6.1 KiB
Scenario Tests
Status: draft. These are narrative tests for the conceptual model. They are not executable tests yet; they define expected representation checks for future model revisions.
Test Format
- Scenario: concrete identity situation.
- Expected representation: the canonical concepts that should be used.
- Checks: conditions the model must satisfy without collapsing terms.
S01. Single Person With One Local Account
Expected representation: one Natural Person, one Account in an application Scope, one local Identifier, one Profile, and one Membership or access relationship if the account belongs to a group.
Checks:
- The person is not identical to the account.
- The profile is not the credential.
- Authorization can project the account or subject into a Principal.
S02. Person With Multiple Accounts Across Scopes
Expected representation: one Natural Person, multiple Accounts, one Account per Scope, and optional Synonymity Assertions linking account records.
Checks:
- Each account keeps its source and lifecycle state.
- Linking accounts does not merge them destructively.
- Different scopes can use different identifiers.
S03. Enterprise With Sub-Organizations
Expected representation: Organization actors linked by structural relationships, plus Accounts and Membership relationships scoped to relevant systems.
Checks:
- Sub-organization is not automatically a tenant.
- Legal entity status is modeled separately.
- Membership and administration relationships are explicit.
S04. Vendor Tenant Serving Customer Tenants
Expected representation: Vendor and Customer relationship roles between Organization actors; Tenant scopes for platform isolation; optional Administration relationships for delegated support.
Checks:
- Customer is not collapsed into Tenant.
- Vendor is not collapsed into Realm.
- Cross-tenant administration is scoped and evidenced.
S05. Customer Organization With Delegated Administrators
Expected representation: Organization actor, Tenant scope, administrator Accounts, Delegation and Administration relationships.
Checks:
- Admin rights are relationships, not just group names.
- Delegation has source, target, scope, and lifecycle state.
- Authorization projection can consume the relationship separately.
S06. Family With Guardian And Dependent Accounts
Expected representation: Family or Household collective actor, Natural Person actors, guardian/dependent relationships, child Accounts, and privacy constraints.
Checks:
- Guardian relationship is not generic membership.
- Household and legal family can differ.
- Privacy-sensitive links can be scoped.
S07. Spontaneous Interest Group
Expected representation: Community or Group collective actor, Membership relationships, optional moderator Administration relationships.
Checks:
- Informal group does not need legal entity or tenant semantics.
- Moderation is not the same as membership.
- Group identity can exist without strong real-world identity proofing.
S08. Community With Members, Moderators, And Followers
Expected representation: Community actor; Membership relationships for members; Administration or moderation relationships for moderators; Following relationships for followers.
Checks:
- Follower is not a member unless the source says so.
- Moderator authority is explicit and scoped.
- Public profile can differ from account.
S09. Social Media Follower Graph
Expected representation: Actor or Persona profiles connected by Following relationships in a social Scope.
Checks:
- Following is directed.
- Following does not imply affiliation, membership, trust, or authorization.
- Pseudonymous profiles can remain scoped.
S10. Bot Or Service Account Acting For An Organization
Expected representation: Artificial Agent actor, Service Account, Organization actor, Representation or Delegation relationship, and Credential records.
Checks:
- Bot is not a natural person.
- Service account has an owner or responsible actor.
- Delegated authority has bounded scope and lifecycle.
S11. AI Agent Acting Under Delegated Authority
Expected representation: Artificial Agent actor, Account or Service Account, Delegation relationship from a Natural Person or Organization, and audit or evidence references for actions.
Checks:
- Delegation identifies who granted authority.
- Agent actions can be attributed without treating the agent as the person.
- Authorization projection can include delegated context.
S12. Weak Identity Match From Imported Data
Expected representation: source Identity Records linked by a weak Synonymity Assertion with method, evidence, confidence, scope, and lifecycle state.
Checks:
- Weak match does not merge accounts.
- Consumers can reject or quarantine weak links.
- Evidence source remains visible.
S13. Strong Account Link After Explicit Verification
Expected representation: Accounts linked by a strong Synonymity Assertion or Account Link relationship, with verification evidence and revocation path.
Checks:
- Strong link is still scoped.
- Verification method is recorded.
- Revocation or unlinking is possible.
S14. Pseudonymous Profile Linked Only Within A Restricted Scope
Expected representation: Persona or Profile with Scoped Identifier and privacy-limited Synonymity Assertion visible only inside an allowed Scope.
Checks:
- Public consumers cannot infer the hidden link.
- The pseudonym can have relationships independent of legal identity.
- Scope boundaries are explicit.
S15. Organization Represented By A Legal Entity And Operational Tenants
Expected representation: Organization actor, Legal Entity specialization or relationship, one or more Tenant scopes, and Representation relationships for authorized persons or agents.
Checks:
- Legal entity and tenant are separate model elements.
- Multiple tenants can relate to one organization.
- Representation authority is scoped and evidenced.
Current Result
The initial model can represent all fifteen scenarios at a narrative level. The next research pass should backfill concrete mappings from source notes and then revise the glossary where scenario checks reveal ambiguity.