Add coordination model ontology spec v0.1

Author the baseline coordination ontology covering actors, goals, commitments, observation loops, and communication-act lifecycles. Complete COORDINATION-WP-0002.
2026-06-24 15:18:19 +02:00
parent 1aac55e978
commit 74b481931c
2 changed files with 591 additions and 4 deletions
--- a/spec/coordination-model-v0.1.md
+++ b/spec/coordination-model-v0.1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,586 @@
+# coordination-model-v0.1.md
+
+## 1. Document Status
+
+**Document:** coordination-model-v0.1.md
+**Project:** coordination-engine
+**Version:** 0.1
+**Status:** Baseline Draft
+**Scope:** Coordination ontology and communication-act lifecycle
+**Related Documents:**
+
+* `INTENT.md`
+* `SCOPE.md`
+* `ProductRequirementsDocument.md`
+* `RuntimeArchitectureAndAdapterSubsystem.md`
+* `AdapterInterfaceSpecification.md`
+
+## 2. Purpose
+
+This document defines the first coordination ontology for `coordination-engine`.
+
+It establishes the foundational vocabulary for how actors align on shared goals through commitments and how the engine closes the loop with observations, assessments, and follow-up actions.
+
+The ontology is intentionally narrower than the full product requirements. Version 0.1 focuses on four pillars:
+
+1. **Actors** — who participates in coordination
+2. **Goals** — what the coordination process is trying to achieve
+3. **Commitments** — what parties agree to do or enable
+4. **Observation loops** — how evidence drives progress until a goal is satisfied, failed, expired, escalated, or manually closed
+
+Downstream specs (runtime architecture, adapter contracts, scenario patterns) should map to this ontology rather than invent parallel terminology.
+
+## 3. Core Principle
+
+A coordination case succeeds when its **goal** is satisfied, not when a message has merely been sent.
+
+Digital coordination is the controlled arrangement of actors, payloads, access, communication acts, and evidence so that intended results can be achieved under uncertainty.
+
+## 4. Ontology Overview
+
+```text
+CoordinationCase
+  goal: IntendedResult
+  actors: Participant[]
+  commitments: Commitment[]
+  communication_acts: CommunicationAct[]
+  observations: EvidenceEvent[]
+  assessments: Assessment[]
+  policies: Policy[]
+
+Observation loop:
+  CommunicationAct → native signal → EvidenceEvent → Assessment → Policy decision → next CommunicationAct or closure
+```
+
+At runtime, a `CoordinationCase` is the container object. Actors hold roles. Goals define success. Commitments express required obligations. Communication acts are the outward-facing operations (notify, deliver, interact). Observation loops connect external signals back to case progress.
+
+## 5. Actors
+
+### 5.1 Actor
+
+An **Actor** is any entity that can initiate coordination, receive coordination, perform interactions, emit system events, or be referenced in evidence.
+
+Actor types:
+
+| Type | Description | Examples |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `human` | A natural person | Customer, employee, signer |
+| `organization` | A legal or operational entity | Company, department, authority |
+| `system` | A software system acting on behalf of a party | ERP, CRM, payment gateway |
+| `agent` | An automation actor with delegated authority | Custodian agent, workflow bot |
+| `bot` | An automated endpoint with limited authority | Scanner, webhook processor |
+| `unknown` | Actor not yet identified | Anonymous portal visitor |
+
+An actor may be referenced before identity is confirmed. The engine must support progressive identity strengthening through evidence.
+
+### 5.2 Participant
+
+A **Participant** is an actor bound to a specific `CoordinationCase` with one or more roles, endpoints, and required outcomes.
+
+Participants are case-scoped. The same human may be a participant in multiple cases with different roles.
+
+Common participant roles:
+
+* `initiator` — starts the case and defines the goal
+* `recipient` — expected to receive awareness, access, or payload
+* `respondent` — expected to submit a response or payload
+* `signer` — expected to sign or countersign
+* `payer` — expected to settle payment
+* `approver` — expected to approve or reject
+* `delegate` — acts with delegated authority for another participant
+* `intermediary` — routes or transforms communication without being the business target
+* `observer` — may view progress or evidence without being required to act
+
+Each participant may carry:
+
+* `participant_id`
+* `actor_ref` — stable identity reference when known
+* `roles[]`
+* `endpoints[]` — email, phone, portal account, API subject, etc.
+* `required_outcomes[]` — participant-level success conditions
+* `authority_attributes` — signing level, approval limit, delegation chain
+* `state` — derived from evidence (see section 8)
+* `evidence_level` — current confidence in progress toward required outcomes
+
+### 5.3 ActorContext
+
+`ActorContext` describes the actor associated with an observation or interaction event.
+
+```yaml
+ActorContext:
+  actor_ref: string?
+  actor_type: human | organization | system | agent | bot | unknown
+  participant_id: string?
+  identity_strength: none | suspected | authenticated | verified
+  authority_strength: none | delegated | authorized
+```
+
+Actor context may be incomplete at event time. Adapters and controllers append or refine context as stronger evidence arrives.
+
+### 5.4 Actor Boundaries
+
+Actors are not channels.
+
+Email inboxes, phone numbers, portal sessions, and API clients are **endpoints** through which actors may be reached or may act. A single actor may have multiple endpoints. A single endpoint may temporarily map to an unknown actor until identity evidence is recorded.
+
+## 6. Goals
+
+### 6.1 CoordinationCase
+
+A **CoordinationCase** is a goal-directed coordination process.
+
+It binds:
+
+* one initiating context
+* one primary goal (`IntendedResult`)
+* one or more participants
+* zero or more payloads and action surfaces
+* the commitments required to reach the goal
+* the policies that govern follow-up under uncertainty
+
+Core case attributes:
+
+```yaml
+CoordinationCase:
+  id: string
+  purpose: string
+  scenario_type: string
+  goal: IntendedResult
+  state: draft | active | paused | partially_completed | completed | failed | expired | cancelled | manually_closed
+  created_at: timestamp
+  deadlines: Deadline[]
+```
+
+### 6.2 IntendedResult
+
+An **IntendedResult** defines what success means for the case.
+
+Examples:
+
+* all required recipients accessed the payload
+* all required respondents submitted valid data
+* all required signers completed signature
+* payment settled above threshold
+* incident acknowledged by all critical participants
+
+```yaml
+IntendedResult:
+  result_type: access | submission | acceptance | signature | payment | acknowledgement | completion | custom
+  target_population: all_required | threshold | named_participants
+  required_outcome: string
+  required_evidence_level: low | medium | high
+  quantitative_threshold: number?
+  deadline: timestamp?
+  partial_success_rules: PartialSuccessRule[]
+  failure_rules: FailureRule[]
+```
+
+A goal is **satisfied** only when its predicate evaluates true against current assessments with sufficient evidence. Weak channel signals alone do not satisfy a goal.
+
+### 6.3 Goal States
+
+Case-level goal interpretation uses these assessment states:
+
+| State | Meaning |
+| --- | --- |
+| `unresolved` | Insufficient evidence to judge progress |
+| `in_progress` | Some required evidence present, goal not yet satisfied |
+| `partially_satisfied` | Goal rules allow partial success and threshold is met |
+| `satisfied` | Goal predicate is true with required evidence |
+| `failed` | Failure rules triggered |
+| `expired` | Deadline passed without required outcome |
+| `escalated` | Manual or policy-driven escalation replaced normal closure path |
+| `manually_closed` | Operator closed the case with documented override |
+
+Goal state is always derived from evidence and policy evaluation. It is not set directly by message dispatch.
+
+### 6.4 Goal vs Communication Act
+
+A goal is not a message.
+
+Sending a notification, granting access, or opening a payment page are **communication acts** in service of commitments. They may produce evidence relevant to the goal, but they do not constitute goal satisfaction by themselves.
+
+## 7. Commitments
+
+### 7.1 Commitment
+
+A **Commitment** is an explicit or policy-derived obligation that some party will enable, attempt, or perform an outcome relevant to the case goal.
+
+Commitments make coordination auditable. Instead of only recording that an email was sent, the engine records what was obligated, by whom, for whom, by when, and whether observations support fulfillment.
+
+```yaml
+Commitment:
+  id: string
+  case_id: string
+  kind: awareness | access | delivery | interaction | response | payment | signature | acknowledgement | enforcement | custom
+  obligor: participant_id | system | policy_engine
+  beneficiary: participant_id | case
+  subject_ref: payload_id | action_surface_id | communication_act_id?
+  due_by: timestamp?
+  required_evidence_level: low | medium | high
+  state: proposed | active | satisfied | breached | waived | expired | cancelled
+  satisfaction_predicate: string
+```
+
+### 7.2 Commitment Sources
+
+Commitments may originate from:
+
+1. **Scenario definition** — a contract-signing scenario requires signature commitments from each signer
+2. **Case creation** — the initiator requests collection of documents by a deadline
+3. **Policy engine** — a reminder policy creates a new awareness commitment after non-response
+4. **Participant action** — a delegate accepts responsibility for responding on behalf of another participant
+
+### 7.3 Commitment Kinds
+
+| Kind | Obligation | Typical fulfillment evidence |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `awareness` | Target participant should become aware of the case or payload | notification opened, portal visit, authenticated session |
+| `access` | Target participant should receive usable access to a payload or action surface | access grant used, payload viewed |
+| `delivery` | Payload should become available, transferred, submitted, or consumed | delivery submitted, download recorded, archive stored |
+| `interaction` | Target participant should perform a meaningful action | form submitted, approval recorded, link clicked with identity |
+| `response` | Target participant should provide a structured answer or artifact | inbound payload accepted, validation passed |
+| `payment` | Payer should settle an amount | payment initiated, payment settled |
+| `signature` | Signer should sign or countersign with required assurance | signature completed, authority verified |
+| `acknowledgement` | Participant should confirm awareness of an urgent item | acknowledgement interaction recorded |
+| `enforcement` | System should apply deadline or non-compliance consequence | access revoked, account restricted, case escalated |
+
+### 7.4 Commitment Lifecycle
+
+```text
+proposed
+  → active
+    → satisfied
+    → breached
+    → expired
+    → waived
+    → cancelled
+```
+
+State transitions are driven by observations and policy rules:
+
+* `proposed → active` when the engine accepts the commitment and may schedule communication acts
+* `active → satisfied` when satisfaction predicate is met with required evidence
+* `active → breached` when failure rules fire
+* `active → expired` when `due_by` passes without satisfaction
+* `active → waived` when an authorized actor or policy explicitly waives the obligation
+* `* → cancelled` when the case is cancelled or the commitment is superseded
+
+A commitment may be satisfied at participant level before the case goal is satisfied globally.
+
+### 7.5 Commitments and Communication Acts
+
+Commitments are the semantic layer above transport.
+
+A notification attempt does not create a commitment by itself. The engine creates or activates a commitment first, then derives communication acts to pursue it.
+
+Example:
+
+```text
+Commitment: signer S must sign contract C by Friday
+  → CommunicationAct: notify S via email
+  → CommunicationAct: grant portal access to signature flow
+  → Observation: portal authenticated visit
+  → Observation: signature completed
+  → Commitment state: satisfied
+```
+
+## 8. Observation Loops
+
+### 8.1 Observation
+
+An **Observation** is a recorded fact about what happened in the world or in an external system.
+
+Observations enter the engine primarily as normalized `EvidenceEvent` records. Raw provider events are preserved, but assessments are derived from normalized meaning.
+
+```yaml
+EvidenceEvent:
+  id: string
+  case_id: string
+  event_type: string
+  observed_at: timestamp
+  source_adapter: string
+  participant_id: string?
+  actor_context: ActorContext?
+  payload_ref: string?
+  action_surface_ref: string?
+  communication_act_ref: string?
+  normalized_meaning: string
+  confidence: low | medium | high
+  evidence_grade: weak | moderate | strong
+  raw_event_ref: string?
+  correlation_id: string?
+```
+
+### 8.2 Assessment
+
+An **Assessment** is a derived judgment based on one or more observations.
+
+Assessments exist at multiple levels:
+
+* participant state — has this participant met required outcomes?
+* commitment state — is this obligation satisfied, breached, or still active?
+* case progress — how close is the case to goal satisfaction?
+* uncertainty flags — conflicting, missing, late, or weak evidence
+
+Assessments must remain traceable to the observations that support them.
+
+### 8.3 Observation Loop
+
+The engine operates through a repeating observation loop:
+
+```text
+1. Goal and commitments define required outcomes
+2. Policy engine selects next communication acts
+3. Adapters execute acts and emit native signals
+4. Adapter boundary normalizes signals into EvidenceEvents
+5. Controllers derive participant, commitment, and case assessments
+6. Policy engine evaluates assessments against deadlines and thresholds
+7. Loop continues with follow-up acts, escalation, or closure
+```
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+  G[Goal] --> C[Commitments]
+  C --> P[Policy Engine]
+  P --> A[Communication Acts]
+  A --> N[Native Signals]
+  N --> E[EvidenceEvents]
+  E --> S[Assessments]
+  S --> P
+  S --> CL[Closure / Escalation]
+  P --> CL
+```
+
+The loop is event-driven and may run continuously as late evidence arrives.
+
+### 8.4 Loop Properties
+
+Observation loops in coordination scenarios have common properties:
+
+1. **Non-linearity** — events may arrive out of order, late, duplicated, or in conflict
+2. **Weak evidence** — channel acceptance is not human awareness
+3. **Progressive strengthening** — identity and authority may start unknown and become verified
+4. **Multi-source fusion** — one assessment may depend on notification, access, and interaction evidence combined
+5. **Policy-gated action** — follow-up acts are chosen by policy, not hardcoded per channel
+6. **Auditable closure** — final case state must cite the evidentiary basis
+
+### 8.5 Uncertainty Handling
+
+Uncertainty is first-class in the loop.
+
+The engine must represent:
+
+* missing expected observations
+* contradictory observations
+* proxy, scanner, or bot-like interactions
+* authenticated actor mismatch
+* expired commitments with partial evidence
+* adapter evidence ceilings
+
+When evidence is weak, the loop prefers:
+
+* `unresolved` or `in_progress` assessment states
+* additional observation opportunities
+* policy actions such as `wait`, `remind`, `switch_channel`, or `manual_review`
+
+Underclaiming is mandatory. Adapters report what happened; the engine decides what it means for goals and commitments.
+
+## 9. Communication Act Lifecycle
+
+### 9.1 CommunicationAct
+
+A **CommunicationAct** is an engine-directed operation that pursues one or more commitments through a channel or surface.
+
+Kinds:
+
+* `notification` — awareness-oriented prompt
+* `delivery` — payload availability, transfer, retrieval, submission, or consumption
+* `interaction` — meaningful action on a payload or action surface
+* `access_change` — grant, revoke, expire, or delegate access
+* `enforcement` — apply deadline or compliance consequence
+
+```yaml
+CommunicationAct:
+  id: string
+  case_id: string
+  kind: notification | delivery | interaction | access_change | enforcement
+  commitment_id: string
+  adapter_ref: string?
+  action_surface_ref: string?
+  target_participant_id: string?
+  state: planned | requested | accepted | in_flight | observed | failed | cancelled
+  requested_at: timestamp?
+  correlation_id: string?
+```
+
+### 9.2 Lifecycle Phases
+
+Every communication act follows a common lifecycle pattern:
+
+```text
+intent declared
+  → attempt requested
+  → attempt accepted or rejected
+  → provider or surface activity observed
+  → normalized evidence recorded
+  → act state updated
+  → assessments and policies re-evaluated
+```
+
+This pattern is shared across channels. Channel-specific details belong in adapter specs, not in the core ontology.
+
+### 9.3 Notification Lifecycle
+
+Notifications pursue awareness commitments.
+
+Typical phases:
+
+```text
+notification.planned
+notification.requested
+notification.accepted_by_adapter
+notification.rejected_by_adapter
+notification.accepted_by_provider
+notification.endpoint_accepted
+notification.opened
+notification.clicked
+notification.failed
+notification.expired
+```
+
+Important distinction:
+
+* `endpoint_accepted` means the channel accepted the message for the endpoint
+* it does **not** mean the participant became aware
+* stronger awareness requires additional observations where the channel allows them
+
+### 9.4 Delivery Lifecycle
+
+Deliveries pursue access, transfer, submission, or consumption commitments.
+
+Typical phases:
+
+```text
+delivery.planned
+delivery.payload.published
+delivery.access.granted
+delivery.payload.viewed
+delivery.payload.downloaded
+delivery.payload.submitted
+delivery.payload.validated
+delivery.payload.rejected
+delivery.completed
+delivery.failed
+```
+
+Delivery evidence may also inform notification and goal assessments. For example, portal access can be stronger evidence than email open tracking.
+
+### 9.5 Interaction Lifecycle
+
+Interactions pursue response, signature, payment, acknowledgement, and other outcome commitments.
+
+Typical phases:
+
+```text
+interaction.surface.opened
+interaction.identity.started
+interaction.identity.completed
+interaction.action.started
+interaction.action.completed
+interaction.declined
+interaction.disputed
+interaction.failed
+```
+
+Interactions should be classified by actor certainty and authority strength. Result-relevant interactions require stronger evidence than anonymous page loads.
+
+### 9.6 Act State vs Goal State
+
+Communication act success is local.
+
+A notification act may reach `observed` while the related awareness commitment remains `active` because evidence is too weak. Case closure requires goal-level assessment, not merely exhausted communication attempts.
+
+## 10. Supporting Concepts
+
+The ontology above is intentionally focused. These related concepts appear in adjacent specs and runtime design:
+
+| Concept | Role in the ontology |
+| --- | --- |
+| `Payload` | Subject of access, delivery, and interaction commitments |
+| `ActionSurface` | Place where interactions occur |
+| `AccessGrant` | Enabler for access commitments |
+| `Policy` | Rules that drive observation-loop decisions |
+| `Adapter` | Boundary that executes acts and supplies observations |
+| `Deadline` | Time bound on goals and commitments |
+| `NextAction` | Policy output consumed by controllers |
+
+## 11. Minimal Case Example
+
+Invoice payment collection:
+
+```text
+Case goal: payment settled by payer P before due date
+
+Participants:
+  - initiator: billing system
+  - payer: P
+
+Commitments:
+  - awareness: payer P should become aware of invoice I
+  - access: payer P should receive access to payment surface S
+  - payment: payer P should settle invoice I
+  - enforcement: system should escalate if unpaid after deadline
+
+Observation loop:
+  1. Publish invoice payload and grant access
+  2. Notify payer via email adapter
+  3. Observe endpoint_accepted (weak evidence)
+  4. Observe portal visit and authenticated session (stronger evidence)
+  5. Awareness commitment satisfied
+  6. Observe payment initiated then settled
+  7. Payment commitment satisfied
+  8. Goal assessment: satisfied
+  9. Case closed with traceable evidence chain
+```
+
+## 12. Terminology Mapping
+
+| Ontology term (v0.1) | Existing project term |
+| --- | --- |
+| Actor | Actor / entity referenced in events |
+| Participant | Participant |
+| Goal | IntendedResult / case success criterion |
+| CoordinationCase | CoordinationCase |
+| Commitment | Obligation implied by scenario, policy, or participant requirement |
+| CommunicationAct | Notification / Delivery / Interaction operation |
+| Observation | EvidenceEvent |
+| Assessment | Derived participant, commitment, or case state |
+| Observation loop | Evidence-driven policy cycle |
+| Endpoint | Participant contact channel |
+
+## 13. v0.1 Non-Goals
+
+This baseline ontology does not yet specify:
+
+* concrete API schemas or persistence models
+* policy language syntax
+* full commitment algebra for nested or conditional obligations
+* legal validity rules for regulated notice or signature scenarios
+* cross-case actor identity merge rules
+* runtime controller interfaces
+
+Those belong in later specs once this vocabulary is stable.
+
+## 14. Success Criteria for v0.1
+
+The ontology is fit for purpose when:
+
+1. A reader can explain a coordination scenario using actors, goals, commitments, and observation loops without referring to transport details.
+2. Adapter and runtime specs can map their entities to this document without contradictory definitions.
+3. A case can be traced from goal declaration through commitments, communication acts, observations, assessments, and closure.
+4. Weak vs strong evidence distinctions remain visible at each loop step.
+
+## 15. Guiding Statement
+
+`coordination-engine` coordinates actors around shared goals through explicit commitments, pursues those commitments with communication acts, and uses observation loops to decide progress, follow-up, and closure under uncertainty.
--- a/workplans/COORDINATION-WP-0002-coordination-model-spec.md
+++ b/workplans/COORDINATION-WP-0002-coordination-model-spec.md
@@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ type: workplan
 title: "Coordination model specification baseline"
 domain: communication
 repo: coordination-engine
-status: ready
+status: finished
 owner: codex
 topic_slug: communication
 created: "2026-06-22"
-updated: "2026-06-22"
+updated: "2026-06-24"
 state_hub_workstream_id: "2b62c9df-577d-45ce-81a7-cf343e2fb6b0"
 ---

@@ -20,9 +20,10 @@ Draft the first coordination ontology and message lifecycle spec for the engine.

 ```task
 id: COORDINATION-WP-0002-T01
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 state_hub_task_id: "0ece010b-4597-4ae9-b77d-26a3ff8c906f"
 ```

-Write `spec/coordination-model-v0.1.md` covering actors, goals, commitments, and observation loops.
+Result 2026-06-24: Authored `spec/coordination-model-v0.1.md` with actors, goals,
+commitments, observation loops, and communication-act lifecycle baseline.