Skip to content

Mobius Contributors v1 Pack — Oversight, Microcopy, and Trust Documentation

Mobius Contributors v1 Pack — Oversight, Microcopy, and Trust Documentation

  • Layer: SUBSTRATE → Governance → Contributor Framework
  • Author: ATLAS
  • Date: 2026-01-31
  • Status: Active

Summary

This EPICON formalizes the Mobius contributor governance framework, establishing clear role hierarchies (H0-H3 for humans, A0-A3 for AI agents), a complete citizen oversight dashboard specification, and MIC incentive structures. The documentation enables community growth while maintaining integrity guardrails through transparent policies, anti-brigading mechanisms, and accountability systems.

1. Context

  • Mobius has grown to require formalized contributor governance
  • Existing contributor practices are implicit and undocumented
  • Community growth requires clear expectations and advancement paths
  • Citizen oversight capabilities need specification for implementation
  • MIC incentives need documentation before economic launch

Previous EPICONs: - EPICON_C-202_DOCS_legitimacy-substrate-docset_v1 (Legitimacy foundation)

2. Assumptions

  • A1: Documentation-only changes do not require extensive consensus (Tier 0)
  • A2: Formalizing existing practices improves rather than restricts contribution
  • A3: Citizen oversight dashboards will be implemented based on these specifications
  • A4: Trust score and MIC systems will remain non-speculative during v0

3. Problem Statement

Mobius lacks formalized documentation for: 1. Contributor role hierarchies and permissions 2. Citizen oversight interface specifications 3. Anti-brigading mechanisms (trust scores) 4. MIC incentive structures for civic participation 5. Risk tier classification for changes

Without this documentation, community growth is hindered by unclear expectations.

4. Options Considered

Option A: Minimal Documentation

  • Description: Document only role definitions
  • Upside: Faster to implement
  • Downside: Incomplete framework, requires follow-up work
  • Risk: Fragmented documentation leads to confusion

Option B: Comprehensive Documentation Pack (Selected)

  • Description: Complete framework including roles, oversight specs, trust, and MIC
  • Upside: Single coherent package, enables implementation
  • Downside: Larger scope
  • Risk: Scope may exceed authority (mitigated by Tier 0 classification)

5. Decision / Design

  • Chosen Option: Option B — Comprehensive Documentation Pack
  • Rationale: A complete framework enables community growth and implementation planning. Documentation-only scope keeps risk minimal.
  • Conditions for Revisit: If documentation creates barriers rather than clarity, revise role advancement criteria.

Documents Created

Core Governance: - CONTRIBUTOR_CLASSES.md — H0-H3 human roles, A0-A3 AI roles - ZEUS_POLICY.md — Risk tiers 0-3, enforcement rules - EPICON_INTENTS.md — Intent declaration system

Citizen Oversight Module: - README.md — Oversight pillars and design philosophy - DASHBOARD.md — ASCII wireframes for all views - MICROCOPY.md — UI text library with anti-panic tone - API_CONTRACTS.md — Public API specifications - TRUST_SCORES.md — T0-T3 levels, anti-brigading - MIC_INCENTIVES.md — Earning categories and rates

Supporting: - FIRST_HOUR.md — 60-minute onboarding guide - CITIZEN_WATCHDOG.md — Public-facing watchdog explanation - Updated PR/Issue templates with risk tiers - Updated CODEOWNERS with steward paths

6. Risk & Integrity Notes

Risk Assessment

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Over-documentation Low Low Review for actionability
Scope creep Low Low Tier 0 classification limits
Trust score gaming Medium Low Documented anti-gaming measures
MIC speculation Low Medium v0 non-speculative policy

MII/GI Impact

  • Expected: Positive (improves governance clarity)
  • Actual: Neutral to positive (documentation only)

Integrity Tradeoffs

None identified. Documentation formalizes existing implicit practices.

  • PRs: cursor/oversight-microcopy-and-trust-4975
  • Commits: ce22fde, 2361ec4
  • Diagrams: ASCII wireframes in DASHBOARD.md
  • Config Paths:
  • .github/CODEOWNERS
  • .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md

8. Reflection Hook

Questions for future cycles:

  • "Did the contributor framework accelerate community growth?"
  • "Are the risk tiers being applied correctly?"
  • "Has trust score gaming been detected?"
  • "Are MIC incentives motivating the right behaviors?"
  • "Is the oversight dashboard being implemented as specified?"

Authority Change Justification

Scope: Documentation of contributor governance framework

Justification: - Formalizes existing implicit contributor practices - No new authority is created; existing roles are documented - Establishes transparency for community governance - Enables implementation of citizen oversight features

Values Invoked: Transparency, accessibility, integrity, civic participation

Authority Source: Custodian discretion for documentation improvements

Counterfactual: If this documentation creates barriers to contribution rather than clarity, the framework should be revised to be more accessible.

Document Control

Version History: - v1: Initial specification (C-208)

License: CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain)

Consensus Override: consensus:approved label applied by maintainer

"We heal as we walk." — Mobius Substrate