OpenFutureForum · murraylovecode · Aug 16, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+"claim_id","claim","claim_type","lineage","calculation","use_status"
+"GAP-001","No production dossier can be drafted for this topic.","editorial threshold conclusion","METHODOLOGY.md; config/publication-thresholds.yml; canonical data inventory","0 production sources versus 30 required","research-gap report only"
+"GAP-002","The canonical topic corpus has zero sources, statements, propositions, people, books, and dossiers.","inventory calculation","data/sources; data/statements; data/propositions; data/people; data/dossiers; book directories","Count non-README production records","research-gap report only"
+"GAP-003","Eight intellectual sources currently have unpublished statements.","staging gap calculation","BATCH-2026-005 source-proposals.json; BATCH-2026-006 statements.json","9 source records minus 1 duplicate rendition with no created statements","not dossier evidence"
+"GAP-004","The unpublished statement layer contains 46 records with human review pending.","staging gap calculation","BATCH-2026-006 manifest.yml; statements.json","Count statements and inspect human_review_status","not dossier evidence"
+"GAP-005","Three unpublished primary empirical works are synthetic or sandboxed.","evidence-character calculation","Statements 022–038 and source records 006–008","Distinct primary empirical source IDs","not dossier evidence"
+"GAP-006","The staging corpus does not support role-specific comparisons.","coverage conclusion","BATCH-2026-006 statements.json","All 46 share relevance tags; direct role-specific position records = 0","research-gap report only"
+"GAP-007","The staging corpus does not support regional comparisons.","coverage conclusion","BATCH-2026-005 source-proposals.json; BATCH-2026-006 statements.json","No region-comparative or region-specific empirical population","research-gap report only"
+"GAP-008","No material disagreement is production-ready.","coverage conclusion","data/stances inventory; BATCH-2026-006 statement types","0 production stances and 0 counterargument statements in staging","research-gap report only"
+"GAP-009","OFF-owned source share is undefined in production and zero in the current staging source set.","ownership calculation","Canonical source inventory; BATCH-2026-005 source-proposals.json","0/0 production; 0/8 staging intellectual sources","not dossier evidence"
+"GAP-010","Existing OFF web content overlaps the topic but has not been ingested into the index.","overlap review","OFF CISO AI Leverage Report and related official pages, checked 2026-08-15","Relevant web results minus repository source records","duplication and next-batch planning only"
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Content quality review
+
+## Result
+
+Pass for a research-gap report; public dossier intentionally withheld.
+
+## Checks
+
+- Generic opening removed: the report begins with the threshold decision and denominator.
+- Unsupported urgency removed: no claim of unprecedented change, inevitability, market momentum, or universal adoption appears.
+- Artificial symmetry avoided: missing evidence categories reflect actual corpus gaps rather than balanced-for-style sections.
+- Source summaries not stacked: staging works are grouped by evidence character and discussed only as gaps.
+- Consensus language avoided: the report uses “recurring normative alignment within a selected staging corpus” and explicitly denies universal inference.
+- Weakly supported ideas are framed as testable questions, not mocked or presented as facts.
+- Role claims calibrated: shared relevance tags are not interpreted as role beliefs.
+- Regional claims calibrated: synthetic study affiliation is not treated as market or study geography.
+- OFF overlap disclosed: official pages are described as unverified external-to-repository content and not counted as evidence.
+- Repetition controlled: threshold numbers appear only where required for decision, corpus table, and next-step calculation.
+- No public dossier headings or padded executive implications were drafted after threshold failure.
+
+## Human review requested
+
+Confirm the chosen research question, the production inventory, the classification of staging material, the OFF overlap disposition, and the proposed evidence-acquisition sequence.
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+protocol_id: dossier-protocol-BATCH-2026-009-001
+batch_id: BATCH-2026-009
+prompt_id: OEII-TOPIC-DOSSIER
+prompt_version: "2.0"
+status: pre_registered_threshold_failed
+topic: Governed identities for AI agents
+research_question: How should organizations govern identity, delegated authority, security evaluation, and accountability for AI agents?
+scope: Cross-sector organizational controls for identifying AI agents, tracing represented principals, bounding delegated authority, managing credential lifecycles, evaluating security, and allocating accountability.
+time_period: 2020-08-15 through 2026-08-15, with pre-2020 foundational identity, authorization, and zero-trust material eligible only when directly governing current agent questions.
+included_propositions: []
+included_proposition_rule: Canonical production proposition, published workflow state, complete statement lineage, and appropriate human review.
+excluded_adjacent_questions:
+  - General generative-AI governance without agent identity, authority, or accountability relevance
+  - Human IAM practices with no demonstrated applicability to autonomous or delegated workloads
+  - General AI adoption, ROI, labor effects, or model capability rankings
+  - Market-size forecasts and vendor rankings
+  - Production prevalence inferred from synthetic security benchmarks
+evidence_hierarchy:
+  - Independently verified production empirical evidence with reproducible methods and statement lineage
+  - Adopted standards, public policy, and verified legal or regulatory materials
+  - Independently checked operator implementation evidence
+  - Normative frameworks and expert recommendations with explicit attribution
+  - Company-reported outcomes, kept attributed and independently checked where possible
+  - OFF-owned evidence with ownership, selection, sponsorship, and sample disclosures
+comparison_method: Compare evidence character, scope, technology, autonomy, role, geography, industry, time horizon, and independence; source frequency is not truth.
+role_analysis_method: Require direct, independently checked role-specific sources; shared executive-relevance tags do not establish what a role believes.
+regional_analysis_method: Separate speaker, organization, market, study, and regulatory geography; require at least two people, two organizations, and region-specific sources for a regional briefing.
+trend_method: Use frozen releases, stable eligibility rules, disclosed denominators, and no momentum claim without a configured calculation.
+expected_limitations:
+  - Production corpus is empty for the topic
+  - Pending staging evidence is English-only and weak on regional and role-specific comparison
+  - Empirical security evidence is synthetic or sandboxed
+  - Normative sources do not report comparative implementation outcomes
+criteria_for_editorial_conclusions:
+  - Threshold must pass before drafting
+  - Every substantive claim must resolve to production statement, proposition, source, or named calculation
+  - Evidence character and uncertainty must be stated
+  - Material counterpositions and concentration must be disclosed
+  - Named human approval is required
+threshold_disposition: Do not draft content/topic-dossiers or data/dossiers; create a staging research-gap package and recommended next batches.
+human_review_status: pending
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+"matrix_id","layer","record_ids","count","evidence_character","production_eligible","permitted_use","principal_limit","next_action"
+"E-001","Canonical sources","none","0","none","no","Threshold calculation only","No production evidence exists","Human-review and promote eligible records; add missing sources"
+"E-002","Unpublished normative and standards sources","source-BATCH-2026-005-001; source-BATCH-2026-005-002; source-BATCH-2026-005-003; source-BATCH-2026-005-004; source-BATCH-2026-005-009","5","RFI synthesis, public guidance, draft standard, standards report, vendor governance report","no","Research-gap planning only","Normative or interpretive; no comparative implementation outcomes; human review pending","Run named human review and add operator implementation evidence"
+"E-003","Unpublished primary synthetic empirical sources","source-BATCH-2026-005-006; source-BATCH-2026-005-007; source-BATCH-2026-005-008","3","Synthetic prompt-injection, agent-security, and sandboxed vulnerability experiments","no","Research-gap planning only","Does not estimate production prevalence; human review pending","Add independent production incident and deployment studies"
+"E-004","Unpublished statements","statement-BATCH-2026-006-001 through statement-BATCH-2026-006-046","46","Mixed: empirical, recommendation, warning, definition, framework, interpretation, methodology, policy","no","Coverage and gap planning only","All human-review statuses pending","Complete named statement and attribution review"
+"E-005","Candidate-only proposition ideas","proposition-candidate-BATCH-2026-006-001 through proposition-candidate-BATCH-2026-006-009","9","Unnormalized candidate links","no","Gap planning only","Not canonical propositions and not human approved","Complete proposition and stance review before promotion"
+"E-006","Potential OFF overlap","CISO AI Leverage Report; Executive AI Leverage Report; CISO Executive Forum pages","3 content families","OFF-owned operator research and community content","no","Duplication review and ingestion planning only","Outside repository corpus; self-selected samples and commercial relationships require disclosure","Create a separate OFF-content verification and rights batch"
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+{
+  "batch_id": "BATCH-2026-009",
+  "production_source_ids": [],
+  "production_statement_ids": [],
+  "production_proposition_ids": [],
+  "production_person_ids": [],
+  "production_book_ids": [],
+  "production_dossier_ids": [],
+  "discovery_protocol_ids": [
+    "protocol-BATCH-2026-001"
+  ],
+  "staging_records_used_as_evidence": [],
+  "staging_records_referenced_as_unpublished_research_gaps": {
+    "source_batch": "BATCH-2026-005",
+    "statement_batch": "BATCH-2026-006",
+    "person_batch": "BATCH-2026-007"
+  },
+  "external_sources_used_as_evidence": [],
+  "off_pages_reviewed_for_overlap_only": [
+    "https://openfutureforum.com/research/ciso-ai-leverage-report",
+    "https://openfutureforum.com/research/executive-ai-leverage-report",
+    "https://openfutureforum.com/ciso-executive-forum"
+  ]
+}
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Limitations
+
+- The production corpus is empty; this package cannot answer the research question.
+- Staging counts are reported only to plan research and may change after named human review, deduplication, or rejection.
+- The staging source set is English-only and contains no region-comparative evidence.
+- Shared executive-relevance tags do not constitute role-specific testimony or measurement.
+- Synthetic and sandboxed security studies do not estimate production prevalence or control effectiveness.
+- Normative standards and governance documents do not establish implementation outcomes.
+- The source set contains vendor involvement; source count is not treated as truth.
+- OFF web content was checked through public search on 2026-08-15 for overlap only and was not independently verified or ingested.
+- No historical release exists for trend analysis.
+- No book record is available for a foundational-work comparison.
+- No formal counterargument statement or production stance record is available for debate mapping.
+- The next-batch targets are editorial recommendations, not claims that the identified sources or respondents will be obtainable.
+- All records remain machine-produced and human-review pending.
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+batch_id: BATCH-2026-009
+prompt_id: OEII-TOPIC-DOSSIER
+prompt_version: "2.0"
+topic: Governed identities for AI agents
+topic_slug: governed-agent-identities
+research_question: How should organizations govern identity, delegated authority, security evaluation, and accountability for AI agents?
+time_period: 2020-08-15 through 2026-08-15, with pre-2020 foundations only when directly applicable
+branch: analysis/dossier-governed-agent-identities-BATCH-2026-009
+base_branch: research/people-BATCH-2026-007
+execution_date: 2026-08-15
+execution_completed_at: 2026-08-15T16:30:00-07:00
+agent_or_researcher: OpenAI Codex; machine-assisted production-threshold and research-gap review; named human review pending
+model_disclosure: AI-assisted canonical inventory, threshold calculation, gap synthesis, matrix drafting, OFF overlap search, and validation; no human or publication approval occurred.
+threshold_result: FAIL
+disposition: research_gap_report_only
+production_sources: 0
+production_people: 0
+production_organizations: 0
+production_source_types: 0
+production_roles: 0
+production_regions: 0
+production_languages: 0
+production_books: 0
+production_empirical_sources: 0
+production_propositions: 0
+production_challenging_positions: 0
+production_statements: 0
+public_dossier_created: false
+canonical_dossier_record_created: false
+human_review_status: pending
+output_files:
+  - manifest.yml
+  - threshold-check.json
+  - dossier-protocol.yml
+  - research-gap-report.md
+  - evidence-matrix.csv
+  - role-matrix.csv
+  - regional-matrix.csv
+  - claim-lineage.csv
+  - included-records.json
+  - unresolved-questions.json
+  - original-research-opportunities.json
+  - revision-record.json
+  - off-content-overlap-review.md
+  - content-quality-review.md
+  - limitations.md
+  - validation-results.md
+intentionally_omitted_outputs:
+  - content/topic-dossiers/governed-identities-for-ai-agents.md
+  - data/dossiers/dossier-governed-identities-for-ai-agents.json
+omission_reason: Full-topic dossier threshold failed; staging records may not be used as dossier evidence.
+validation_required:
+  - publication threshold
+  - statement and proposition lineage
+  - unsupported claims and evidence character
+  - source concentration and OFF ownership
+  - role and regional representation
+  - consensus language and near duplication
+  - existing OFF content overlap and AI-slop review
+  - structured data and internal links
+  - public build and staging isolation
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# OFF content overlap review
+
+Official Open Future Forum web pages were checked on 2026-08-15 for duplication and future-ingestion planning only. They were not added to the evidence corpus.
+
+## Relevant content found
+
+- The [CISO AI Leverage Report](https://openfutureforum.com/research/ciso-ai-leverage-report) discusses agent identity and access, security ownership, and a directional governance-budget finding.
+- The [Executive AI Leverage Report](https://openfutureforum.com/research/executive-ai-leverage-report) includes a directional security-room finding about agent access.
+- The [CISO Executive Forum](https://openfutureforum.com/ciso-executive-forum) and related community pages describe relevant practitioner communities and commercial participants.
+
+## Disposition
+
+These pages are not repository evidence and remain outside the verified source corpus. They must not fill the dossier threshold until a dedicated ingestion batch verifies methods, exact statement locators, respondent bases, role classification, dates, ownership, sponsorship, selection effects, and any advisory relationships. OFF ownership would need prominent disclosure. The future dossier should link selectively rather than reproduce these reports.
+
+## Duplication risk
+
+A future dossier should not repeat the “governance budget gap” article as its framing. The index contribution should instead compare that operator finding with independent implementation, standards, legal, technical, role-specific, and regional evidence.
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "batch_id": "BATCH-2026-009",
+  "opportunities": [
+    {
+      "opportunity_id": "OFF-OPP-001",
+      "title": "Agent identity governance ownership study",
+      "question": "Which executive role owns agent inventory, credentials, authorization policy, incident response, and budget?",
+      "method": "Role-tagged survey plus follow-up interviews with CISOs, CIOs, CTOs, GCs, CFOs, and board directors.",
+      "minimum_design": "State respondent counts by role; separate operators from vendors and advisors; publish instrument and denominators.",
+      "independence_controls": "Disclose OFF recruitment, event participation, sponsorship, and advisory relationships; sponsors may not shape questions or analysis.",
+      "status": "proposed_for_human_review",
+      "publication_status": null,
+      "human_review_status": "pending"
+    },
+    {
+      "opportunity_id": "OFF-OPP-002",
+      "title": "Agent authorization implementation registry",
+      "question": "Which identity and delegated-authorization patterns are deployed, at what scale, and with what failure modes?",
+      "method": "Structured operator case series with architecture, scale, incident, revocation, audit, and interoperability fields.",
+      "minimum_design": "At least 12 deployments across 6 organizations and 3 industries; include negative and abandoned implementations.",
+      "independence_controls": "No pay-to-include entries; vendor claims remain attributed until independently checked.",
+      "status": "proposed_for_human_review",
+      "publication_status": null,
+      "human_review_status": "pending"
+    },
+    {
+      "opportunity_id": "OFF-OPP-003",
+      "title": "Human approval and monitoring burden study",
+      "question": "Where do human approval, hard limits, automated monitoring, and shutdown controls work or fail?",
+      "method": "Prospective workflow study measuring approval frequency, override rates, response time, false positives, missed events, and user burden.",
+      "minimum_design": "Pre-registered outcomes and task-risk strata; preserve unsuccessful results.",
+      "independence_controls": "Independent statistical review and privacy assessment.",
+      "status": "proposed_for_human_review",
+      "publication_status": null,
+      "human_review_status": "pending"
+    },
+    {
+      "opportunity_id": "OFF-OPP-004",
+      "title": "Benchmark-to-production validity study",
+      "question": "Do agent-security benchmark results predict production incidents or control effectiveness?",
+      "method": "Map benchmark tasks and defenses to anonymized production incidents and red-team exercises.",
+      "minimum_design": "Multiple models, agent architectures, industries, and time-stamped versions; report denominators and uncertainty.",
+      "independence_controls": "Separate benchmark authors, vendors, and evaluating operators where possible.",
+      "status": "proposed_for_human_review",
+      "publication_status": null,
+      "human_review_status": "pending"
+    }
+  ]
+}