Interpretive Governance doctrine 0.4.0

Canonical doctrinal surface for bounded interpretation, source precedence, and proof of fidelity.

FR
FR

Clarifications

Clarifications

Common misunderstandings about Interpretive Governance, addressed with precise boundary definitions.

Also inFrançais

This section addresses common misunderstandings about Interpretive Governance. Each clarification identifies a specific confusion, explains why the distinction matters, and defines the boundary.

All entries (8)

A doctrinal site is not a product site informative

Clarification: this site publishes governance doctrine, not a product, service offering, or commercial portfolio.
Anti-plausibility is not anti-generation normative

Clarification: anti-plausibility constrains the invention of unsupported facts, not the generation of text itself.
Bounded interpretation is not censorship normative

Clarification: bounding interpretation constrains what a system may claim as supported, not what information exists or may be discussed.
Governance files do not replace technical SEO informative

Clarification: machine-readable governance files serve interpretive governance, not search engine optimization.
Interpretive governance is not prompt engineering informative

Clarification: interpretive governance defines structural constraints on machine interpretation, not techniques for eliciting specific model outputs.
Machine-readable governance is not enforcement informative

Clarification: publishing machine-readable governance constraints does not guarantee or imply automated enforcement.
Non-operational does not mean non-normative normative

Clarification: a doctrine can be non-operational (no execution tooling) while remaining fully normative (binding constraints on interpretation).
Public doctrine is not full implementation disclosure normative

Clarification: publishing governance constraints publicly does not require disclosing how they are implemented internally.