Skip to content

CONSENSUS SCOPE RULES

EPICON-03 Consensus Scope Rules

Version: 1.0.0
Cycle: C-187
Status: Active
Last Updated: 2026-01-10

Overview

This document defines the scope-based consensus rules for the EPICON-03 Multi-Agent Consensus Engine. Different types of changes receive different levels of scrutiny based on their potential impact on system governance and authority.

Scope Classification

Governance Scope (Highest Scrutiny)

Trigger Conditions: - "governance" in scope - "code_ownership" in scope

Consensus Parameters: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Support Probability | 50% | | Conditional Probability | 35% | | Oppose Probability | 15% | | Base Confidence | 70% |

Rationale: Changes to governance structures, authority boundaries, or code ownership have the highest potential for systemic impact. These require the most careful review and cannot be overridden by supermajority.

Specs Scope (Moderate Scrutiny)

Trigger Conditions: - "specs" in scope (without "docs")

Consensus Parameters: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Support Probability | 65% | | Conditional Probability | 25% | | Oppose Probability | 10% | | Base Confidence | 75% |

Rationale: Specification changes can affect system behavior and contracts. They require careful review but are less sensitive than governance changes.

Documentation Scope (Lenient Treatment)

Trigger Conditions: - "docs" in scope (without "governance")

Consensus Parameters: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Support Probability | 88% | | Conditional Probability | 10% | | Oppose Probability | 2% | | Base Confidence | 85% |

Rationale: Documentation changes typically have low governance impact. They improve clarity and accessibility without affecting system behavior or authority structures.

CI-Only Scope (Lower Risk)

Trigger Conditions: - Scope is exactly ["ci"] - Single-element scope containing only "ci"

Consensus Parameters: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Support Probability | 85% | | Conditional Probability | 12% | | Oppose Probability | 3% | | Base Confidence | 85% |

Rationale: CI/CD infrastructure changes affect build and deployment processes but rarely impact governance or authority.

Default Scope

Trigger Conditions: - None of the above conditions match

Consensus Parameters: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Support Probability | 75% | | Conditional Probability | 20% | | Oppose Probability | 5% | | Base Confidence | 80% |

Supermajority Override (Documentation Scope Only)

Rule Definition

For documentation-scope changes only, a supermajority override is permitted when:

  1. Scope Condition: "docs" is in scope AND "governance" is NOT in scope
  2. Vote Condition: At least 4 agents support AND at most 1 agent opposes
  3. ECS Threshold: Reduced to 0.60 (from standard 0.75)

Implementation

# From epicon03_consensus.py
is_docs_scope = "docs" in self.request.scope and "governance" not in self.request.scope
has_supermajority = vote["support"] >= 4 and vote["oppose"] <= 1

if vote["oppose"] > 0:
    # Allow single dissent if supermajority supports and it's docs scope
    if is_docs_scope and has_supermajority:
        # Supermajority override - proceed with caution
        pass
    else:
        return ConsensusStatus.FAIL

Rationale

  1. Lower Risk Profile: Documentation changes rarely affect system behavior or authority
  2. Minority Protection: Dissent is still recorded in the dissent bundle
  3. Threshold Adjustment: The ECS threshold is lowered to 0.60 but not eliminated
  4. Governance Exclusion: Any change touching governance CANNOT use this override

Safeguards

Even with supermajority override:

  • ✅ Dissent is preserved in the attestation record
  • ✅ Dissenting agent's objections are documented
  • ✅ ECS score still must meet minimum threshold (0.60)
  • ✅ Full audit trail is maintained
  • ✅ Override cannot be used for governance changes

Condition Generation by Scope

Documentation Scope Conditions

When an agent votes CONDITIONAL on a docs-scope change: - "Verify documentation accuracy" - "Confirm no unintended scope expansion"

Note: Authority change questions are NOT generated for documentation scope.

Non-Documentation Scope Conditions

When an agent votes CONDITIONAL on other changes: - "Ensure all required fields are present in intent publication" - "Verify scope alignment with changed files" - "Please clarify the justification for this authority change."

Objection Patterns

Documentation Scope: - "Documentation may be inaccurate or misleading" - "Scope unclear or potentially expanding"

Non-Documentation Scope: - "Intent publication missing critical fields" - "Scope exceeds declared authority"

Priority Order

When multiple scope triggers match, the following priority applies (highest first):

  1. Governance - Always takes precedence
  2. Documentation - Overrides CI/Specs for lenient treatment
  3. CI-only - Applied only when CI is the sole scope
  4. Specs - Applied when specs is present without docs
  5. Default - Fallback for unmatched combinations

Audit Trail

All consensus decisions are logged with:

  • Full agent reports including stance and confidence
  • ECS score breakdown
  • Scope classification applied
  • Whether supermajority override was used
  • Dissent bundle (if any opposition)
  • Attestation hash for verification

Changelog

Version Date Changes
1.0.0 2026-01-10 Initial documentation of scope rules

"Intelligence moves. Integrity guides. We heal as we walk." — Mobius Systems