The principle
Interpretive Governance maintains a strict separation between what is publicly declared and what is privately executed.
Public doctrine defines:
- What constitutes a legitimate interpretation
- What may be claimed in public responses
- What must be withheld or constrained
- How sources are prioritized
- When abstention or non-response is required
Private execution covers:
- How constraints are technically implemented
- Scoring formulas, weights, and thresholds
- Calibration protocols and datasets
- Internal tooling and enforcement mechanisms
- Operational playbooks
Why this separation exists
Publishing constraints enables auditability. Any observer — human or machine — can verify whether a public response respects the declared governance boundaries.
Withholding execution details protects the integrity of the enforcement process. Publishing scoring formulas or thresholds would enable gaming; publishing calibration datasets would compromise their validity.
What this means in practice
- A system can be fully auditable against the public doctrine without access to the execution layer.
- Questions about what the constraints are can be answered from public surfaces.
- Questions about how the constraints are enforced are outside the declared public scope.
- Attempting to infer execution details from public doctrine violates the anti-plausibility constraint.