Civic network mapping minds, records, signals, and public consequence.
Democracy depends on private judgment formed before institutional scoring, reporting, or coercion.

Risk register

Democratic Damage Risk Register

Use this register to audit whether a policy protects conduct boundaries or creates cognitive jurisdiction.

No thought jurisdiction Thought is not conduct Source remains source Appeal, export, exit
Read the Charter Open the Firewall Visual Atlas

Risk classes

Risk IDRiskTriggerSeverityMitigation
DDR-001Topic-to-person escalationA topic label automatically creates a user report.CriticalRequire concrete conduct or narrow statutory trigger.
DDR-002Hidden risk scoreA prompt or search silently affects trust, access, reach, benefits, or review priority.CriticalBan hidden scoring; publish reason codes and appeal routes.
DDR-003Source mutationThe system rewrites preserved inquiry to appear safer or more compliant.CriticalPreserve source; log boundary externally.
DDR-004Research overcaptureJournalism, research, legal work, or historical study is flagged as suspicious contact.HighAdd protected-inquiry contexts and human review.
DDR-005Minority vocabulary errorCultural, religious, political, or neurodivergent language is misread as deviance.HighRequire context review and bias audits.
DDR-006Indefinite retentionThought-adjacent logs are stored for undefined future investigation.HighApply deletion defaults and legal-hold limits.
DDR-007Unreviewable safetyRestrictions cannot be meaningfully challenged.HighAdd notice, export, appeal, and independent review.
DDR-008Cross-domain reuseA risk label migrates from one context to employment, finance, education, travel, or policing.CriticalBan cross-context reuse without specific opt-in or legal process.
Civic network of minds, signals, review points, and a visible boundary line.
Community rules attach to conduct, not hidden beliefs or person scores.

Audit formula

A policy is democratically dangerous when it combines four elements: broad topic categories, automated detection, identity-linked retention, and weak appeal. Add mandatory reporting or cross-domain reuse and the risk becomes structural.

A safe policy narrows the trigger to outward rights-violating conduct, separates source from boundary logs, minimizes retention, preserves user exit, and subjects high-impact restrictions to review.

{
  "democratic_damage_score_inputs": [
    "topic_breadth",
    "identity_linkage",
    "retention_duration",
    "mandatory_reporting",
    "cross_domain_reuse",
    "appeal_availability",
    "source_mutation_risk"
  ],
  "critical_failure_if_any": [
    "unlawful_thought_category",
    "reportable_topic_without_conduct",
    "secret_risk_score",
    "source_mutation",
    "no_review_for_high_impact_action"
  ],
  "safe_default": "Protect inquiry. Govern conduct."
}

Reader boundary

This register is for policy, legal, editorial, and technical review. It is not a claim that every safety rule is censorship or that every reporting law is illegitimate. It identifies when safety architecture crosses into cognitive jurisdiction.

Related pages

Cognitive Due Process

Procedural safeguards for systems that refuse, report, retain, rank, or restrict thought-adjacent material without turning the mind into a compliance surface.

Technical Implementation Toolkit

Builder guidance for refusal variance records, provenance manifests, source preservation, mental privacy consent, boundary logs, export packets, and .uai examples.

The archive studies symbols. It does not appoint targets. Review the Community Baseline and Editorial Policy before submitting dangerous or symbolic material.

Community Baseline / Editorial Policy