Skip to main content

ZYZ-STD-CORE - Constitutional Registries

12. Constitutional Registry Registry (CRG)​

12.1. Introduction​

The Constitutional Registry Registry (CRG) is the authoritative constitutional directory of all Constitutional Registries recognised by the ZAYAZ platform.

The CRG enables the Constitutional Resolution Architecture (CRA) to discover, resolve and govern Constitutional Registries without requiring prior knowledge of their implementation or location.

Rather than containing the authoritative values themselves, the CRG contains the constitutional metadata required to identify, classify, govern and resolve each Constitutional Registry.

The CRG therefore establishes the constitutional discovery layer upon which deterministic Constitutional Resolution depends.

12.2. Purpose​

The purpose of the Constitutional Registry Registry is to provide a single constitutional mechanism for discovering and resolving Constitutional Registries.

The CRG establishes:

  • registry discovery;
  • registry identification;
  • namespace governance;
  • resolver binding;
  • registry metadata;
  • registry capabilities;
  • registry lifecycle;
  • registry versioning;
  • registry compatibility;
  • registry governance;
  • registry federation;
  • deterministic resolution.

The CRG ensures that every Constitutional Identifier can be resolved without implementation-specific assumptions.

12.3. Constitutional Principle​

Every Constitutional Registry recognised by the ZAYAZ ecosystem SHALL be registered within the Constitutional Registry Registry.

Consumers SHALL discover registries through the CRG rather than through implementation-specific configuration.

The CRG SHALL therefore constitute the authoritative constitutional source for registry discovery.

12.4. Constitutional Position​

The CRG occupies the centre of the Constitutional Resolution Architecture.

Constitutional Identifier
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry Registry
        │
        ▼
Registry Resolver
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry
        │
        ▼
Resolved Constitutional Object

The CRG does not resolve Constitutional Objects directly.

Instead, it determines which Constitutional Registry is constitutionally responsible for resolving the requested identifier.

12.5. Constitutional Registry Entry​

Each Constitutional Registry SHALL be represented by one Constitutional Registry Entry.

A Registry Entry is itself a Constitutional Object.

Each Registry Entry SHALL possess:

  • constitutional identity;
  • registry identifier;
  • registry namespace;
  • registry classification;
  • resolver definition;
  • governance;
  • lifecycle;
  • compatibility information;
  • supported object types;
  • supported identifier formats;
  • provenance;
  • publication status.

The Registry Entry SHALL be the authoritative constitutional definition of that registry.

12.6. Registry Identity​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL possess a globally unique Registry Identifier.

The Registry Identifier SHALL remain stable throughout the registry lifecycle.

Changing:

  • storage;
  • technology;
  • APIs;
  • implementation;
  • hosting platform;
  • resolver implementation;

SHALL NOT change the Registry Identifier.

12.7. Registry Namespace​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL govern one or more Constitutional Namespaces.

A namespace defines the identifier space managed by that registry.

Examples include:

  • Units
  • Countries
  • NACE Codes
  • ESRS Metrics
  • GHS Classifications
  • Authorities
  • Asset Types
  • Metadata Fields
  • Lifecycle States
  • Relationship Types
  • Publication Profiles

A namespace SHALL belong to exactly one authoritative Constitutional Registry at any point in time.

Delegation MAY occur through constitutional governance.

12.8. Registry Classification​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL declare its constitutional classification.

Possible classifications include:

  • Reference Registry
  • Metadata Registry
  • Governance Registry
  • Validation Registry
  • Taxonomy Registry
  • Classification Registry
  • Authority Registry
  • Relationship Registry
  • Schema Registry
  • Asset Registry
  • Runtime Registry

Additional registry classifications MAY be introduced through constitutional governance.

12.9. Registry Metadata​

Every Registry Entry SHALL expose governed metadata.

Typical metadata includes:

  • title;
  • description;
  • constitutional identifier;
  • namespace;
  • governing authority;
  • steward;
  • supported object types;
  • supported identifier formats;
  • lifecycle state;
  • version;
  • effective period;
  • compatibility profile;
  • publication status.

Metadata definitions SHALL originate from the Constitutional Metadata Dictionary.

12.10. Registry Resolver​

Every Registry Entry SHALL identify its Registry Resolver.

The Registry Resolver defines how Constitutional Resolution retrieves Constitutional Objects from the registry.

Resolver definitions MAY identify:

  • local registries;
  • distributed registries;
  • graph registries;
  • API registries;
  • document registries;
  • compiled registries;
  • cached registries;
  • federated registries.

Consumers SHALL interact with the Registry Resolver rather than directly with registry implementations.

12.11. Resolution Process​

The normative Constitutional Resolution sequence SHALL be:

Constitutional Identifier
        │
        ▼
Determine Namespace
        │
        ▼
Locate Registry Entry
        │
        ▼
Resolve Registry Resolver
        │
        ▼
Resolve Constitutional Registry
        │
        ▼
Retrieve Constitutional Object
        │
        ▼
Validate Result

Each stage SHALL be deterministic.

Failure at any stage SHALL constitute a Constitutional Resolution failure.

12.12. Registry Capabilities​

Every Registry Entry SHALL declare the constitutional capabilities supported by the registry.

Capabilities MAY include:

  • lookup;
  • search;
  • validation;
  • enumeration;
  • version resolution;
  • historical resolution;
  • multilingual labels;
  • alias resolution;
  • semantic expansion;
  • dependency resolution;
  • compatibility evaluation.

Capabilities SHALL be machine-interpretable.

12.13. Registry Compatibility​

The CRG SHALL support compatibility management.

Compatibility MAY define:

  • supported schema versions;
  • supported identifier versions;
  • compatible registries;
  • deprecated namespaces;
  • replacement registries;
  • migration paths.

Compatibility SHALL be evaluated during Constitutional Resolution where required.

12.14. Registry Federation​

The CRG SHALL support multiple cooperating Constitutional Registries.

Federation MAY include:

  • internal registries;
  • customer registries;
  • regulatory registries;
  • partner registries;
  • standards registries;
  • distributed registries.

Federated registries SHALL remain independently governed.

Their participation SHALL be governed through the CRG.

12.15. Registry Delegation​

Responsibility for a namespace MAY be delegated.

Delegation SHALL be explicit.

The CRG SHALL preserve:

  • delegating authority;
  • delegated authority;
  • effective period;
  • delegation scope;
  • approval history.

Delegation SHALL NOT create ambiguity regarding constitutional authority.

12.16. Registry Governance​

Every Registry Entry SHALL possess explicit governance.

Governance SHALL identify:

  • governing Constitutional Authority;
  • registry steward;
  • approval authority;
  • change authority;
  • publication authority;
  • retirement authority.

Registry governance SHALL remain independent of implementation ownership.

12.17. Registry Lifecycle​

Every Registry SHALL participate in constitutional lifecycle management.

Typical lifecycle states include:

  • Proposed;
  • Approved;
  • Operational;
  • Deprecated;
  • Superseded;
  • Retired;
  • Archived.

Lifecycle semantics SHALL originate from the applicable Constitutional Value Provider.

12.18. Registry Versioning​

Registry versioning SHALL distinguish between:

  • editorial changes;
  • metadata changes;
  • capability changes;
  • resolver changes;
  • namespace changes;
  • semantic changes.

Registry versioning SHALL preserve constitutional identity.

12.19. Registry Provenance​

Every Registry Entry SHALL preserve provenance.

Provenance SHALL include:

  • originating authority;
  • creation history;
  • approval history;
  • modification history;
  • publication history;
  • migration history;
  • supersession history.

12.20. Registry Traceability​

Registry traceability SHALL support complete constitutional lineage.

Traceability SHALL include:

  • identifiers resolved;
  • registries used;
  • resolver versions;
  • validation evidence;
  • compiler usage;
  • publication history.

Every Constitutional Resolution SHALL be reproducible.

12.21. Registry Security​

The CRG SHALL preserve constitutional integrity.

Integrity MAY include:

  • signed registry definitions;
  • immutable audit history;
  • resolver verification;
  • namespace protection;
  • authority verification;
  • version locking.

Security mechanisms SHALL complement constitutional governance rather than replace it.

12.22. Registry Availability​

Implementations SHOULD ensure that Constitutional Registries remain sufficiently available for constitutional operation.

Where temporary unavailability occurs, constitutionally governed cache policies MAY be used.

Cached results SHALL preserve:

  • registry version;
  • resolver version;
  • retrieval time;
  • validation status.

Cache behaviour SHALL be governed.

12.23. Registry Resolution Determinism​

Given:

  • identical Constitutional Identifier;
  • identical CRG;
  • identical Registry Entry;
  • identical Registry version;
  • identical Resolver definition;

Constitutional Resolution SHALL produce an identical Constitutional Object.

Deterministic resolution is a mandatory constitutional requirement.

12.24. Registry Independence​

The CRG SHALL remain independent of:

  • databases;
  • graph stores;
  • REST APIs;
  • GraphQL;
  • RDF stores;
  • cloud platforms;
  • programming languages;
  • deployment architecture.

Technology SHALL implement the CRG.

Technology SHALL NOT define it.

12.25. Relationship to Other Constitutional Components​

The Constitutional Registry Registry coordinates registry discovery for the constitutional ecosystem.

Its relationship to other components is as follows:

  • the Constitutional Resolution Architecture invokes the CRG to discover the appropriate registry for every Constitutional Identifier;
  • the Constitutional Knowledge Base contains the Registry Entries that define recognised registries;
  • the Constitutional Object System governs Registry Entries as specialised Constitutional Objects;
  • Constitutional Registries provide the authoritative Constitutional Objects resolved through the CRG;
  • Constitutional Knowledge Assets reference registry identifiers rather than implementation-specific values;
  • HECATE uses the CRG to resolve identifiers during validation;
  • the Constitutional Compiler uses the CRG to resolve dependencies during compilation;
  • runtime services, AI systems and publication engines consume Constitutional Objects that have been resolved through the CRG.

The CRG therefore functions as the constitutional discovery mechanism that decouples identifier resolution from registry implementation.

12.26. Foundational Principle​

The Constitutional Registry Registry (CRG) is the authoritative constitutional directory of all Constitutional Registries recognised by the ZAYAZ ecosystem.

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL be represented by a governed Registry Entry that defines its identity, namespace, resolver, capabilities, governance and lifecycle. Constitutional Resolution SHALL discover registries through the CRG rather than through implementation-specific configuration.

By separating registry discovery from registry implementation, the CRG enables deterministic resolution, federation, extensibility and long-term architectural independence across the entire constitutional ecosystem.

13. Constitutional Resolution Policies (CRP)​

13.1 Introduction​

A Constitutional Resolution Policy (CRP) is the governed constitutional definition of how a Constitutional Identifier SHALL be resolved into a Constitutional Object.

The Constitutional Resolution Architecture defines the overall resolution process.

The Constitutional Registry Registry identifies the Constitutional Registry responsible for a namespace or object domain.

The Constitutional Resolution Policy governs the operational behaviour applied during that resolution.

A CRP therefore defines the constitutional rules by which resolvers, registries, overlays, caches, authorities, versions, jurisdictions, languages and fallback sources are selected and evaluated.

Resolution behaviour SHALL NOT depend upon undocumented application logic or implementation-specific configuration where that behaviour affects constitutional meaning.

13.2. Purpose​

The purpose of Constitutional Resolution Policies is to make resolution behaviour explicit, governable, deterministic and traceable.

A CRP establishes:

  • resolver selection;
  • resolver precedence;
  • registry selection rules;
  • source authority precedence;
  • version selection;
  • temporal resolution;
  • jurisdictional resolution;
  • language and localisation preferences;
  • customer and white-label overlays;
  • trust requirements;
  • fallback behaviour;
  • cache behaviour;
  • offline behaviour;
  • federation rules;
  • conflict handling;
  • failure handling;
  • validation requirements;
  • resolution evidence;
  • reproducibility requirements.

By governing these concerns as Constitutional Objects, ZAYAZ avoids embedding resolution semantics directly within applications, services or registry implementations.

13.3. Constitutional Principle​

Every resolution decision that may affect constitutional identity, meaning, authority, applicability or validity SHALL be governed by a Constitutional Resolution Policy.

A Constitutional Resolution Policy SHALL be represented as a Constitutional Object.

A CRP SHALL be:

  • identifiable;
  • versioned;
  • governed;
  • resolvable;
  • validatable;
  • traceable;
  • technology independent.

Resolver behaviour SHALL conform to the applicable CRP.

Implementation-specific behaviour SHALL NOT override a valid Constitutional Resolution Policy unless an explicitly governed emergency or exception policy permits it.

13.4. Constitutional Position​

The CRP operates between registry discovery and registry execution.

Constitutional Identifier
        │
        ▼
Namespace Determination
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry Registry
        │
        ▼
Registry Entry
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Resolution Policy
        │
        ▼
Policy Evaluation
        │
        ▼
Registry Resolver Sequence
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry or Registries
        │
        ▼
Candidate Constitutional Objects
        │
        ▼
Validation and Selection
        │
        ▼
Resolved Constitutional Object

The CRG identifies the available constitutional resolution domain.

The CRP determines how resolution SHALL be conducted within that domain.

13.5. Constitutional Resolution Policy as a Constitutional Object​

Every CRP SHALL conform to the Constitutional Object System.

Accordingly, each CRP SHALL possess:

  • constitutional identity;
  • Constitutional Object type;
  • governance;
  • lifecycle state;
  • version;
  • provenance;
  • relationships;
  • applicability conditions;
  • validation requirements;
  • publication status;
  • traceability.

A CRP MAY itself be expressed and governed through a Constitutional Knowledge Asset.

The policy asset and its runtime policy entity SHALL preserve the same constitutional identity and semantics.

13.6. Policy Scope​

Every CRP SHALL declare its scope.

Scope MAY be defined by:

  • namespace;
  • registry;
  • Constitutional Object type;
  • module;
  • component;
  • jurisdiction;
  • organisation;
  • customer;
  • white-label deployment;
  • language;
  • reporting framework;
  • regulatory regime;
  • effective period;
  • publication profile;
  • runtime environment;
  • trust domain.

A CRP SHALL NOT be applied beyond its declared scope.

Where multiple scope dimensions apply, their interaction SHALL be explicit.

13.7. Policy Applicability​

A CRP SHALL define the conditions under which it is applicable.

Applicability conditions MAY include:

  • identifier namespace;
  • requested object type;
  • requested version;
  • effective date;
  • reporting period;
  • jurisdiction;
  • user or service context;
  • tenant or customer context;
  • language preference;
  • trust classification;
  • connectivity state;
  • publication audience;
  • data residency requirement;
  • verification status.

Policy applicability SHALL be machine-interpretable where practicable.

Undeclared contextual assumptions SHALL NOT determine constitutional resolution.

13.8. Policy Selection​

The CRA SHALL select an applicable CRP before executing constitutional resolution.

Policy selection MAY be based upon:

  1. explicit policy reference;
  2. Registry Entry default policy;
  3. namespace policy;
  4. object-type policy;
  5. jurisdictional policy;
  6. customer or deployment policy;
  7. platform default policy.

The applicable precedence order SHALL itself be constitutionally governed.

Where no valid policy can be selected, resolution SHALL fail unless a governed default policy exists.

13.9. Policy Precedence​

Multiple CRPs MAY apply to the same resolution request.

Where multiple policies apply, the system SHALL determine precedence using governed rules.

Precedence MAY consider:

  • constitutional authority;
  • specificity;
  • jurisdiction;
  • customer scope;
  • effective date;
  • policy priority;
  • lifecycle state;
  • trust level;
  • explicit invocation.

A more specific policy MAY override a more general policy only where such override is constitutionally permitted.

A lower-authority policy SHALL NOT override a higher-authority requirement merely because it is more specific.

13.10. Policy Composition​

A CRP MAY be composed from other CRPs.

Composition MAY support:

  • base policies;
  • jurisdiction overlays;
  • customer overlays;
  • language overlays;
  • security overlays;
  • offline overlays;
  • publication overlays;
  • emergency overlays.
Base Resolution Policy
        │
        ├── Jurisdiction Overlay
        ├── Customer Overlay
        ├── Language Overlay
        └── Security Overlay
                │
                ▼
        Effective Resolution Policy

Composition SHALL preserve:

  • source policy identity;
  • authority lineage;
  • override lineage;
  • version lineage;
  • effective scope;
  • validation status.

The effective policy SHALL be deterministically reproducible.

13.11. Policy Inheritance​

A CRP MAY inherit rules from another CRP.

Inherited rules MAY include:

  • resolver precedence;
  • trust requirements;
  • timeout behaviour;
  • cache rules;
  • version constraints;
  • fallback rules;
  • validation requirements;
  • audit requirements.

Inherited rules SHALL remain traceable to their originating policy.

Overrides SHALL be explicit.

A policy SHALL NOT silently suppress an inherited mandatory rule.

13.12. Resolution Context​

Every constitutional resolution request SHALL be evaluated within a Resolution Context.

The Resolution Context represents the governed parameters relevant to a particular resolution operation.

A Resolution Context MAY contain:

  • requested identifier;
  • requested object type;
  • requested version;
  • as-of date;
  • reporting period;
  • jurisdiction;
  • language;
  • organisation;
  • customer;
  • user or service identity;
  • trust requirement;
  • publication context;
  • offline status;
  • data residency constraint;
  • requested authority level;
  • required validation status.

The Resolution Context SHALL be immutable for the duration of a resolution operation.

Material changes to the context SHALL create a new resolution operation.

13.13. Policy Inputs​

A CRP MAY evaluate the following input categories:

Input categoryExamples
Identifier inputsNamespace, local identifier, identifier version
Temporal inputsCurrent date, effective date, reporting period
Governance inputsAuthority, approval status, lifecycle state
Jurisdictional inputsCountry, region, regulatory regime
Localisation inputsLanguage, locale, terminology profile
Organisational inputsTenant, customer, business unit
Technical inputsConnectivity, endpoint availability, cache status
Trust inputsSignature status, verification level, source classification
Publication inputsInternal, public, regulator, verifier, AI
Runtime inputsModule, component, service, execution environment

Inputs that may alter constitutional meaning SHALL be governed and recorded.

13.14. Resolution Policy Rules​

A CRP SHALL consist of one or more governed policy rules.

Each policy rule SHALL define:

  • rule identifier;
  • rule purpose;
  • applicability condition;
  • evaluation order;
  • required inputs;
  • action;
  • failure behaviour;
  • authority;
  • version;
  • traceability requirements.

Rules MAY be declarative or executable.

Executable implementations SHALL preserve the semantics of the authoritative policy definition.

13.15. Resolver Selection​

A CRP SHALL define how one or more Registry Resolvers are selected.

Resolver selection MAY consider:

  • supported namespace;
  • registry version;
  • resolver capability;
  • authority;
  • jurisdiction;
  • language;
  • availability;
  • trust level;
  • latency;
  • data residency;
  • historical resolution support;
  • validation status.

Resolver selection SHALL prioritise constitutional correctness over operational convenience.

Performance optimisation SHALL NOT alter authoritative resolution semantics.

13.16. Resolver Sequence​

A CRP MAY define an ordered resolver sequence.

Primary Authoritative Resolver
        │
        ├── Success ──► Candidate Validation
        │
        └── Failure
                │
                ▼
Secondary Authoritative Resolver
                │
                ├── Success ──► Candidate Validation
                │
                └── Failure
                        │
                        ▼
Governed Cache or Archive
                        │
                        └── Policy-Controlled Result

The sequence SHALL specify:

  • resolver order;
  • invocation conditions;
  • success criteria;
  • retry rules;
  • timeout rules;
  • fallback conditions;
  • termination conditions.

Resolvers SHALL NOT be queried opportunistically where doing so could produce non-deterministic constitutional results.

13.17. Authority Precedence​

A CRP SHALL define how authority is evaluated when multiple candidate sources exist.

Authority precedence MAY be based upon:

  • supranational authority;
  • national authority;
  • regulatory authority;
  • standards authority;
  • ZAYAZ constitutional authority;
  • customer authority;
  • delegated authority;
  • local organisational authority.

Authority precedence SHALL be appropriate to the governed domain.

For example, a customer overlay MAY refine presentation or internal classifications but SHALL NOT override an applicable regulatory definition unless the constitutional governance model explicitly permits such specialisation.

13.18. Authoritative and Non-Authoritative Sources​

A CRP SHALL distinguish between:

  • authoritative sources;
  • delegated authoritative sources;
  • verified mirrors;
  • governed caches;
  • derived sources;
  • advisory sources;
  • non-authoritative sources.

Only sources permitted by the applicable CRP MAY satisfy constitutional resolution.

A non-authoritative source MAY support discovery or availability but SHALL NOT silently replace an authoritative source.

Where a non-authoritative source is used, its status SHALL be explicit in the resolution result.

13.19. Temporal Resolution​

A CRP MAY define temporal resolution behaviour.

Temporal resolution determines which Constitutional Object version applies at a particular point or period in time.

Temporal rules MAY evaluate:

  • valid time;
  • effective time;
  • publication time;
  • supersession time;
  • reporting period;
  • system recording time;
  • regulatory applicability period.

A request for historical resolution SHALL return the object constitutionally applicable to the requested temporal context.

The current version SHALL NOT automatically replace the historically applicable version.

13.20. Version Resolution​

A CRP SHALL define version selection where more than one version of a Constitutional Object is available.

Version selection MAY support:

  • exact version;
  • latest approved version;
  • latest published version;
  • latest compatible version;
  • version applicable on a specified date;
  • version applicable to a reporting period;
  • version required by another CKA;
  • explicitly pinned version.

Terms such as latest SHALL NOT be used without a constitutionally defined interpretation.

Version resolution SHALL be reproducible.

13.21. Jurisdictional Resolution​

A CRP MAY define jurisdiction-sensitive resolution.

Jurisdictional resolution MAY consider:

  • legal jurisdiction;
  • reporting jurisdiction;
  • operating jurisdiction;
  • product market;
  • site location;
  • entity domicile;
  • supply-chain location;
  • regulator;
  • contractual jurisdiction.

A jurisdiction-specific object MAY specialise or constrain a more general Constitutional Object.

The relationship between general and jurisdiction-specific objects SHALL remain explicit and traceable.

13.22. Language and Localisation Resolution​

A CRP MAY define language and localisation preferences.

A language resolution sequence MAY include:

  1. requested language;
  2. jurisdictional official language;
  3. customer-preferred language;
  4. canonical language;
  5. governed fallback language.

Language fallback SHALL NOT change constitutional semantics.

Where no authoritative translation exists, the resolved result SHALL identify the canonical-language source and the status of any derived translation.

Localised terminology SHALL preserve reference to the underlying Constitutional Object.

13.23. Customer and White-Label Overlays​

A CRP MAY permit customer-specific or white-label overlays.

An overlay MAY modify:

  • labels;
  • descriptions;
  • presentation;
  • navigation;
  • explanatory guidance;
  • internal classifications;
  • publication profiles;
  • customer-owned extensions.

An overlay SHALL NOT alter authoritative constitutional semantics unless it is itself a governed Constitutional Object with explicit authority and scope.

The resolution result SHALL preserve both:

  • the authoritative base object;
  • the applied overlay lineage.

13.24. Registry Federation​

A CRP MAY govern resolution across federated Constitutional Registries.

Federation rules SHALL define:

  • participating registries;
  • authority boundaries;
  • namespace delegation;
  • resolver order;
  • data exchange requirements;
  • trust requirements;
  • conflict handling;
  • version compatibility;
  • availability expectations.

Federation SHALL NOT create ambiguity concerning which registry is authoritative for a given scope.

13.25. Trust Policy​

A CRP MAY define minimum trust requirements for acceptable resolution.

Trust evaluation MAY include:

  • governing authority;
  • digital signature;
  • certificate chain;
  • integrity digest;
  • HECATE validation status;
  • publication status;
  • provenance completeness;
  • verification status;
  • source recency;
  • resolver attestation.

Trust SHALL be evaluated independently from availability.

An available object that does not satisfy the required trust level SHALL NOT be accepted as constitutionally resolved.

13.26. Validation Requirements​

A CRP SHALL define the validation requirements applicable to candidate results.

Validation MAY include:

  • identifier validation;
  • type validation;
  • registry validation;
  • authority validation;
  • version validation;
  • lifecycle validation;
  • temporal validation;
  • jurisdiction validation;
  • schema validation;
  • semantic validation;
  • integrity validation;
  • compatibility validation;
  • provenance validation.

HECATE SHALL evaluate candidate Constitutional Objects before final resolution where required by the CRP.

A retrieved object is not necessarily a constitutionally resolved object until required validation succeeds.

13.27. Candidate Resolution​

A resolution operation MAY produce multiple candidate Constitutional Objects.

Where multiple candidates exist, the CRP SHALL define how candidates are evaluated and selected.

Selection criteria MAY include:

  • authoritative status;
  • exact identifier match;
  • version compatibility;
  • temporal applicability;
  • jurisdictional applicability;
  • trust level;
  • validation status;
  • language suitability;
  • overlay applicability.

All material candidates and rejection reasons SHOULD be traceable.

13.28. Conflict Resolution​

A CRP SHALL define behaviour when candidate objects conflict.

Conflict types MAY include:

  • identifier conflict;
  • authority conflict;
  • semantic conflict;
  • version conflict;
  • temporal conflict;
  • jurisdictional conflict;
  • provenance conflict;
  • overlay conflict;
  • validation conflict.

A conflict SHALL NOT be resolved through arbitrary implementation order.

Permitted conflict outcomes MAY include:

  • selection by authority precedence;
  • selection by temporal applicability;
  • selection by jurisdiction;
  • rejection of all candidates;
  • escalation for governance review;
  • return of an explicitly ambiguous result;
  • application of an approved reconciliation rule.

Silent conflict suppression SHALL NOT be permitted.

13.29. Fallback Behaviour​

A CRP MAY define fallback behaviour where the preferred resolver or registry is unavailable or unsuitable.

Fallback MAY include:

  • secondary authoritative registry;
  • verified mirror;
  • governed cache;
  • archived snapshot;
  • previous approved version;
  • canonical-language object;
  • manual governance escalation.

Fallback SHALL specify:

  • activation conditions;
  • permitted duration;
  • trust reduction, if any;
  • validation requirements;
  • result status;
  • revalidation requirements.

Fallback SHALL NOT silently present a degraded result as fully authoritative.

13.30. Cache Policy​

A CRP MAY govern the use of cached Constitutional Objects.

Cache rules SHALL define:

  • cache eligibility;
  • cache duration;
  • version pinning;
  • invalidation triggers;
  • refresh rules;
  • offline use;
  • stale-result behaviour;
  • integrity verification;
  • provenance requirements.

A cached object SHALL retain:

  • source registry;
  • source version;
  • resolver version;
  • retrieval time;
  • validation status;
  • integrity evidence;
  • applicable policy identifier.

Cache freshness alone SHALL NOT determine constitutional validity.

13.31. Offline Resolution​

A CRP MAY define offline resolution behaviour.

Offline resolution MAY use:

  • approved local registry snapshots;
  • signed registry bundles;
  • compiler-generated lookup packages;
  • governed caches;
  • archival packages.

Offline policies SHALL define:

  • permitted object domains;
  • maximum snapshot age;
  • required signatures;
  • validation requirements;
  • restricted operations;
  • reconnection reconciliation;
  • audit obligations.

Offline operation SHALL preserve deterministic behaviour within the approved snapshot context.

13.32. Data Residency and Sovereignty​

A CRP MAY impose data residency or sovereignty constraints.

Such constraints MAY restrict:

  • resolver location;
  • registry location;
  • cache location;
  • cross-border transmission;
  • processing jurisdiction;
  • permitted authorities;
  • permitted publication channels.

Data residency rules SHALL NOT be implemented solely as infrastructure configuration where they affect constitutional resolution.

The applicable requirement SHALL be represented within the policy or a governed referenced object.

13.33. Security and Access​

A CRP MAY define security requirements for resolution.

Security rules MAY govern:

  • authentication;
  • authorisation;
  • service identity;
  • registry access classification;
  • tenant isolation;
  • confidentiality;
  • encryption;
  • signed requests;
  • resolver attestation;
  • audit logging.

A resolver SHALL distinguish between:

  • object not found;
  • object inaccessible;
  • object restricted;
  • object invalid;
  • registry unavailable.

These outcomes SHALL NOT be conflated.

13.34. Performance Rules​

A CRP MAY define operational performance rules where they do not compromise constitutional correctness.

Performance rules MAY include:

  • timeout;
  • retry count;
  • concurrency;
  • batching;
  • cache preference;
  • resolver health requirements;
  • latency thresholds.

Where performance and constitutional correctness conflict, constitutional correctness SHALL prevail unless an explicit degraded-mode policy applies.

Performance behaviour that changes selected constitutional meaning SHALL be treated as policy behaviour rather than technical optimisation.

13.35. Degraded Resolution​

A CRP MAY define a degraded resolution mode.

Degraded resolution MAY be permitted where:

  • an authoritative registry is temporarily unavailable;
  • only an approved historical snapshot is accessible;
  • language-specific content is unavailable;
  • non-critical metadata cannot be resolved;
  • an external dependency is delayed.

A degraded result SHALL declare:

  • degraded status;
  • reason;
  • unavailable dependency;
  • fallback source;
  • trust level;
  • limitations;
  • expiry or revalidation condition.

A degraded result SHALL NOT satisfy use cases requiring full authoritative resolution unless the applicable policy explicitly permits it.

13.36. Resolution Failure​

A CRP SHALL define resolution failure conditions.

Failure conditions MAY include:

  • no applicable policy;
  • unknown namespace;
  • missing Registry Entry;
  • unavailable mandatory resolver;
  • unresolved dependency;
  • invalid candidate;
  • authority conflict;
  • policy conflict;
  • trust failure;
  • temporal ambiguity;
  • version incompatibility;
  • access restriction;
  • integrity failure.

Resolution failure SHALL produce a structured and traceable result.

A failure SHALL NOT be replaced with an inferred or guessed Constitutional Object.

13.37. Resolution Result​

Every constitutional resolution operation SHALL produce a Resolution Result.

A Resolution Result SHALL contain, as applicable:

  • requested identifier;
  • resolved Constitutional Object identifier;
  • resolved object version;
  • resolution status;
  • CRP identifier and version;
  • Registry Entry identifier;
  • resolver identifier and version;
  • source registry;
  • applied context;
  • applied overlays;
  • validation result;
  • trust status;
  • effective date;
  • resolution time;
  • fallback status;
  • conflict status;
  • provenance reference;
  • evidence reference.

A Resolution Result MAY be persisted as a Constitutional Entity.

Where long-term auditability is required, it SHOULD be retained as governed evidence.

13.38. Resolution Evidence​

A CRP MAY require generation of resolution evidence.

Resolution evidence MAY include:

  • policy evaluation trace;
  • resolver invocation trace;
  • candidate list;
  • rejection reasons;
  • validation reports;
  • authority comparison;
  • version selection logic;
  • temporal evaluation;
  • cache provenance;
  • digital signatures;
  • integrity digests.

Evidence SHALL be sufficient to reproduce or independently verify the resolution decision.

Sensitive operational details MAY be access controlled without removing the constitutional lineage required for audit.

13.39. Determinism​

Constitutional Resolution SHALL be deterministic within a fully defined resolution context.

Given identical:

  • identifier;
  • Resolution Context;
  • CRG state;
  • CRP version;
  • Registry Entry versions;
  • registry states;
  • resolver versions;
  • validation rules;
  • authoritative source states;

the resolution process SHALL produce the same Resolution Result.

Where external systems prevent strict repeatability, the resolution evidence SHALL capture sufficient state to reproduce the authoritative decision.

13.40. Reproducibility​

A CRP SHOULD support historical reproduction of resolution operations.

Reproduction MAY require:

  • policy version;
  • Registry Entry version;
  • registry snapshot;
  • resolver version;
  • context snapshot;
  • validation-rule version;
  • authoritative source version;
  • timestamp;
  • dependency lock.

A present-day resolution request SHALL NOT be assumed to reproduce a historical result unless the historical state is explicitly restored or referenced.

13.41. Policy Lifecycle​

Every CRP SHALL participate in a governed lifecycle.

Typical states MAY include:

  • Draft;
  • Proposed;
  • Under Review;
  • Approved;
  • Active;
  • Deprecated;
  • Superseded;
  • Withdrawn;
  • Archived.

Only policies in constitutionally permitted states SHALL be used for operational resolution.

A superseded policy MAY remain available for historical reproduction.

13.42. Policy Versioning​

CRP versioning SHALL distinguish between:

  • editorial changes;
  • metadata changes;
  • compatible rule additions;
  • resolver precedence changes;
  • authority precedence changes;
  • fallback changes;
  • trust requirement changes;
  • breaking policy changes.

A change that may alter the selected Constitutional Object or resolution status SHALL be treated as a semantic policy change.

Policy versions SHALL remain resolvable for audit and historical reconstruction.

13.43. Policy Governance​

Every CRP SHALL identify its governance.

Governance SHALL define, as applicable:

  • governing Constitutional Authority;
  • policy owner;
  • policy steward;
  • approving authority;
  • security authority;
  • jurisdictional authority;
  • change authority;
  • activation authority;
  • withdrawal authority.

A policy affecting regulatory interpretation SHOULD require approval by the authority responsible for that regulatory domain.

A customer policy SHALL NOT override platform or regulatory constraints beyond its delegated authority.

13.44. Policy Validation​

HECATE SHALL validate CRPs before they are activated.

Policy validation SHALL include, as applicable:

  • identity validation;
  • schema validation;
  • rule validation;
  • scope validation;
  • applicability validation;
  • authority validation;
  • precedence validation;
  • composition validation;
  • inheritance validation;
  • resolver reference validation;
  • Registry Entry validation;
  • conflict analysis;
  • determinism analysis;
  • fallback validation;
  • security validation;
  • lifecycle validation.

A policy containing contradictory or non-deterministic mandatory rules SHALL NOT become active.

13.45. Policy Simulation​

A CRP SHOULD support simulation before activation.

Simulation MAY test:

  • representative identifiers;
  • historical resolution requests;
  • jurisdictional scenarios;
  • customer overlays;
  • registry outages;
  • resolver failures;
  • conflicting candidates;
  • version transitions;
  • cache expiry;
  • policy composition.

Simulation results SHOULD be retained as validation evidence for high-impact policies.

Policy simulation SHALL NOT itself modify authoritative registry state.

13.46. Policy Impact Analysis​

Changes to a CRP SHOULD undergo constitutional impact analysis.

Impact analysis SHOULD identify:

  • affected namespaces;
  • affected registries;
  • affected CKAs;
  • affected modules;
  • affected components;
  • affected validators;
  • affected compiler outputs;
  • affected APIs;
  • affected AI contexts;
  • affected customers;
  • affected white-label deployments;
  • affected regulatory reports;
  • affected historical reproducibility.

Both module and component lineage SHALL be preserved.

A change to resolver precedence or authority precedence SHOULD be treated as high impact.

13.47. Policy Activation​

A CRP SHALL become operational only through an authorised activation process.

Activation SHALL define:

  • policy version;
  • effective date;
  • scope;
  • deployment targets;
  • predecessor policy;
  • rollback policy;
  • revalidation requirements;
  • affected registries;
  • affected consumers.

Activation SHALL be atomic within the applicable constitutional scope where practicable.

Partial activation SHALL be explicitly governed and traceable.

13.48. Policy Rollback​

A CRP MAY support rollback to a prior approved policy version.

Rollback SHALL specify:

  • triggering conditions;
  • authorised actor or authority;
  • target version;
  • effective time;
  • affected scope;
  • treatment of results produced under the replaced policy;
  • revalidation requirements.

Rollback SHALL NOT erase the audit history of the superseded policy execution.

13.49. Emergency Resolution Policy​

A CRP MAY define emergency behaviour for exceptional conditions.

Emergency conditions MAY include:

  • authoritative registry outage;
  • compromised resolver;
  • corrupted registry;
  • regulatory deadline;
  • security incident;
  • disaster recovery;
  • disconnected operation.

An emergency policy SHALL be:

  • pre-approved where practicable;
  • narrowly scoped;
  • time limited;
  • explicitly activated;
  • highly traceable;
  • subject to post-event review.

Emergency operation SHALL NOT become an ungoverned permanent fallback.

13.50. AI Participation​

AI systems MAY assist in:

  • policy drafting;
  • policy analysis;
  • conflict detection;
  • impact analysis;
  • simulation;
  • anomaly detection;
  • resolver recommendation.

AI systems SHALL NOT autonomously establish constitutional policy authority.

AI-generated or AI-modified CRPs SHALL undergo the same governance, validation and approval processes as human-authored policies.

An AI system consuming a Resolution Result SHOULD receive the policy, provenance, authority and confidence context necessary to interpret that result correctly.

13.51. Technology Independence​

The CRP model is independent of implementation technology.

Policies MAY be implemented using:

  • declarative policy languages;
  • decision tables;
  • rules engines;
  • graph rules;
  • JSON or YAML;
  • executable specifications;
  • compiled decision models;
  • workflow engines;
  • policy-as-code systems.

The implementation SHALL preserve the normative semantics of the Constitutional Resolution Policy.

A technical rule engine SHALL execute policy.

It SHALL NOT define constitutional authority merely by executing it.

13.52. Policy Compilation​

The Constitutional Compiler MAY compile CRPs into implementation-specific policy entities.

Compiled outputs MAY include:

  • resolver configurations;
  • decision tables;
  • routing rules;
  • cache rules;
  • API gateway policies;
  • rules-engine packages;
  • offline resolution bundles;
  • test suites;
  • monitoring rules;
  • documentation;
  • AI context packages.

Compiled policy entities SHALL preserve:

  • policy identity;
  • version;
  • scope;
  • authority;
  • precedence;
  • provenance;
  • validation status.

The compiled entity SHALL remain traceable to the canonical CRP.

13.53. Monitoring and Observability​

Operational resolution SHOULD produce observability data sufficient to identify policy behaviour and failures.

Observability MAY include:

  • policy selection frequency;
  • resolver usage;
  • fallback activation;
  • cache usage;
  • resolution latency;
  • validation failures;
  • conflict frequency;
  • unresolved identifiers;
  • degraded results;
  • authority mismatches.

Operational telemetry SHALL NOT replace constitutional resolution evidence.

Monitoring data MAY identify potential policy defects but SHALL NOT automatically redefine policy semantics.

13.54. Conformance​

A policy conforms to the CRP model where it:

  1. is represented as a Constitutional Object;
  2. possesses stable constitutional identity;
  3. defines explicit scope and applicability;
  4. identifies its governing authority;
  5. defines resolver or registry selection behaviour;
  6. defines applicable precedence rules;
  7. defines version and temporal behaviour where relevant;
  8. defines failure and fallback behaviour;
  9. defines validation requirements;
  10. supports deterministic evaluation;
  11. preserves policy and authority lineage;
  12. produces traceable Resolution Results;
  13. supports HECATE validation;
  14. preserves historical versions;
  15. remains implementation independent.

A resolver implementation SHALL NOT be considered constitutionally conforming where it applies material resolution behaviour that is absent from or contrary to the applicable CRP.

13.55. Relationship to Other Constitutional Components​

The Constitutional Resolution Policy connects the static registry architecture with operational resolution behaviour.

Its relationship to other constitutional components is as follows:

  • the Constitutional Resolution Architecture defines the resolution process in which the CRP operates;
  • the Constitutional Registry Registry identifies Registry Entries and applicable policy references;
  • Constitutional Registries provide candidate Constitutional Objects;
  • the Constitutional Object System governs CRPs as specialised Constitutional Objects;
  • the Constitutional Knowledge Model defines the semantics evaluated during resolution;
  • Constitutional Knowledge Assets may express and package CRPs;
  • the Constitutional Metadata Dictionary defines CRP metadata;
  • Constitutional Authorities govern policy authority and precedence;
  • Constitutional Value Providers provide controlled policy values;
  • Authoritative Validation Sources support authority and source validation;
  • HECATE validates policies, candidates and Resolution Results;
  • the Constitutional Compiler compiles CRPs into executable policy entities;
  • runtime services execute compiled policies without redefining their semantics.

The CRP therefore makes constitutional resolution behaviour itself part of the governed constitutional ecosystem.

13.56. Foundational Principle​

A Constitutional Resolution Policy is the authoritative constitutional definition of how a Constitutional Identifier is resolved into a Constitutional Object.

Every material resolution decision—including registry selection, resolver precedence, authority precedence, version selection, temporal applicability, jurisdiction, language, overlays, trust, fallback and failure behaviour—SHALL be explicit, governed and traceable.

Constitutional Resolution Policies SHALL be represented as Constitutional Objects and SHALL participate in constitutional identity, governance, lifecycle, validation, versioning and compilation.

By separating resolution behaviour from registry implementation, the CRP enables deterministic, federated and context-sensitive resolution without embedding constitutional meaning in application code, infrastructure configuration or undocumented operational assumptions.

14. Constitutional Registries​

14.1. Introduction​

A Constitutional Registry is the authoritative constitutional authority responsible for governing a defined semantic domain within the ZAYAZ ecosystem.

A Constitutional Registry maintains and governs Constitutional Objects belonging to a common constitutional domain, ensuring that those objects remain uniquely identifiable, semantically consistent, traceable and resolvable throughout their lifecycle.

A Constitutional Registry is not defined by its implementation.

Databases, APIs, graphs, files, ontologies and services are merely implementation mechanisms.

The Constitutional Registry itself is a governed constitutional construct that establishes authoritative ownership over a specific body of constitutional knowledge.

14.2. Purpose​

The purpose of Constitutional Registries is to establish authoritative governance over collections of related Constitutional Objects.

Constitutional Registries provide:

  • authoritative object definitions;
  • constitutional identity management;
  • semantic consistency;
  • controlled vocabularies;
  • metadata governance;
  • relationship governance;
  • lifecycle management;
  • provenance;
  • traceability;
  • deterministic resolution;
  • interoperability;
  • extensibility.

Together they form the distributed constitutional foundation of the Constitutional Knowledge Base.

14.3. Constitutional Principle​

Every Constitutional Object that belongs to a governed semantic domain SHALL belong to exactly one authoritative Constitutional Registry.

A Constitutional Registry SHALL constitute the single constitutional authority for the objects within its declared scope.

Multiple implementations MAY expose the same registry.

Only one constitutional authority SHALL govern the registry itself.

14.4. Constitutional Position​

Within the Constitutional Resolution Architecture, Constitutional Registries provide the authoritative Constitutional Objects resolved during constitutional operations.

Constitutional Identifier
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry Registry
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Resolution Policy
        │
        ▼
Registry Resolver
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Object

The Constitutional Registry Registry discovers the registry.

The Constitutional Resolution Policy governs how it is used.

The Constitutional Registry provides the authoritative Constitutional Objects.

14.5. Constitutional Registry as a Constitutional Object​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL itself be represented as a specialised Constitutional Object.

Accordingly every Constitutional Registry SHALL possess:

  • constitutional identity;
  • registry classification;
  • constitutional authority;
  • metadata;
  • governance;
  • relationships;
  • lifecycle;
  • provenance;
  • traceability;
  • publication profile;
  • validation status.

Registries therefore participate in the Constitutional Object System exactly as other constitutional artefacts.

14.6. Constitutional Registry Domain​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL govern exactly one Registry Domain.

A Registry Domain represents a coherent constitutional knowledge domain.

Examples include:

Reference Domain

  • Countries
  • Regions
  • Languages
  • Units
  • Currencies
  • Time Zones

Regulatory Domain

  • ESRS
  • CSRD
  • EU Taxonomy
  • GRI
  • ISSB
  • IFRS Sustainability

Classification Domain

  • NACE
  • ISIC
  • GICS
  • SIC
  • Product Categories

Governance Domain

  • Constitutional Authorities
  • Roles
  • Responsibilities
  • Governance Policies

Semantic Domain

  • Metadata Definitions
  • Relationship Types
  • Asset Types
  • Object Types
  • Lifecycle Definitions

Validation Domain

  • Validation Rules
  • Validation Sources
  • Validators
  • Constraints

Computational Domain

  • Formulae
  • Algorithms
  • Models
  • Emission Factors
  • Conversion Factors

Additional Registry Domains MAY be introduced through constitutional governance.

14.7. Registry Scope​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL declare its constitutional scope.

Scope SHALL define:

  • governed domain;
  • governed object types;
  • namespace;
  • jurisdiction;
  • authority;
  • applicability;
  • ownership;
  • lifecycle responsibilities.

The registry SHALL NOT silently govern objects outside its declared scope.

14.8. Registry Contents​

A Constitutional Registry contains Constitutional Objects.

Examples include:

Country Registry
    Sweden
    Norway
    Germany

Unit Registry
    kg
    tonne
    m³
    kWh

Authority Registry
    European Commission
    EFRAG
    ISSB

Relationship Registry
    governs
    depends-on
    validates
    extends

Each Registry Entry SHALL itself be a Constitutional Object.

14.9. Registry Entries​

A Registry Entry represents one governed Constitutional Object within a Constitutional Registry.

Every Registry Entry SHALL possess:

  • constitutional identity;
  • registry membership;
  • type;
  • metadata;
  • lifecycle;
  • authority;
  • provenance;
  • relationships;
  • version.

Registry Entries SHALL remain independently resolvable.

14.10. Registry Identity​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL possess a globally unique Registry Identifier.

Registry identity SHALL remain stable throughout:

  • implementation changes;
  • technology migrations;
  • storage changes;
  • deployment changes;
  • API evolution;
  • resolver changes.

Identity SHALL be independent of implementation.

14.11. Registry Authority​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL identify its governing Constitutional Authority.

Authority SHALL define:

  • ownership;
  • stewardship;
  • approval;
  • publication;
  • change control;
  • retirement.

Only the governing authority MAY approve constitutional changes affecting registry semantics.

14.12. Registry Provider​

A Registry Provider is the organisation responsible for maintaining a Constitutional Registry implementation.

The Registry Provider MAY be:

  • Viroway;
  • an EU authority;
  • an international standards organisation;
  • a customer;
  • a governmental authority;
  • a delegated constitutional authority.

Registry Providers implement registries.

They do not define constitutional authority unless constitutionally designated.

14.13. Registry Consumer​

Registry Consumers retrieve Constitutional Objects.

Consumers MAY include:

  • HECATE;
  • Constitutional Compiler;
  • Runtime Services;
  • APIs;
  • AI Services;
  • Publication Systems;
  • Computation Engines;
  • External Integrations.

Consumers SHALL interact through Constitutional Resolution.

Direct implementation coupling SHOULD be avoided.

14.14. Registry Resolver​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL expose one or more Registry Resolvers.

Resolvers MAY support:

  • lookup;
  • search;
  • historical lookup;
  • version lookup;
  • multilingual lookup;
  • dependency lookup;
  • semantic expansion.

Resolver behaviour SHALL remain governed by the applicable Constitutional Resolution Policy.

14.15. Registry Object Types​

A Constitutional Registry MAY govern one or more Constitutional Object Types.

Examples include:

  • Units
  • Metrics
  • Authorities
  • Asset Types
  • Metadata Definitions
  • Relationships
  • Schemas
  • Validation Rules
  • Publications
  • Standards
  • Regulations
  • Formulae
  • Algorithms

Every object SHALL declare its Constitutional Object Type.

14.16. Registry Relationships​

Registries MAY reference other registries.

Examples include:

ESRS Registry
        │
        ├── references Unit Registry
        ├── references Country Registry
        ├── references Metadata Registry
        ├── references Authority Registry
        └── references Relationship Registry

Registry relationships SHALL be explicit.

Hidden implementation dependencies SHALL NOT constitute constitutional relationships.

14.17. Registry Dependencies​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL declare constitutional dependencies.

Dependencies MAY include:

  • Metadata Dictionary;
  • Value Providers;
  • Authorities;
  • Validation Sources;
  • Relationship Registry;
  • Unit Registry;
  • Language Registry.

Dependency resolution SHALL occur through CRA.

14.18. Registry Composition​

Large Registry Domains MAY be composed from multiple cooperating Constitutional Registries.

Reference Registry Domain
        │
        ├── Country Registry
        ├── Unit Registry
        ├── Language Registry
        └── Currency Registry

Composition SHALL preserve constitutional authority.

14.19. Registry Federation​

Multiple Constitutional Registries MAY participate in a federated constitutional ecosystem.

Federation MAY include:

  • ZAYAZ registries;
  • customer registries;
  • governmental registries;
  • regulatory registries;
  • standards registries;
  • partner registries.

Federation SHALL preserve:

  • authority;
  • provenance;
  • identity;
  • namespace ownership;
  • traceability.

14.20. Registry Namespace​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL govern one or more namespaces.

Namespace ownership SHALL be unique.

Delegation SHALL be explicit.

Namespace collisions SHALL constitute constitutional validation failures.

14.21. Registry Lifecycle​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL participate in constitutional lifecycle management.

Typical lifecycle states include:

  • Draft
  • Proposed
  • Approved
  • Active
  • Deprecated
  • Superseded
  • Retired
  • Archived

Lifecycle semantics SHALL be governed through Constitutional Value Providers.

14.22. Registry Versioning​

Registry versioning SHALL distinguish between:

  • editorial changes;
  • metadata changes;
  • entry additions;
  • entry removals;
  • semantic changes;
  • compatibility changes;
  • structural changes.

Registry versions SHALL preserve constitutional identity.

14.23. Registry Provenance​

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL preserve provenance.

Provenance SHALL include:

  • originating authority;
  • approval history;
  • publication history;
  • migration history;
  • stewardship history;
  • supersession history.

14.24. Registry Traceability​

Registry traceability SHALL support complete constitutional lineage.

It SHALL be possible to determine:

  • which Registry resolved an object;
  • which Registry version was used;
  • which Resolver was executed;
  • which CRP governed the resolution;
  • which HECATE validation occurred;
  • which Compiler consumed the result.

14.25. Registry Validation​

HECATE SHALL validate Constitutional Registries.

Validation SHALL include:

  • registry identity;
  • namespace uniqueness;
  • metadata completeness;
  • object integrity;
  • relationship integrity;
  • authority;
  • provenance;
  • lifecycle;
  • dependencies;
  • compatibility.

Registries failing validation SHALL NOT participate in constitutional resolution.

14.26. Registry Integrity​

Registries SHALL preserve constitutional integrity.

Integrity MAY include:

  • signatures;
  • cryptographic hashes;
  • immutable audit records;
  • publication manifests;
  • approval records;
  • integrity chains.

Integrity SHALL complement constitutional governance.

14.27. Registry Availability​

Registry implementations SHOULD ensure sufficient availability.

Where registries become unavailable, CRPs MAY permit:

  • approved mirrors;
  • governed caches;
  • historical snapshots;
  • offline packages.

Availability SHALL NOT override constitutional correctness.

14.28. Registry Determinism​

Given identical:

  • Registry;
  • Registry Version;
  • Registry Entry;
  • Resolution Policy;
  • Resolution Context;

the Registry SHALL return identical Constitutional Objects.

Determinism is a constitutional requirement.

14.29. Registry Interoperability​

Registries SHALL interoperate through Constitutional Objects rather than implementation technology.

Implementations MAY use:

  • SQL
  • Graph Databases
  • RDF
  • JSON
  • YAML
  • XML
  • APIs
  • Files
  • Knowledge Graphs

Constitutional interoperability SHALL be implementation independent.

14.30. Registry Compilation​

The Constitutional Compiler MAY compile registries into:

  • APIs;
  • documentation;
  • SDKs;
  • runtime indexes;
  • search indexes;
  • graph databases;
  • AI context packages;
  • offline bundles;
  • publication datasets.

Compiled registries SHALL preserve constitutional semantics.

14.31. Registry Publication​

Registries MAY be published for:

  • internal governance;
  • developers;
  • regulators;
  • customers;
  • white-label platforms;
  • AI systems;
  • public reference.

Publication SHALL NOT alter constitutional meaning.

14.32. Registry Extensibility​

Constitutional Registries SHALL support controlled extension.

Extensions MAY include:

  • additional Registry Entries;
  • customer extensions;
  • jurisdictional extensions;
  • industry-specific extensions;
  • future standards.

Extensions SHALL preserve constitutional compatibility.

14.33. Registry Technology Independence​

A Constitutional Registry SHALL remain independent of:

  • programming language;
  • database engine;
  • graph technology;
  • API architecture;
  • cloud provider;
  • storage mechanism;
  • deployment model.

Technology implements registries.

Technology does not define registries.

14.34. Registry Conformance​

A Constitutional Registry conforms where it:

  1. is represented as a Constitutional Object;
  2. governs one Registry Domain;
  3. possesses stable constitutional identity;
  4. defines explicit scope;
  5. declares authoritative governance;
  6. contains governed Registry Entries;
  7. participates in CRA;
  8. supports CRP-governed resolution;
  9. preserves provenance;
  10. preserves traceability;
  11. supports HECATE validation;
  12. maintains deterministic behaviour.

14.35. Relationship to Other Constitutional Components​

The Constitutional Registry provides the authoritative constitutional content resolved throughout the ecosystem.

Its relationship to other constitutional components is as follows:

  • the Constitutional Registry Registry discovers the appropriate Constitutional Registry for a given namespace or identifier;
  • the Constitutional Resolution Policy governs how registries are selected, queried and evaluated during resolution;
  • the Constitutional Resolution Architecture orchestrates the end-to-end resolution process;
  • the Constitutional Object System defines Constitutional Registries and Registry Entries as specialised Constitutional Objects;
  • the Constitutional Knowledge Model provides the semantic framework governing the objects held within registries;
  • the Constitutional Knowledge Base contains the complete ecosystem of Constitutional Registries and their governed content;
  • Constitutional Knowledge Assets reference Constitutional Objects through registry-managed identifiers rather than implementation-specific values;
  • the Constitutional Metadata Dictionary standardises registry metadata definitions;
  • Constitutional Authorities govern registry ownership, stewardship and approval;
  • Constitutional Value Providers supply controlled vocabularies and enumerations used by registries;
  • Authoritative Validation Sources provide external references used to verify registry content;
  • HECATE validates registry integrity, governance and semantic consistency;
  • the Constitutional Compiler transforms registry content into runtime, documentation, API and AI representations.

Constitutional Registries therefore represent the authoritative constitutional repositories from which all governed semantic knowledge is resolved.

14.36. Foundational Principle​

A Constitutional Registry is the authoritative constitutional authority for a governed semantic domain.

Every Constitutional Registry SHALL be represented as a specialised Constitutional Object that governs a coherent collection of Registry Entries, each of which is itself a Constitutional Object. Registries SHALL preserve stable identity, explicit scope, constitutional authority, provenance, lifecycle, deterministic behaviour and complete traceability.

Constitutional Registries SHALL be discovered through the Constitutional Registry Registry, operated according to Constitutional Resolution Policies and consumed through the Constitutional Resolution Architecture. Their implementation technology MAY vary, but their constitutional meaning, governance and authority SHALL remain invariant.

By treating registries as governed constitutional authorities rather than implementation artefacts, ZAYAZ establishes a scalable, federated and technology-independent foundation for authoritative knowledge management across the entire constitutional ecosystem.

Appendix A - The Constitutional Resolution Chain​

Constitutional Identifier
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry Registry
        │
        │ discovers the responsible registry domain
        ▼
Constitutional Resolution Policy
        │
        │ governs resolution behaviour
        ▼
Policy Evaluation
        │
        ▼
Registry Resolver Sequence
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Registry or Registries
        │
        ▼
Candidate Constitutional Objects
        │
        ▼
HECATE Validation
        │
        ▼
Resolution Result
        │
        ▼
Constitutional Compiler • Runtime • APIs • AI • Publication

This creates a precise separation of responsibility:

Constitutional elementResponsibility
CRADefines the end-to-end resolution architecture.
CRGDiscovers the responsible registry and its constitutional metadata.
CRPGoverns how the resolution operation is performed.
Policy evaluatorApplies the CRP to the Resolution Context.
Registry ResolverExecutes resolver operations against permitted registries.
Constitutional RegistrySupplies candidate Constitutional Objects.
HECATEValidates the policy, candidates and resulting resolution.
Resolution ResultRecords the resolved object and the complete constitutional decision lineage.

Architectural note​

The constitutional model has a clean three-layer semantic stack:

Constitutional Knowledge Model (CKM)
        │
        │ defines concepts and meaning
        ▼
Constitutional Metadata Dictionary (CMD)
        │
        │ defines how concepts are described
        ▼
Constitutional Value Providers (CVP)
        │
        │ define the permitted values for metadata
        ▼
Constitutional Objects

This separation is particularly powerful because it distinguishes three concerns that are often conflated:

  • CKM answers: What concepts exist and what do they mean?
  • CMD answers: How are those concepts described and governed as metadata?
  • CVP answers: What values are permitted for those metadata definitions?

This layered approach keeps semantics, metadata structure and controlled values independently governable while allowing them to evolve together through the constitutional architecture.

The Constitutional Metadata Dictionary (CMD) can be found in the next document, "Specialised Constitutional Registries".



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