Entry Criteria
- Draft policy article with explicit rule references
- Rights-impact statement and due-process assessment
- Definitions mapped to constitutional glossary terms
Layer 0 — Constitutional Kernel
Is the proposal constitutionally coherent, rights-safe, and non-contradictory?
Gate Profile
Institution: Principles Chamber + Non-Contradiction Tribunal
Mandate: Maintains base rules, definitions, and amendment protocol. Reviews whether proposed policy logic conflicts with constitutional constraints.
In plain terms: This is the rule firewall. If a policy breaks core rules, it does not move forward.
Why this gate exists: It keeps short-term political pressure from overriding legal dignity, freedom limits, and fiscal honesty.
Exit Criteria
- Coherence ruling issued (pass, revise, or amend-required)
- Conflicts documented with amendment path if needed
- Legal constraint packet attached for downstream layers
Primary Outputs
- Constitutional compatibility verdict
- Non-contradiction notes
- Binding legal boundaries for implementation
Failure Triggers and Escalation
- Repeated conflicts with base rules
- Ambiguous definition use that enables policy drift
- Rights-impact unresolved at decision deadline
Escalation rule: If blocked, proposal returns to policy design with explicit contradiction notes or enters amendment track.
Bodies Operating in This Gate
Principles Chamber
Members: Principles Stewards
Lead title: First Steward
Purpose: Maintains constitutional rules, glossary definitions, and amendment discipline.
Non-Contradiction Tribunal
Members: Coherence Judges
Lead title: Chief Coherence Judge
Purpose: Rules whether proposals conflict with base rules before implementation.
For full selection mechanics, see Bodies and Titles.
Constitutional Rationale
Directly enforces equal legal dignity, freedom under non-harm, and explicit non-contradiction discipline.