{"core-extras.96d330537a":"Base IR","core-extras.bee831a169":"Substrate","core-extras.61a0822826":"Apps on Core","core-extras.15438cc098":"not supported","core-extras.ad565d9d01":"Feature","core-extras.0155bf03e5":"Segment legend","core-extras.8b7110078e":"Algorithm groups by data type","core-extras.25ab4276a6":"Scrollable capability matrix","framework.4971dcd4e9":"The critical-infrastructure and public-sector use case.","framework.ea5745d55a":"Public services","framework.39fd2070d4":"Sector","framework.8da3c06fa2":"How the layers fit together, foundation to surface.","framework.864abb8613":"The stack","framework.123a7f2fcc":"Platform","framework.8cbb65f029":"The proof machine and replay formats behind the certificates.","framework.df84637182":"AION","framework.5f174de1cc":"Proof","framework.eb4d3e9794":"Go deeper","framework.9753f5654b":"Keep reading","framework.fb001b2c29":"Framework","framework.be601df25e":"Research","framework.90214883b6":"Talk to us","framework.2c11034cad":"Read the stack","framework.77bb3358bb":"The framework runs on Core, Loom, and Kera with an AION-style proof certificate on every decision. Read the substrate, the proof machine, and the replay formats, or talk to us about a specific service.","framework.29613ed6de":"Read the proof layer end to end.","framework.11fc14203d":"Next steps","framework.cb014151f7":"See it work","framework.02e1f8e699":"If a public body uses a computer to help decide your case, you can ask for the reason in plain words, and a person has to stand behind it. That is not a favour, it is how it has to work.","framework.61bb32f305":"You are owed a reason. Always.","framework.fd64398fa6":"The framework comes with a phased roadmap, a governance model, and reference schemas. Talk to us about applying it to a specific service, or read how the platform underneath it works.","framework.ce2105b02c":"Make public-sector AI defensible.","framework.5c44a1f244":"Framework, engineering","framework.db9b7efc2e":"Bit-identical replay","framework.8bf34da1c7":"One platform","framework.66762f4fb3":"CPU-first against a generative GPU stack.","framework.aa50825f45":"Less energy","framework.e89de1f522":"Hot-path hypervector lookup replacing a retrieval round trip.","framework.a1b724d4a3":"Lattice lookup","framework.33a00b17c6":"1.36 ns","framework.461487b672":"2,900+ ops, 76 categories, 25 numeric formats, 12 backends.","framework.49807fcffb":"Core impls","framework.404325de99":"4 to 8 active per query, downstream of the proof.","framework.911958ea9d":"Loom domain specialists","framework.20eedecbd2":"Verified anchors only","framework.f8174c8f95":"SUBSTRATE FIGURES","framework.b3eb6065b2":"ENERGY","framework.e46008c8ce":"BITWEAVE","framework.540a7b6bed":"LATTICE","framework.1560acd6a4":"CORE 408K","framework.695ef72314":"LOOM 528","framework.7dd8e453c1":"The framework runs on the same platform as the rest of Dweve. Loom contributes 528 domain specialists with 4 to 8 active per query, Core spans roughly 408K implementations across 12 backends, Lattice serves 1.36 ns hot-path lookups, BitWeave holds 1.000 recall at about 35K QPS on 10K documents, and the whole stack runs CPU-first at 96% less energy than a generative stack.","framework.5738538fb8":"not projections.","framework.d3ef049367":"Measured anchors,","framework.7b3cbf6411":"The numbers","framework.facf1cedba":"Each an artifact","framework.bbbaac2577":"Seven anchors","framework.75ba3520b7":"Proactive transparency under the Wet open overheid, and the proportionality the 2020 SyRI judgment demands, enforced by architecture.","framework.9dff3371c9":"WOO and SyRI","framework.043b8e34d4":"High-risk explainability and oversight duties, plus a GDPR Article 22 human gate before any decision with legal effect.","framework.8b5de812a1":"EU AI Act and GDPR","framework.c2f263e511":"RDF and OWL model the domain, PROV-O records lineage per field, SHACL encodes the rules. All published, none proprietary.","framework.3f61827e7f":"Open substrate standards","framework.f412885d6b":"Each maps to an artifact","framework.0f40920fe4":"ANCHORS, NOT CHECKLISTS","framework.f2632d0fb3":"WOO","framework.a5b7d57a85":"GDPR","framework.7b46d2f3cc":"AI ACT","framework.0cd2fb8509":"SHACL","framework.bd1feb6f19":"Nothing here is a private format. The substrate grounds out to open W3C standards, RDF and OWL for the ontology, PROV-O for provenance, SHACL for constraints, and the regulatory surface grounds out to named law, the EU AI Act, GDPR Article 22, the Wet open overheid, and the 2020 SyRI judgment of the District Court of The Hague. Each anchor maps to a concrete artifact the certificate carries.","framework.8a5af3965a":"named law above.","framework.332bbf6f53":"Open standards below,","framework.2f3d239f9a":"What it grounds out to","framework.2a1c7139bd":"On every decision","framework.b8d836693c":"Five fields","framework.e176e17669":"A SHA3-256 chain segment, Ed25519 signed, replayed bit-identical.","framework.ff8fc1c58a":"Seal","framework.f5d0cf25b9":"GDPR Article 22 enforced as a gate before any decision with legal effect.","framework.a0a474d0bc":"Human gate","framework.5eecf40d93":"A certificate verified offline in linear time, no solver required.","framework.a931f9e6e7":"The constraints that fired, in order, logged as the answer is built.","framework.ec8c6779f3":"Derivation","framework.99bef7629e":"Emitted, not bolted on","framework.a903467163":"WHAT THE CERTIFICATE CARRIES","framework.888bf5eced":"SEAL","framework.3fd30984fa":"HUMAN GATE","framework.eb44b37443":"CONSTRAINT","framework.e713d42aa6":"SUBJECT","framework.bf776410c8":"Reasoning runs by constraint satisfaction and emits a proof certificate any verifier checks offline, in linear time, without asking the solver. The certificate names the ontology subject, the PROV-O lineage, the SHACL shape that fired, the human gate required before legal effect, and the replay seal. A fluent but wrong answer fails the check.","framework.c480750ccf":"a certificate you can check.","framework.1607ae19e7":"Every decision emits","framework.542d52d163":"The proof format","framework.be9d51ddc6":"One replayable path","framework.1286402508":"Five hops","framework.754c29faa8":"The proven conclusion, with its trace, is handed to Loom to put into plain words.","framework.bfb5e2091c":"Derive to phrase","framework.0d4c574d84":"Matched shapes feed constraint satisfaction on Core, which emits a verifiable certificate.","framework.c9cde06da8":"Validate to derive","framework.69925e326e":"Graph entities are matched against the SHACL shape that was in force on the date.","framework.ef08c63dfd":"Resolve to validate","framework.235020c7e4":"Typed fields with PROV-O lineage become entities and relations in the knowledge graph.","framework.58102c6782":"Ingest to resolve","framework.ddcc4f3c1c":"Input becomes the next input","framework.93b99ea882":"WHAT EACH HOP HANDS ON","framework.9095b5d6b2":"PHRASE","framework.71be85d15b":"DERIVE","framework.3a2d36aad9":"VALIDATE","framework.5c1a381340":"RESOLVE","framework.7f123bd718":"INGEST","framework.09149e46d3":"Follow a single public-service query as it is lowered through the five layers. It enters as typed fields with provenance attached, binds to the RDF and OWL ontology, fires the SHACL shape in force on the date, derives an outcome by constraint satisfaction with a proof certificate, and only then is phrased by Loom, downstream of the proof. Every hop is logged, so the whole path replays bit-identical.","framework.3e6a6c251c":"five logged hops.","framework.02a96ad446":"One query,","framework.c38fe6f00e":"The lowering","framework.f0717171e2":"One proof surface","framework.db2de9c649":"Five layers","framework.e5a0b37c78":"Core derives by constraint satisfaction across 12 backends and emits a machine-verifiable certificate, replayed bit-identical.","framework.44fe02301b":"Proof, not plausibility","framework.bd54facce5":"SHACL shapes encode policy and legal rules and validate continuously. A value becomes an executable constraint, not a comment.","framework.2a90c6dc4a":"Executable constraints","framework.e3582eface":"RDF and OWL model the domain as a queryable, reversible knowledge graph. Lattice serves hot-path lookups at 1.36 ns.","framework.4cd7c0404b":"Explicit ontology","framework.4984308714":"Where each layer grounds out","framework.ddad93112f":"STANDARDS, NOT WEIGHTS","framework.e1111021ff":"LOOM","framework.3395f87c48":"PROOF","framework.270d891e81":"A query is lowered through five layers, each replaceable, each logged. The domain is an explicit RDF and OWL ontology rather than learned weights, provenance is PROV-O attached per field, rules are SHACL shapes validated continuously, derivation runs by constraint satisfaction on Core, and Loom puts the proven conclusion into words downstream of the proof.","framework.f54cbc3da5":"on a binary engine.","framework.893f0b446e":"Five swappable layers","framework.72b1b3c52c":"The substrate","framework.e2c420d86d":"Framework, for citizens","framework.704869f20f":"In plain words","framework.e71102d544":"Your rights","framework.9a57e6345c":"Ask twice and the very same reason comes back.","framework.748288fd12":"Every time","framework.b76aee974c":"Same","framework.d79cb7f9da":"Your details stay with the office, inside Europe.","framework.3968db989e":"Stays close","framework.c82d1b09cf":"EU","framework.d8e4cf07c7":"One clear way to have a person look at it once more.","framework.3f094ed67a":"Ask again","framework.027ee09683":"A reason you can read, naming the rule and your situation.","framework.93f9d3816a":"Not a score","framework.d26d55c7f8":"Words","framework.efffac7f8e":"On your side","framework.f31727ff20":"WHAT YOU GET","framework.44e3184314":"YOUR DETAILS","framework.a49fe4cc91":"ASK AGAIN","framework.277c60cba8":"A PERSON","framework.0cdc89ba6c":"A REASON","framework.ee8e861e77":"When a public body uses a computer to help decide your case, European law is on your side. You are owed a reason you can read, a person who stands behind the decision, a way to ask again if it looks wrong, and the comfort that your details stay close to home. None of these cost extra. They are simply how it has to work.","framework.cee259f6a3":"not favours.","framework.25ecb0b2cf":"These are your rights,","framework.9f89196941":"What you are owed","framework.75e8ceee98":"It is your right","framework.cf3cf30ec5":"No form needed","framework.9de772f791":"If it looks wrong, ask a person to look once more. The reason was kept for you.","framework.71678d3cd7":"Ask again if needed","framework.f69b9cbf52":"The reason carries the name of the caseworker who agreed with it. Not a machine alone.","framework.67c33a5dc4":"See who signed","framework.ba8c5cf97a":"Back comes the rule that was used and how your situation was checked against it.","framework.f7dd3f26a9":"Get it in words","framework.51250b00f6":"Phone, write, or call in. Say plainly: please tell me the reason for this decision.","framework.0f2f874d16":"Ask the office","framework.9c2970f3c3":"Nothing complicated","framework.47ce22a1f7":"STEP BY STEP","framework.bce373429f":"KEPT ON FILE","framework.c9ee80e798":"A NAMED PERSON","framework.b8f926fd1c":"IN WORDS","framework.202be8b22d":"JUST ASK","framework.d8d722f0c2":"You do not need a form, a lawyer, or a single computer word. You phone or write to the office and ask, in plain words, for the reason behind the decision. They have to give it to you, naming the rule and the person who signed. Here is exactly how that goes, and what you are owed back.","framework.f384419b4c":"is simpler than you think.","framework.be99f051f5":"Asking for your reason","framework.fe3174dc56":"How to ask","framework.b6981c712f":"A plain answer","framework.ca3aea108b":"A normal worry","framework.7bb551ca46":"They stay with the office, here in Europe. They are not sent off to train someone else system.","framework.5693114313":"Your details wandering off","framework.102a1a69ca":"There always is. You can ask a person to look again, and the full reason is kept on file.","framework.c37850bce1":"No way to push back","framework.4e1433c3f9":"You get words instead. The rule that was used, and how your case was checked against it.","framework.ea9e88e551":"A score you cannot read","framework.f70141221a":"It never does. A named person has the final say on anything that affects your life.","framework.6331d489d4":"A machine deciding alone","framework.7a567ebc21":"Set next to the plain answer","framework.a650f00db2":"COMMON WORRIES","framework.4c53d8cf4a":"NO SECRETS","framework.3e32967f35":"A HUMAN DECIDES","framework.803bbc74f4":"It is only natural to feel uneasy when a computer is involved in a decision about your benefit, your permit, or your case. So here is each common worry set next to what really happens. A person always decides. You always get a reason in plain words. And if it looks wrong, you can always ask again.","framework.f35c4cbfff":"and so are the answers","framework.dee1164beb":"The worries are normal","framework.94c09a7afc":"It is fair to ask","framework.a3470cf106":"Easy to question","framework.b2d66787a4":"Quiet and fair","framework.f8512b0350":"Saved in plain words. Ask again later and the same answer comes back.","framework.5aeb69c4e9":"The reason is kept","framework.f7281f17b0":"A named caseworker agrees with the result. The computer helps, the person decides.","framework.8cc5854d72":"A person signs","framework.e7f8495017":"Your real situation is compared to that rule, point by point, not scored as a number.","framework.02b8ba2cea":"Your case is checked","framework.ba3fe3007a":"Like the price list on the wall. The same for everyone, written down before you walk in.","framework.deeb3568f5":"The rule is set","framework.827fc897f9":"Nothing decided by a hunch","framework.d510ec82bc":"THE EVERYDAY VERSION","framework.15668ca4dd":"KEPT FOR YOU","framework.a647a012b9":"YOUR CASE","framework.7f5464a063":"THE RULE","framework.9a158e956a":"You do not have to understand computers to see that this is fair. The office writes the rule down first, checks your real situation against it, has a person sign it off, and keeps the reason so you can ask for it again later. Same case in, same answer out.","framework.ece5bc634d":"in four plain steps.","framework.7bc2c9fb1c":"A fair decision","framework.1dd6a17cb4":"How it works","framework.c8d17dc7f6":"Research, Framework","framework.a5e4c59744":"Four components","framework.a344938438":"Four obligations","framework.1395086935":"Full transparency and proportionality enforced by architecture.","framework.434ec72a01":"SyRI standard","framework.14e82cc4ea":"Machine-readable logs and national algorithm register export.","framework.e9f843b20b":"Human-in-the-loop gate before any decision with legal effect.","framework.5370b57f15":"GDPR Art. 22","framework.d27cf6f9d6":"Reasoning proof certificate, language trace, SHACL metadata schema.","framework.d75a4de2ef":"EU AI Act","framework.8cb5373ae9":"Obligation to component","framework.36134f3ee0":"LEGAL MAPPING","framework.890e85612f":"CASE LAW","framework.beff1b446a":"The framework does not treat compliance as a checklist bolted on at the end. Each legal duty maps to a specific technical component and a specific audit artefact, evaluated continuously.","framework.61afdfba87":"maps to a component.","framework.7663591175":"Each obligation","framework.ded3fbcb09":"Where it meets the law","framework.5424b1b5d8":"One pipeline","framework.c34451e8c3":"Three guarantees","framework.90c2d8a867":"Core runs the pipeline on a multi-backend binary engine with bit-identical replay. Kera lowers one graph to every target.","framework.bee831a169":"Substrate","framework.a185eddbcf":"Loom, 528 domain specialists and 4 to 8 active per query, sits downstream. It puts a proven conclusion into words, with the trace attached.","framework.89b86ab0e6":"Language","framework.307ca243b6":"Derives by constraint satisfaction and emits a machine-verifiable proof certificate. A fluent but wrong answer fails the proof.","framework.e272c597fd":"Reasoning","framework.0fbd8c0e5c":"Where the guarantees live","framework.088ce23492":"PROOF, NOT PLAUSIBILITY","framework.efe5b59595":"TRANSLATE","framework.784e03aaaa":"REASON","framework.5a2db03813":"CONSTRAIN","framework.e7bd56e1ec":"GRAPH","framework.dc4df24555":"A query becomes an answer by passing through five layers. Each layer can be replaced independently, every state transition is logged and queryable, and any decision can be unwound and re-derived from first principles.","framework.00990b5f65":"modular, auditable, reversible.","framework.2c9adaf675":"Five layers,","framework.3bf48d39aa":"The architecture","framework.34e2ae0e28":"One system works","framework.50b4cfb7ed":"Separate systems fail","framework.97dd8beef4":"One integrated system that is trustworthy, legal, and grounded.","framework.eeb7ca9616":"All three together","framework.40310a0635":"Without metadata it has no subject. What is it even evaluating?","framework.f3be9011cf":"Compliance alone","framework.0b9a45a663":"Without compliance it is legally inert. Does it satisfy the rules?","framework.0e5ddd6cfe":"Provenance alone","framework.6c67eb74c2":"Without provenance it cannot be trusted. Where did it come from?","framework.03d2be939f":"Metadata alone","framework.ba9f862745":"Each one needs the others","framework.43f936c0b8":"WHY ALL THREE","framework.c4d9bc6083":"COMPLIANCE","framework.414cbcc9ec":"PROVENANCE","framework.9075e6912d":"METADATA","framework.e2884756ed":"The framework treats these three not as separate systems but as three faces of the same thing. Metadata without provenance cannot be trusted. Provenance without compliance is legally inert. Compliance without metadata has no subject. A single integrated system has to carry all three at once.","framework.d17f9fe312":"and none of them hold","framework.933e474768":"Separate the three records","framework.e5da7c6379":"The central idea","framework.4c0c9e6c1c":"Becomes technology","framework.496e9438ab":"Philosophy","framework.b89fa36e61":"Ontology, epistemology, and axiology, all grounded","framework.05d76d3322":"Classical pillars","framework.5d043cbb99":"Machine-executable shapes for continuous validation","framework.1317da9ea2":"Constraint standard","framework.5a01be7213":"W3C lineage encoding for every data transformation","framework.9e2b1ec5f0":"Provenance standard","framework.b436f7866c":"OWL for domain modelling, expressed as a knowledge graph","framework.0d03ca4ed4":"Ontology standard","framework.6501e0b981":"RDF","framework.ae231e1155":"Philosophy mapped to technology","framework.49f19daec2":"THE THREE PILLARS","framework.fd6a003359":"AXIOLOGY","framework.15f0182b54":"EPISTEMOLOGY","framework.e18d485d3a":"ONTOLOGY","framework.a5d7b871f5":"Technical fixes to accountability fail when they skip the underlying questions: what exists, how we know it, and whose values the system serves. The framework grounds each of those in a classical pillar that maps directly to a technical layer and a governance duty.","framework.afc2c71166":"before any technology.","framework.497a23ad00":"Three pillars","framework.7de26ad85d":"The foundation","framework.b7d40cd613":"One answer","framework.567b27918d":"Three forces","framework.f24b8d45d4":"After the benefits scandal, opaque risk-scoring carries serious institutional and legal risk.","framework.80e7ca034d":"Accountability","framework.0c4ae0e09e":"The Wet open overheid mandates proactive transparency; GDPR Article 22 limits fully automated decisions. Together they imply a right to explanation.","framework.e572760e22":"Transparency and rights","framework.65e952e9a9":"In force since August 2024, with high-risk obligations applying from August 2026. Benefit and eligibility systems are high-risk and must be explainable and overseen.","framework.628933fda7":"Why the status quo fails","framework.8be673b5e2":"CONVERGING FORCES","framework.ff29a3a0f3":"ACCOUNTABILITY","framework.fd5271805e":"GDPR AND WOO","framework.380f063397":"EU AI ACT","framework.634876b943":"Public-sector AI is being squeezed by three pressures at once. Each one, on its own, is hard for a black-box system to satisfy. Together they make deterministic, explainable AI not a preference but a requirement.","framework.37ac1c4349":"make opacity untenable.","framework.065d86530f":"The imperative","framework.b3f56605d8":"Loom, 528 domain specialists","framework.8b87285c53":"Bit-identical, SHA3-256","framework.c0f85d6679":"Replay","framework.7a54a2349c":"Verifiable offline","framework.46ee0ba970":"Constraint satisfaction","framework.39e6078545":"SHACL shapes","framework.52e68a873a":"Constraints","framework.8a56e867ec":"PROV-O, per field","framework.dd35a81646":"Provenance","framework.0b9301da26":"RDF, OWL","framework.ef9e84a6f4":"Ontology","framework.4143d04801":"Engineering","framework.794338d72d":"Substrate sheet","framework.35bbe337f1":"Read the proof format","framework.35c6fcf66b":"See the substrate","framework.dd821e5403":"The framework lowers a public-sector decision through five swappable layers on a CPU-first binary substrate. The domain is an explicit RDF and OWL ontology, not learned weights, and reasoning on Core emits a machine-verifiable proof certificate. Bit-identical replay throughout.","framework.5de2879b8b":"a proof on every decision.","framework.b963bb3de7":"Explicit ontology, executable constraints,","framework.fcc4db8f51":"Same answer back","framework.907b147a74":"Ask twice","framework.9674d4000b":"Inside Europe","framework.525f61b672":"Where","framework.25c020b432":"Stay with the office","framework.a6252b6690":"Your details","framework.3f8fc423a8":"Ask a person to look again","framework.09d68c4b4c":"If it looks wrong","framework.d6ac4c0b1d":"A named person","framework.adc5999ef1":"Who decides","framework.364216af68":"A reason, not a score","framework.8ac7aa173f":"What you get","framework.160ecb36eb":"For citizens","framework.14e1bec0a5":"Your decision, explained","framework.bcfdeb6210":"When a government office uses a computer to help decide your benefit, your permit, or your case, you have a right to know why. Not a score, not a guess you cannot see. A reason, in plain words, that a real person stands behind.","framework.98defe6b37":"you still get a reason.","framework.f82d65f5be":"When the office uses a computer,","framework.39e75dc1ee":"Bit-identical","framework.4bcdc8e1cd":"EU AI Act, GDPR, WOO","framework.38e8828462":"Aligns with","framework.6d4f5ec0dc":"Proof on every decision","framework.4bed336194":"Output","framework.cf9f55c5ff":"Metadata, provenance, compliance","framework.9c68ea57cb":"Core idea","framework.b040b4179b":"Architecture","framework.35e5387172":"Three philosophical pillars","framework.fdde6afa94":"Foundation","framework.4200e72275":"Public sector","framework.c2f50d7f94":"The framework","framework.f0b60326e8":"See the five layers","framework.abcf41a024":"The regulatory anchors","framework.178c408c8b":"A framework for deploying AI in government that can be explained, audited, and defended in court. Knowledge is grounded in an explicit ontology, every step is provable, and every value is encoded as an executable constraint.","framework.a92576b784":"for public services.","framework.53ea08c4a8":"Deterministic AI","framework.b7896e7fe4":"AI ACT","framework.474ef8cc1b":"WOO/GDPR","framework.2d75b76b2d":"ACCOUNT","framework.1dabba21cd":"✓","framework.d76354d845":"L2","framework.842983de8f":"L3","framework.4a5a97c643":"L4","framework.777ae8e1fd":"W3C","framework.9170a8b2fb":"EU","framework.4334ffcf78":"NL","framework.a8bf80b5eb":"CONTEXT","framework.6cb94d7232":"FOUNDATION","framework.e06bc83a00":"INTEGRATION","framework.98b0a4fca3":"GUARANTEES","framework.6399394ad0":"COMPLIANCE","framework.00db09ab06":"PLAIN","framework.0aa52d6e61":"REASSURANCE","framework.7d0f1a99f7":"HOW TO ASK","framework.ab2d889213":"SUBSTRATE","framework.fd10edb500":"DATAFLOW","framework.238ee60d26":"WITNESS","framework.12cf4bfd19":"STANDARDS","framework.662eb493ee":"SPEC","framework.e5ea88a219":"A HUMAN DECIDES","framework.c3de5c67d5":"NO SECRETS","framework.8c5ef8dc31":"Make public-sector AI","framework.17a5d6bf5c":"defensible","framework.b8628897e5":"You are owed a reason","framework.6656018ac9":"always","framework.e97237ea00":"Read the proof layer","framework.f591672335":"end to end","framework.824ba3df49":"What the framework carries","framework.251edc0eb5":"Metadata","framework.2b916fec95":"Every decision names its subject, its rule and its inputs.","framework.724bfe272b":"Where each input came from and who changed it.","framework.68f0ae4911":"Compliance","framework.c1f36f6d09":"The obligation each record answers, named in the record.","framework.bf96972a6e":"three faces of one system","framework.3db6d284ef":"Regulation, the right to an explanation and institutional accountability arrive together, and a system that cannot show its reasoning fails all three at the same moment.","framework.850159295a":"Each pillar carries a named technical layer and a named duty, so an accountability claim can be traced to the part of the system that has to hold it.","framework.ca72ab6aa8":"Because the layers are independent, a substitution changes one contract rather than the whole path, and the log keeps the same shape either way.","framework.074ce8ebbc":"The AI Act, the GDPR, the Wet open overheid and the standing case law each land on a component a reviewer can point at rather than on a policy document. Because the evaluation runs continuously, the audit artefact exists before anyone asks for it, not after.","framework.f937550509":"Nothing in that order is unusual. It is how a careful office already works, and writing the rule down first is what keeps the same case getting the same answer.","framework.336c10758c":"And if the answer still does not make sense to you, you are allowed to say so and ask again.","framework.837b6c094d":"The seal is what makes a replay comparable, so a later run either reproduces the decision or does not.","fw-ask-walkthrough.fe3174dc56":"How to ask","fw-ask-walkthrough.8d042f7abc":"No computer knowledge needed. Just ask, and a person has to answer.","fw-ask-walkthrough.4b57aa1682":"You do not pay for any of this. It is your right.","fw-ask-walkthrough.1b56d97bb8":"What you are owed back","fw-ask-walkthrough.1cac33efc9":"Hello. I had a decision about my housing benefit. Please can you tell me the reason for\n              it, in plain words, and the name of the person who decided?","fw-ask-walkthrough.1d725cb8a9":"When you ask, you can say","fw-ask-walkthrough.ee31636b75":"A copy kept on file, so you can ask again later.","fw-ask-walkthrough.3a30bae380":"The exact rule that was used on your case.","fw-ask-walkthrough.b0acef5b51":"The name of the person who decided.","fw-ask-walkthrough.de7e0dbefa":"A reason you can read, in plain words.","fw-ask-walkthrough.538fab8fab":"You can ask a person to look at it once more. The full reason was kept on file, so there is always something concrete to check.","fw-ask-walkthrough.706d60c911":"If it looks wrong, ask again","fw-ask-walkthrough.cb77e56857":"The reason comes with the name of the caseworker who signed it. A machine never has the last word on its own.","fw-ask-walkthrough.d68022f3ea":"A named person stands behind it","fw-ask-walkthrough.9d3837c2f4":"You get back the rule that was used and how your situation was checked against it. In plain language, not a score you cannot read.","fw-ask-walkthrough.8a9341376c":"They give you the reason in words","fw-ask-walkthrough.aa01e5de91":"Phone, write, or call in. You can say it plainly: please tell me the reason for this decision. You do not need a form or a special word for it.","fw-ask-walkthrough.554e029974":"Ask the office for the reason","fw-bench-board.dd38f04730":"Loom mixture","fw-bench-board.547836c906":"4 to 8 active per query. The language layer sits downstream of the proof.","fw-bench-board.5c48deaa2d":"Verified anchor","fw-bench-board.8aed6fe5e3":"Core coverage","fw-bench-board.eb48ff8e3f":"2,900+ ops, 76 categories, 25 numeric formats across 12 backends.","fw-bench-board.a1b724d4a3":"Lattice lookup","fw-bench-board.96cb9ff83a":"Hot-path hypervector lookup. Replaces a retrieval round trip.","fw-bench-board.ca99d6e3a7":"QPS","fw-bench-board.18f72bcf0b":"BitWeave recall","fw-bench-board.cb5012b7d9":"1.000 recall at roughly 35K queries per second on 10K documents.","fw-bench-board.437bcb1511":"Energy","fw-bench-board.f7b508789e":"Less energy than a generative GPU stack. CPU-first, multi-backend.","fw-bench-board.e8835c7124":"Bit","fw-bench-board.1109d62f23":"Replay class","fw-bench-board.57bef2236b":"Any decision re-derives the same way twice, verifiable offline.","fw-bench-board.b7a8672bbe":"Design property","fw-bench-board.d6d550de50":"measured, not projected","fw-bench-board.b682d821d4":"One graph lowered to every target by Kera, the commercial fusion IR. The proof layer is the same on each.","fw-bench-board.a577c797ff":"Substrate spec","fw-citizen-letter.b1224e7423":"The rule we used","fw-citizen-letter.63775ce8e7":"The housing-benefit rule that was in force on the day you applied.","fw-citizen-letter.cdd13b1f42":"Your situation","fw-citizen-letter.23bc0cc1ae":"Your household size and income were checked against that rule, point by point.","fw-citizen-letter.17d38b1f20":"Who decided","fw-citizen-letter.4d4b567c9e":"A named caseworker looked at the result and signed it. Not a machine on its own.","fw-citizen-letter.f08df3c4f3":"If you disagree","fw-citizen-letter.e85fa69c92":"You can ask a person to look again. The full reason is kept on file for you.","fw-citizen-letter.5a0c04c6eb":"plain language","fw-citizen-letter.8a72097ed3":"kept for you","fw-citizen-letter.a2bb6af7cc":"Your decision","fw-citizen-letter.3a559e0643":"Your housing benefit was approved.","fw-citizen-letter.58bb796913":"Here is why, in plain words. You do not have to take it on trust, and you do not have to\n            understand computers. If anything looks wrong, there is a person you can ask.","fw-citizen-letter.286ae60ab8":"What this means for you","fw-citizen-letter.b45cecd3a8":"You can always ask why, and get an answer you can read.","fw-citizen-letter.106d1f5a13":"A machine never has the last word on its own.","fw-citizen-letter.770ebc6b3f":"Your details stay with the office, here in Europe.","fw-citizen-letter.e975e8ae70":"Ask twice, and the reason comes back the same way.","fw-citizen-letter.01b5bf7c84":"None of this is an extra you pay for. It is how it has to work.","fw-citizen-letter.a1d61f1e57":"Not sure about something? Ask the office for the reason. They have to give it to you.","fw-citizen-letter.364216af68":"A reason, not a score","fw-citizen-safeguards.ef6967785c":"Your worries, answered","fw-citizen-safeguards.c6b750e396":"None of this is a favour. It is simply how a public office has to work.","fw-citizen-safeguards.c6acb74427":"Worrying about a computer deciding your case is normal. For each common worry, here is\n            what really happens, in plain words.","fw-citizen-safeguards.d18decc51c":"It is fair to ask. Here are the answers.","fw-citizen-safeguards.55b56fa345":"No. There is no hidden risk score. There is one rule, written down, and your real situation checked against it, in the open.","fw-citizen-safeguards.919f815bbc":"Is there a secret score being kept about me?","fw-citizen-safeguards.fbb1e446eb":"No. The same case gives the same answer every time. It is not a guess that changes with the weather.","fw-citizen-safeguards.71a700ab3d":"Could I get a different answer if I ask another day?","fw-citizen-safeguards.72429fd7b3":"They stay with the office, here in Europe. They are not sent off to train a system built for somebody else.","fw-citizen-safeguards.40b457f77c":"Where do my private details end up?","fw-citizen-safeguards.66d3613c61":"You can ask a person to look at it again. The full reason is kept on file, so nothing is hidden and the door is always open.","fw-citizen-safeguards.782151c3b8":"What if the computer gets it wrong?","fw-citizen-safeguards.4ed57b2f44":"No. You get a reason in plain words, naming the rule that was used and how your situation was checked against it.","fw-citizen-safeguards.244cb6b09d":"Will I just get a number I cannot understand?","fw-citizen-safeguards.51f41c481f":"No. A named person always has the final say on a decision that affects your life. The computer only helps them check the rule.","fw-citizen-safeguards.98f9dbbe49":"Will a machine decide my case all on its own?","fw-compliance-matrix.eaa5da10c1":"Compliance is not a checklist bolted on at the end. Each duty maps to a component and an artefact, evaluated continuously.","fw-compliance-matrix.77680c1eb4":"Audit artefact","fw-compliance-matrix.c92c529e07":"Component","fw-compliance-matrix.63c2178c36":"Requires","fw-compliance-matrix.17a86caa5b":"Obligation","fw-compliance-matrix.58171dc64a":"4 obligations, 4 components","fw-compliance-matrix.32ee4b9fe9":"continuously evaluated","fw-compliance-matrix.5bf575cf5d":"The SyRI judgment from the District Court of The Hague in 2020 established that risk-profiling without full transparency and proportionality is unlawful. The architecture is designed to pass that kind of judicial review.","fw-compliance-matrix.b2431ada21":"Proportionality record","fw-compliance-matrix.2ed935b851":"Full decision trace","fw-compliance-matrix.22eccd5003":"Risk-profiling without full transparency and proportionality is unlawful.","fw-compliance-matrix.a1e6eee265":"SyRI judgment, 2020","fw-compliance-matrix.890e85612f":"CASE LAW","fw-compliance-matrix.feeab2f7e1":"Proactive transparency is met by machine-readable decision logs and registration in the national algorithm register, exportable on request.","fw-compliance-matrix.4750ef3673":"Algorithm register export","fw-compliance-matrix.a404651677":"Machine-readable logs","fw-compliance-matrix.77b5e5ca47":"The Wet open overheid mandates proactive openness of public decisions.","fw-compliance-matrix.d85ec3652d":"Proactive transparency","fw-compliance-matrix.f2632d0fb3":"WOO","fw-compliance-matrix.098a4c2559":"A mandatory human-in-the-loop gate stands before any decision with legal effect is executed, so no consequential outcome is ever fully automated.","fw-compliance-matrix.1099ca35b6":"Signed confirmation","fw-compliance-matrix.9b313ec839":"Human-in-the-loop gate","fw-compliance-matrix.abc0a165cc":"The right not to be subject to a fully automated decision with legal effect.","fw-compliance-matrix.51d23cd0ff":"Automated decisions","fw-compliance-matrix.34a3d18d88":"GDPR ARTICLE 22","fw-compliance-matrix.fee01c9471":"In force since August 2024, with high-risk obligations applying from August 2026. The reasoning proof certificate, the language-layer trace, and the SHACL-enforced metadata schema together carry the duty.","fw-compliance-matrix.2fcd407519":"SHACL metadata schema","fw-compliance-matrix.f3bf54f8ea":"Reasoning engine","fw-compliance-matrix.55d2fd128c":"Explainability, human oversight, accuracy, and an audit trail for benefit and eligibility systems.","fw-compliance-matrix.876a33bc45":"High-risk duties","fw-compliance-matrix.380f063397":"EU AI ACT","fw-decision-record.e9ae0ed784":"SOURCE","fw-decision-record.00235a807b":"Income declaration and the governing benefit regulation pulled, each cited by document.","fw-decision-record.aaa398a28b":"RULE","fw-decision-record.c05b8dca70":"The version of the regulation in force on the decision date is selected and pinned.","fw-decision-record.02977df2c2":"DECIDE","fw-decision-record.1b05fe2d2c":"Reported income crosses the band threshold, the rate is recalculated for the next period.","fw-decision-record.4f7eee9059":"EXPLAIN","fw-decision-record.ed34c8ca7e":"A plain-language reason and the appeal route are generated for the applicant.","fw-decision-record.501e489055":"OWNER","fw-decision-record.1df6d80b7f":"A named caseworker confirms and signs the decision before it takes effect.","fw-decision-record.888bf5eced":"SEAL","fw-decision-record.2e9c5c54f9":"The record is sealed and a bit-identical replay record is stored for oversight.","fw-decision-record.3560d90b70":"Every","fw-decision-record.85bc66fc27":"Decision carries its reason","fw-decision-record.d8cb03e330":"Appeal","fw-decision-record.70d80e15a9":"Route on every outcome","fw-decision-record.c0f85d6679":"Replay","fw-decision-record.095c0673de":"For oversight, bit-identical","fw-decision-record.90799d78d6":"A decision a citizen can challenge, and you can defend.","fw-decision-record.084e6f932d":"This is what deterministic, auditable AI looks like at the point of a public decision. The recommendation arrives with the source, the rule in force on the day, the official who signed, and a replay path. The example is illustrative until your own case data is connected.","fw-decision-record.45fd5e71f0":"An applicant asks","fw-decision-record.6aff5f3b8b":"Why was my housing benefit recalculated this month?","fw-decision-record.48b9b13d51":"The decision record shows","fw-decision-record.d5d07c5e2a":"Your reported income changed, crossing the band threshold in the benefit regulation that was in force on the decision date. The new rate applies from the next period, and the decision lists the appeal route open to you.","fw-decision-record.2e2d3e35ab":"Cited sources","fw-decision-record.391c6bd2ec":"income declaration","fw-decision-record.ea9a85a7d6":"benefit regulation, article in force","fw-decision-record.9bc87bd407":"The decision trace","fw-decision-record.d3d1c0094e":"6 steps, replayable","fw-forces-console.378d7b44a5":"Regulatory obligation","fw-forces-console.65e952e9a9":"In force since August 2024, with high-risk obligations applying from August 2026. Benefit and eligibility systems are high-risk and must be explainable and overseen.","fw-forces-console.db3f1e1583":"High-risk duties apply from August 2026","fw-forces-console.7d5dea3517":"High-risk class","fw-forces-console.fc9319be13":"Oversight","fw-forces-console.33de865a8d":"Audit trail","fw-forces-console.e572760e22":"Transparency and rights","fw-forces-console.a66553defc":"The Wet open overheid mandates proactive transparency. GDPR Article 22 limits fully automated decisions. Together they imply a right to explanation that opaque systems cannot satisfy.","fw-forces-console.92bdd065dc":"A right to explanation a black box cannot meet","fw-forces-console.00f1a22430":"Right to access","fw-forces-console.effe35cbfe":"Article 22","fw-forces-console.5780095c9a":"No opacity","fw-forces-console.cc332864e5":"Institutional risk","fw-forces-console.4db9162a62":"After the benefits scandal, opaque risk-scoring carries serious institutional and legal risk. Opacity is no longer just a technical problem, it is an exposure the institution carries.","fw-forces-console.ff51896270":"Opacity is now an institutional exposure","fw-forces-console.85694cda0d":"Case law","fw-forces-console.226a63e7da":"Risk-scoring","fw-forces-console.645882c054":"Defensible","fw-forces-console.5359e40750":"three forces converging","fw-forces-console.ed020125c3":"one answer required","fw-forces-console.d1222178ef":"Pressure","fw-forces-console.5740db1403":"Each force alone is hard for a black box. Together they make deterministic, explainable AI a requirement.","fw-forces-console.tag.23e1906abb":"ACCOUNTABILITY","fw-layer-pipeline.322d6f6a52":"Metadata ingestion","fw-layer-pipeline.d6cab7f8e1":"Collect and validate","fw-layer-pipeline.b79f5221e1":"Multi-source collection, enrichment, and validation against DCAT-AP, PROV-O, and SHACL before anything enters the graph.","fw-layer-pipeline.0cd2fb8509":"SHACL","fw-layer-pipeline.39ef854b2a":"Knowledge graph","fw-layer-pipeline.12dc7c0f1c":"Associate and relate","fw-layer-pipeline.02782ea03d":"Semantic association and temporal reasoning over RDF and OWL, queried with SPARQL. This is the model of what exists.","fw-layer-pipeline.0b9301da26":"RDF, OWL","fw-layer-pipeline.22fa7067e0":"SPARQL","fw-layer-pipeline.d6bf07364a":"Constraint optimisation","fw-layer-pipeline.c358b2194a":"Select and verify","fw-layer-pipeline.42971c641f":"Authoritative source selection and compliance verification with an SMT solver, so only sound, permitted inferences survive.","fw-layer-pipeline.fa698ec19c":"SMT solver","fw-layer-pipeline.68f0ae4911":"Compliance","fw-layer-pipeline.8a356002cd":"Reasoning and validation","fw-layer-pipeline.87f38468ee":"Derive and prove","fw-layer-pipeline.ed95c1209a":"Deterministic derivation through constraint satisfaction. Every conclusion carries a machine-verifiable proof certificate. A fluent answer that fails the proof does not pass.","fw-layer-pipeline.54f333cc3d":"Proof certificate","fw-layer-pipeline.f6798670ec":"Deterministic","fw-layer-pipeline.b0e9d1d8ea":"Language translation","fw-layer-pipeline.1dedb4816c":"Render in words","fw-layer-pipeline.3413f1549a":"Loom, with 528 domain specialists and 4 to 8 active per query, sits strictly downstream. It renders the proven conclusion in plain language for a citizen or caseworker, with the full trace attached. It translates the answer, it does not invent it.","fw-layer-pipeline.6a7b34bf54":"528 domain specialists","fw-layer-pipeline.9ba3341afa":"Plain language","fw-layer-pipeline.27f2979a5a":"query resolving, 5 layers","fw-layer-pipeline.864da142f6":"modular, reversible","fw-layer-pipeline.a618b4be8d":"Query","fw-layer-pipeline.a16a4eda7c":"Answer","fw-layer-pipeline.1547106828":"Each layer can be replaced independently. Every state transition is logged, and any decision can be re-derived from first principles.","fw-pillar-triptych.13219b919f":"Drives","fw-pillar-triptych.11009b8fdd":"Encoded in","fw-pillar-triptych.d018b082e8":"Technology","fw-pillar-triptych.496e9438ab":"Philosophy","fw-pillar-triptych.f3bf54f8ea":"Reasoning engine","fw-pillar-triptych.6cdff89468":"SMT constraints","fw-pillar-triptych.2b32d64169":"Ethics, legal constraints, and policy priorities, encoded as executable constraints for an SMT solver. This drives the reasoning engine.","fw-pillar-triptych.750c2096f3":"Why it matters","fw-pillar-triptych.de807e4187":"Why does it matter?","fw-pillar-triptych.fd6a003359":"AXIOLOGY","fw-pillar-triptych.322d6f6a52":"Metadata ingestion","fw-pillar-triptych.67a712862d":"PROV-O, SHACL","fw-pillar-triptych.db95cffad5":"Provenance chains, data-quality metrics, and uncertainty bounds, expressed in W3C PROV-O and SHACL. This drives metadata ingestion.","fw-pillar-triptych.1a1c3a4fe1":"How we know","fw-pillar-triptych.33892ffe32":"How do we know it?","fw-pillar-triptych.15f0182b54":"EPISTEMOLOGY","fw-pillar-triptych.39ef854b2a":"Knowledge graph","fw-pillar-triptych.0b9301da26":"RDF, OWL","fw-pillar-triptych.d1917ccaf1":"Entities, relationships, and domain models, expressed in RDF and OWL. This becomes the knowledge graph that the whole system reasons over.","fw-pillar-triptych.84117de424":"What exists","fw-pillar-triptych.e3b348e1ac":"What is actually there?","fw-pillar-triptych.e18d485d3a":"ONTOLOGY","fw-pipeline-trace.e4724823ce":"Ingest","fw-pipeline-trace.9535eaeea3":"parse and stamp","fw-pipeline-trace.e29c490194":"Application record, source documents","fw-pipeline-trace.a399c410a6":"Typed fields, each with PROV-O lineage","fw-pipeline-trace.deba93baae":"The raw record enters as typed inputs. Provenance is attached at the boundary, so every field already knows where it came from before any reasoning starts.","fw-pipeline-trace.ac7f958cc0":"Resolve","fw-pipeline-trace.65f78df6f1":"bind to ontology","fw-pipeline-trace.b8d6c3782a":"Typed fields","fw-pipeline-trace.3aa6d68e91":"Entities and relations in the knowledge graph","fw-pipeline-trace.39f58b8447":"Fields are bound to an explicit RDF and OWL ontology rather than learned weights. The query becomes a set of graph nodes that are queryable and reversible.","fw-pipeline-trace.0b9301da26":"RDF, OWL","fw-pipeline-trace.6752f198b5":"Validate","fw-pipeline-trace.9af59324c1":"fire SHACL shapes","fw-pipeline-trace.c8c53cc553":"Graph entities","fw-pipeline-trace.204bf210d5":"The shapes that match, in force on the date","fw-pipeline-trace.9e0c96e87c":"Policy and legal rules, encoded as SHACL shapes, validate the graph continuously. The shape that fires is the rule that was in force, captured as part of the trace.","fw-pipeline-trace.0cd2fb8509":"SHACL","fw-pipeline-trace.66ff36dea5":"Derive","fw-pipeline-trace.6b13bb979b":"constraint satisfaction","fw-pipeline-trace.e5e41906cf":"Matched shapes and entities","fw-pipeline-trace.e7f71c6a79":"A conclusion plus a verifiable proof certificate","fw-pipeline-trace.6b1f910d69":"Core derives the outcome by constraint satisfaction across its backends and emits a machine-verifiable certificate. A fluent but wrong answer fails the proof here.","fw-pipeline-trace.54f333cc3d":"Proof certificate","fw-pipeline-trace.25eaeaa8ff":"Phrase","fw-pipeline-trace.28b7a79ab5":"words over a proof","fw-pipeline-trace.62df428aa2":"Proven conclusion and trace","fw-pipeline-trace.441458444b":"A plain-language reason with the trace attached","fw-pipeline-trace.c3456accb3":"Loom puts the proven conclusion into words, downstream of the proof. The prose can never outrun what was established, because the certificate already exists.","fw-pipeline-trace.f68cece41b":"Trace attached","fw-pipeline-trace.00c5cb6b35":"trace recording","fw-pipeline-trace.bc239e408c":"five hops, one query","fw-pipeline-trace.1157410058":"Every hop is logged, so the whole lowering replays bit-identical from the same inputs.","fw-plain-steps.671a63dea7":"Four plain steps","fw-plain-steps.71103eabcb":"Same case in, same answer out. Every time, for everybody.","fw-plain-steps.d5014d3ea1":"Like keeping the receipt, so you can always show what was decided and why.","fw-plain-steps.9a88d85c89":"The whole reason is saved in plain words. If you ask later, the very same answer comes back.","fw-plain-steps.bba6e331eb":"The reason is kept for you","fw-plain-steps.54c25ae937":"Like a pharmacist checking the prescription before handing it over.","fw-plain-steps.d1926087ff":"A named caseworker looks at the outcome and agrees with it. The machine helps, the person decides.","fw-plain-steps.8d0ae2672f":"A person signs it off","fw-plain-steps.5e4212aa85":"Like a recipe followed step by step, so you always get the same loaf.","fw-plain-steps.dab3a8db50":"Your real situation is compared to that rule, one point at a time. No guessing, no scoring you as a number.","fw-plain-steps.940c1094d1":"Your case is checked against it","fw-plain-steps.308f517901":"Like the price list on the wall at the post office. The same for everyone, before you walk in.","fw-plain-steps.272f1e02c3":"The office starts with a published rule that everyone can read. Nothing is decided by a hunch.","fw-plain-steps.bafc472c0f":"The rule is written down first","fw-proof-manifest.f5cffbecef":"The proof ships with the answer. Any verifier checks it without asking the solver.","fw-proof-manifest.e17d0a2260":"Verified offline. A fluent but wrong answer fails this check.","fw-proof-manifest.05b6c9b8c4":"aion check","fw-proof-manifest.0ca12cac8e":"# emitted on every decision, not bolted on after","fw-proof-manifest.28a40085e6":"SHA3-256 chain segment, Ed25519 signed","fw-proof-manifest.ff8fc1c58a":"Seal","fw-proof-manifest.5cc480d0fb":"Re-derived bit-identical from inputs","fw-proof-manifest.c0f85d6679":"Replay","fw-proof-manifest.41338e8755":"Certificate verifies offline, linear time","fw-proof-manifest.5f174de1cc":"Proof","fw-proof-manifest.acf4a4598e":"Constraints fired logged, order preserved","fw-proof-manifest.ec8c6779f3":"Derivation","fw-proof-manifest.0d8520012d":"GDPR Art. 22, before legal effect","fw-proof-manifest.d50fd92593":"machine-checkable certificate","fw-proof-manifest.5073952e81":"rule in force on the date","fw-proof-manifest.dde9dc7b12":"per-field lineage","fw-proof-manifest.e94c35bba3":"explicit domain model","fw-proof-manifest.971b66096b":"the decision under proof","fw-standards-registry.464325d940":"RDF and OWL","fw-standards-registry.ef9e84a6f4":"Ontology","fw-standards-registry.1152de3cb1":"The domain is an explicit, queryable knowledge graph, not learned weights. Entities and relations are reversible.","fw-standards-registry.dd35a81646":"Provenance","fw-standards-registry.e85377fd1e":"Every field carries where it came from, attached at the boundary, so any value can be traced to its source.","fw-standards-registry.0cd2fb8509":"SHACL","fw-standards-registry.52e68a873a":"Constraints","fw-standards-registry.5e0827594c":"Policy and legal rules are machine-executable shapes that validate continuously. A value becomes a constraint, not a comment.","fw-standards-registry.d75a4de2ef":"EU AI Act","fw-standards-registry.1e9cb061f2":"European Union","fw-standards-registry.876a33bc45":"High-risk duties","fw-standards-registry.ff205010f2":"In force since August 2024, high-risk obligations from August 2026. Benefit and eligibility systems must be explainable and overseen.","fw-standards-registry.5370b57f15":"GDPR Art. 22","fw-standards-registry.51d23cd0ff":"Automated decisions","fw-standards-registry.959940d2bf":"Limits fully automated decisions with legal effect. The framework enforces a human gate before any such decision.","fw-standards-registry.31a268972d":"Wet open overheid","fw-standards-registry.fb61c8a8eb":"Netherlands","fw-standards-registry.7cb338a916":"Transparency","fw-standards-registry.fac954a9b7":"Mandates proactive transparency. The framework exports machine-readable logs and an algorithm-register entry.","fw-standards-registry.712d23b76b":"SyRI judgment","fw-standards-registry.20dacc8679":"District Court of The Hague, 2020","fw-standards-registry.85694cda0d":"Case law","fw-standards-registry.424a2a2ae3":"Struck down opaque risk-scoring. Full transparency and proportionality are enforced by the architecture, not by policy alone.","fw-standards-registry.570464d942":"7 anchors resolved","fw-standards-registry.7a86894eb2":"open standards, named law","fw-standards-registry.49f1ee455f":"Open W3C standards","fw-standards-registry.bee831a169":"Substrate","fw-standards-registry.49c13680b9":"Named law and case law","fw-standards-registry.254e25a8ba":"Regulatory","fw-standards-registry.f6ab75d87c":"Each anchor maps to a concrete artifact the proof certificate carries, not a checklist bolted on at the end.","fw-substrate-inspector.e4724823ce":"Ingest","fw-substrate-inspector.9625ac8e73":"Source documents and records enter as typed inputs with provenance attached at the boundary. Every field carries where it came from.","fw-substrate-inspector.198a8e5416":"PROV-O lineage","fw-substrate-inspector.a97d2007fc":"Reed parsing","fw-substrate-inspector.da8abc8ba4":"Per field","fw-substrate-inspector.dd35a81646":"Provenance","fw-substrate-inspector.1b4306be38":"TYPED","fw-substrate-inspector.594e65dbff":"SOURCED","fw-substrate-inspector.8e436c247e":"BOUNDED","fw-substrate-inspector.39ef854b2a":"Knowledge graph","fw-substrate-inspector.eb8fe50b21":"The domain is modelled as an explicit ontology, not learned weights. Entities and relations are first-class, queryable, and reversible.","fw-substrate-inspector.464325d940":"RDF and OWL","fw-substrate-inspector.5bce87dfce":"Lattice store","fw-substrate-inspector.33a00b17c6":"1.36 ns","fw-substrate-inspector.2546591779":"Hot lookup","fw-substrate-inspector.e18d485d3a":"ONTOLOGY","fw-substrate-inspector.472e10fc5a":"QUERYABLE","fw-substrate-inspector.9ffbbcc019":"REVERSIBLE","fw-substrate-inspector.52e68a873a":"Constraints","fw-substrate-inspector.5714958246":"Policy and legal rules are encoded as machine-executable shapes that validate continuously. A value becomes an executable constraint, not a comment.","fw-substrate-inspector.39e6078545":"SHACL shapes","fw-substrate-inspector.7a3b6ad56d":"Spindle governance","fw-substrate-inspector.04f2ccda19":"Continuous","fw-substrate-inspector.dd74d182c6":"Validation","fw-substrate-inspector.fbbcc2e674":"SHAPES","fw-substrate-inspector.31be469709":"POLICY","fw-substrate-inspector.1fb5bdaaac":"ENFORCED","fw-substrate-inspector.e272c597fd":"Reasoning","fw-substrate-inspector.f4bd43eb48":"Derivation runs by constraint satisfaction on a multi-backend binary engine and emits a machine-verifiable proof. A fluent but wrong answer fails the proof.","fw-substrate-inspector.54f333cc3d":"Proof certificate","fw-substrate-inspector.8700248a50":"Core, 12 backends","fw-substrate-inspector.39e75dc1ee":"Bit-identical","fw-substrate-inspector.c0f85d6679":"Replay","fw-substrate-inspector.402da56543":"DERIVED","fw-substrate-inspector.3a3102136d":"PROVEN","fw-substrate-inspector.3c9e174d9c":"REPLAYABLE","fw-substrate-inspector.89b86ab0e6":"Language","fw-substrate-inspector.be9adb65b1":"Loom puts a proven conclusion into words with the trace attached. It sits downstream of the proof, so the prose can never outrun what was established.","fw-substrate-inspector.f68cece41b":"Trace attached","fw-substrate-inspector.b3f56605d8":"Loom, 528 domain specialists","fw-substrate-inspector.9f7b0a2185":"4 to 8","fw-substrate-inspector.400f7f6f51":"Active per query","fw-substrate-inspector.2ef4964d6e":"DOWNSTREAM","fw-substrate-inspector.1f21f6b37b":"GROUNDED","fw-substrate-inspector.fdf7016fa1":"CITED","fw-substrate-inspector.40ae9a357a":"five layers resolved","fw-substrate-inspector.5ae3a9aac4":"bit-identical replay","fw-substrate-inspector.618b3abff3":"CPU-first, multi-backend, 96% less energy than a generative stack. Every layer swappable, every transition logged.","fw-trinity-wheel.9998662e64":"Alone it fails","fw-trinity-wheel.29d43743c4":"SYSTEM","fw-trinity-wheel.10c471aa2a":"ONE","fw-trinity-wheel.c8110a477b":"Metadata, provenance, and compliance form one indivisible whole","fw-trinity-wheel.40310a0635":"Without metadata it has no subject. What is it even evaluating?","fw-trinity-wheel.7a9c3332ac":"Binding constraints expressed as machine-executable SHACL shapes, evaluated continuously rather than audited periodically. The rules run, they do not sit in a PDF.","fw-trinity-wheel.0cd2fb8509":"SHACL","fw-trinity-wheel.68f0ae4911":"Compliance","fw-trinity-wheel.0b9a45a663":"Without compliance it is legally inert. Does it satisfy the rules?","fw-trinity-wheel.0187e34d3d":"The full lineage of every item, encoded in W3C PROV-O: where it came from, every transformation, and the responsible agent at each step.","fw-trinity-wheel.50332bee09":"W3C PROV-O","fw-trinity-wheel.dd35a81646":"Provenance","fw-trinity-wheel.6c67eb74c2":"Without provenance it cannot be trusted. Where did it come from?","fw-trinity-wheel.be481e534d":"Structured descriptions of every data asset, governed by DCAT-AP 3.0, the European standard for public-sector data catalogues. Ownership, rights, lifecycle, and structure.","fw-trinity-wheel.be02fd5aa1":"DCAT-AP 3.0","fw-trinity-wheel.251edc0eb5":"Metadata","fw-your-rights.dd5affb47f":"Built so the office can keep its word","fw-your-rights.57afba73ec":"These are not favours. European law says a public body has to be able to explain a\n            decision that affects you, and a person has to stand behind it. The framework is just\n            the office keeping that promise.","fw-your-rights.5873334530":"You do not need to be a computer person.","fw-your-rights.e0b0f57010":"Your information stays with the office, inside Europe. It is not sent off to train a system built for someone else.","fw-your-rights.cad4a7d276":"Your details stay close","fw-your-rights.c2ad76115a":"If it looks wrong, you can ask a person to look at it once more. That door is always open.","fw-your-rights.abed035f54":"A way to ask again","fw-your-rights.68d5626596":"A machine cannot have the final say on a decision that affects your life. A named person does.","fw-your-rights.e0cb62ceed":"A person who decides","fw-your-rights.24091b0fa1":"Not a score out of a hundred. A reason in words, naming the rule and your situation.","fw-your-rights.9d687f1d13":"A reason you can read","page-breadcrumb.c766e66518":"Breadcrumb"}