Core-fragmentation risk;
  • supply-chain risk;
  • conformance gaps;
  • Module-level Extension risk;
  • Component-level Extension risk.

Pergamum Pulse SHALL preserve:

  • Module lineage;
  • Component lineage;
  • Extension lineage;
  • Namespace lineage;
  • Extension Point lineage;
  • Package lineage;
  • Activation lineage;
  • tenant lineage;
  • white-label lineage;
  • temporal validity;
  • provenance.

Derived intelligence SHALL remain Intelligence Layer assertions until governed activation.

25.12.25. Part I Conformance Suite​

The Constitutional Compiler Framework SHOULD generate fixtures including:

  • valid Additive Extension;
  • valid Restrictive Extension;
  • valid Specialising Extension;
  • valid Jurisdictional Extension;
  • valid White-Label Extension;
  • valid Tenant Extension;
  • valid Experimental Extension;
  • prohibited Core identifier reuse;
  • prohibited non-overrideable weakening;
  • missing Namespace;
  • Namespace collision;
  • invalid Extension Point;
  • Closed Core Point mutation;
  • incompatible dependency;
  • unresolved Extension conflict;
  • valid layered resolution;
  • tenant-isolation test;
  • white-label-isolation test;
  • valid Package and Manifest;
  • invalid Package signature;
  • Package approval without activation;
  • valid scoped activation;
  • unauthorised activation;
  • partial activation;
  • Extension drift;
  • suspension;
  • migration;
  • rollback;
  • withdrawal;
  • historical reconstruction;
  • Extension provenance completeness.

Part I Conformance​

An implementation conforms to Part I of the Constitutional Extension Framework where it:

  1. treats Extension as a governed constitutional capability rather than a technical plugin mechanism;
  2. distinguishes Extension from configuration, customisation, integration, projection, override, evolution and fork;
  3. preserves ZAYAZ Core identity and meaning;
  4. requires every Extension to use an explicit Extension Point;
  5. requires every non-Core Extension artefact to use a governed Namespace;
  6. represents Extension Proposals, Definitions, Artefacts, Points, Packages, Manifests, Profiles, Activations and Instances distinctly;
  7. assigns stable identity, owner, authority, scope, lifecycle, version and provenance to every Extension;
  8. classifies Extensions as additive, restrictive, specialising, localisation, jurisdictional, framework, sector, white-label, tenant, organisation, Module, Component, integration, compatibility or experimental;
  9. detects and rejects prohibited semantic mutation;
  10. prevents Extensions from minting Core identifiers without Core authority;
  11. prevents tenant Extensions from leaking into another tenant;
  12. prevents white-label Extensions from becoming Core implicitly;
  13. preserves framework and jurisdictional source authority;
  14. uses explicit layered precedence rather than code-load or storage order;
  15. blocks unresolved Extension conflicts;
  16. preserves Extension identity in runtime and publication projections;
  17. maintains Extension, Namespace and Extension Point Registries;
  18. distinguishes authorship, ownership, stewardship, approval and activation authority;
  19. prevents Package approval from automatically creating activation;
  20. prevents self-approval where independence is required;
  21. governs emergency Extension authority as bounded and retrospectively reviewed;
  22. applies an explicit Extension lifecycle from Proposal through withdrawal;
  23. preserves historical Extension state after suspension, deactivation or withdrawal;
  24. compiles approved Extensions into traceable implementation artefacts;
  25. records exact Extension state in Runtime Bundles and Runtime Manifests;
  26. resolves applicable Extensions through CRP;
  27. validates Extensions and activations through HECATE without granting HECATE approval authority;
  28. governs workflows, agents and tools introduced by Extensions;
  29. subjects Publication Extensions to the Constitutional Publication Framework;
  30. validates semantic, schema, runtime, publication and historical compatibility independently;
  31. treats Unknown compatibility as non-compatible for authoritative activation;
  32. protects Package integrity, signing keys, dependencies and supply chain;
  33. preserves tenant, white-label, graph, agent and tool isolation;
  34. supports Extension replay, diff, impact analysis and historical reconstruction;
  35. preserves both Module and Component lineage;
  36. integrates Pergamum Pulse without granting intelligence Extension authority;
  37. provides a conformance suite covering classification, Namespaces, Extension Points, Packages, activation, isolation, compatibility, migration and provenance.

Part I Foundational Principle​

The Constitutional Extension Framework is the governed architecture through which ZAYAZ can support new jurisdictions, reporting frameworks, sectors, white-label operators, tenants, organisations, Modules, Components, workflows, agents, tools, publications and integrations without fragmenting constitutional meaning.

Every Extension SHALL preserve Core identity, attach through an explicit Extension Point, occupy a governed Namespace, operate under bounded authority, declare compatibility, remain isolated to its approved scope and preserve complete provenance. An Extension may add, specialise, localise or impose stricter controls, but it may not silently redefine Core semantics or weaken non-overrideable controls.

Extension approval SHALL remain distinct from activation. Tenant adoption SHALL remain distinct from Core authority. Experimental use SHALL remain distinct from production authority. External standards SHALL remain external sources until governed mapping and activation. AI-generated Extension content SHALL remain proposed or derived until validated and approved.

By making extensibility layered, namespace-safe, package-driven, compiler-validated, runtime-resolved, tenant-isolated, reversible and historically reconstructable, ZAYAZ can scale as a global white-label ESG and sustainability intelligence platform while preserving one coherent constitutional Core.



GitHub RepoRequest for Change (RFC)
Last updated on by ZAYAZ