# Contradiction, Ambiguity, and Missing-Evidence Register

**Current gate:** Gate 2A  
**Current taxonomy:** Canonical Version 1.3.3  
**Rule:** Do not resolve any item by implication. A later decision must identify the owner, evidence, resolution, and affected documents.

| ID | Type | Unresolved matter | Evidence in tension | Current treatment | Resolution needed from |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-001 | Contradiction | 2nd Cavalry / Dragoon Base population counts differ. | Concept paper: Association membership “exceeds 4,400”; archived Dragoon Base: 4,377 profiles; one later line says 4,371 invited. Market report: public Dragoon Base count 3,192. | Preserve each figure with its object, date, and collection method. Use no blended “current member count.” | Source owner / current system-of-record audit |
| C-002 | Missing evidence | Whether the March 2026 Dragoon Base archive is complete, authorized for migration, and still current. | Concept paper calls the archive comprehensive and promises “nothing is lost”; no manifest, rights audit, deletion list, or migration verification is supplied. | Treat counts and completeness as concept-paper evidence only. Require inventory, custody, rights, and exception audit before migration claims. | 2nd Cavalry Association and archive custodian |
| C-003 | Missing evidence | Legal and operational status of SADUNA, Kiduna Club's filing, and the July 1, 2026 launch plan. | Confidential May 7 backbrief describes future filings and asks for confirmation. No filed instruments, registry extracts, executed agreements, or post-filing confirmation are supplied. | Treat as confidential proposed structure, not current fact. | Legal counsel and entity principals |
| C-004 | Ambiguity | Relationship among Service Alliance LLC, SADUNA, Kiduna Club, 2nd Cavalry Association, and Dragoon Base. | Backbrief proposes three distinct legal entities and sponsorship/substrate relationships; the 2nd Cavalry materials describe a community and Association use case but do not evidence adoption of SADUNA or the proposed legal relationships. | Model a relationship graph with status labels; do not collapse the entities into one Realm. | Owner and relevant entity authorities |
| C-005 | Terminology conflict | Legacy `Kinship`, `Avatar`, `MyServiceID`, `ServiceCoin`, `Decision Market`, `Recognition Market`, `HEARTS Sentinel`, and tool-brand terms do not map cleanly to Version 1.3.3. | Source documents use legacy or product-specific vocabulary; canon defines Field, Presences, Ki, Actors, Wisdom, Stance, Actions, Governance, Treasuries, and Compute. | Retain legacy names as aliases or proposed Artifacts/Offerings. Map only where semantic equivalence is proven. | Taxonomy owner |
| C-006 | Contradiction | Engagement scoring conflicts with the anti-surveillance requirement. | Market report recommends member engagement scoring in one scale-wave suggestion; owner direction prohibits Big Brother behavior, performance scoring, and covert monitoring. | Reject person-level hidden engagement scoring as a Gate 2 design basis. Keep outcome measures aggregated and consented; retain the source conflict. | Owner / governance policy |
| C-007 | Missing evidence | Who controls or acts as custodian for personal medical information in Inner Clinic. | Owner proposes patient-specific records and clinician-reviewed Scenes; no legal entity, covered-entity relationship, business-associate status, jurisdiction, retention policy, or clinical governance is supplied. | Define safety and authorization requirements but do not claim compliance or production readiness. | Bihome / Inner Clinic legal and clinical authorities |
| C-008 | Ambiguity | What is canonical Wisdom at personal, Community, Alliance, Organization, Institution, and public scopes in Inner Clinic. | Owner asks that the distinction be worked through; participating Institutions and validation authorities are not confirmed. | Use a proposed contribution envelope and mark validation authority by Source type. | Inner Clinic governance and participating Institutions |
| C-009 | Missing evidence | Whether Decker's Blueprint, IBC-IC, and Gallbladder Cancer Foundation are formally part of Inner Clinic or merely examples/desired participants. | Owner calls them Institutions “in the Realm”; official sites verify the organizations but not a relationship with Bihome or Inner Clinic. | Treat the relationship as owner-proposed and unverified. Do not present partnership as fact. | Owner and each Institution |
| C-010 | Missing evidence | The Nature of Work's actual governance, participants, professional source corpus, privacy promises, and organizational authority. | Owner supplies the desired use case but no Organization charter, Program brief, participant agreement, or source collection. | Complete a design contract with explicit readiness gaps; do not invent a client or policy. | Organization owner / program sponsor / participants |
| C-011 | Semantic ambiguity | Whether `Program` should be a first-class Realm type. | Canon lists programs under Other Realm Types; the Inner Clinic and Nature of Work structures rely heavily on Programs. | Use `Program Realm (Other Realm Type)` and keep the taxonomy question open. | Taxonomy owner |
| C-012 | Semantic ambiguity | Whether a durable `Record` is a distinct canonical object or an event-bearing Artifact / Action result. | Design program uses Record as a primary interaction result; Version 1.3.3 does not define Record as a numbered core object. | Use “Record” as a design term and identify its Artifact, Action event, or registry representation in each flow. | Taxonomy owner |
| C-013 | Design ambiguity | Final relationship among Field, Realm, Panel, Scene, Portal, and the provisional Atlas. | Version 1.3.3 establishes semantic boundaries but deliberately does not prescribe visibility, navigation, or layout. | Gate 2A defines behavior only. Defer visual/spatial solution to later accepted gate. | Owner at Gate 4 |
| C-014 | Design ambiguity | Name of the main conversational Panel and whether Ki “occupies” it. | `Chat`, `Work`, combined labels, and another term remain open. Ki is canonically available across Surfaces, not confined to a Panel. | Call it “dominant conversational surface” in Gate 2A; do not canonize a label. | Owner after comparative scene testing |
| C-015 | Historical truth risk | AI historical figures or Scenes may exceed evidence or imply first-person certainty. | Concept paper proposes conversational historical figures and immersive battle environments; source provenance, gaps, and contested accounts are not yet modeled. | Require explicit reconstruction status, claim-level Sources, uncertainty, contested views, and no synthetic eyewitness authority. | Historical governance/editorial authority |
| C-016 | Rights conflict | “Member-owned data” and “nothing is lost” can conflict with contributor rights, privacy, deletion, institutional custody, public records, and memorial preservation. | Concept paper uses broad ownership and preservation claims. | Replace slogans with object-level custody, license, access, deletion, retention, preservation, and appeal decisions. | Legal counsel, archive custodian, contributors |
| C-017 | Medical terminology | “Gulf War syndrome” is used colloquially, while VA uses several terms and prefers not to treat it as one settled syndrome. | Owner commentary and source concepts use the colloquial term; current VA guidance uses Gulf War illness / chronic multisymptom illness and preserves uncertainty. | Use current VA terminology in guidance; retain veterans' own words in attributed oral histories. | Clinical/editorial policy |
| C-018 | Date/status ambiguity | Event milestones in the concept paper are no longer future relative to the July 19, 2026 design date. | Concept paper describes May 7–9 and May 23, 2026 as upcoming; Gate 2 occurs afterward. | Treat event passages as dated planning evidence. Verify outcomes before describing current state. | 2nd Cavalry Association / event owners |
| C-019 | Confidentiality boundary | Which SADUNA facts may appear in future public mockups or prototypes. | Backbrief is marked confidential on every page; Gate 2B scenes may be reviewable outside the source team. | Use only abstract relationship and authority patterns in scene briefs unless explicit release is provided. | Document owner / user |

## Audit rule

Every Gate 2A file must reference relevant IDs instead of restating an ambiguity as fact. Closing an item requires a dated decision-log entry and a taxonomy-impact check.
