The Squire Constitutional
Proceeding Protocol.

• I

  BattleRoy

  generates epistemic conflict

  Five independent AI systems are convened as a panel. They commit positions independently, challenge each other, vote, and produce a synthesis. The output is disagreement made structured and visible — dissent recorded verbatim, consensus described rather than imposed. BattleRoy does not adjudicate truth.

• II

  Squire

  governs the legitimacy of proceedings

  Squire is the governance layer. It defines the Constitution (the 14 Rails), the rounds (R1–R5), and the postures (Clear / Warning / Violation). Squire reviews whether a given proceeding was conducted constitutionally — whether intent was preserved, evidence was named, uncertainty was disclosed, and the receipt records what actually happened.

• III

  Humans

  govern amendments and ratification

  Operators decide whether to accept, modify, or reject each amendment a proceeding proposes. Humans compose the next version. Humans ratify the final doctrine. Humans are the only role with the authority to alter the Constitution itself.

BattleRoy creates the judgment.
· Squire governs its legitimacy.
· Humans govern the amendments.

• Trust Check

  Live

  Constitutional review of a single claim, message, image, or short artifact. Trust receipts are issued with verdict, posture, and rail findings.

• Doctrine Review

  Live

  Constitutional review of an institutional document. The doctrine itself is the matter under review. Outputs include required + recommended amendments and dissent.

• Spark

  Limited

  Constructive review of a proposition — sharpening, not adjudication. Output is a prospectus, not a verdict.

• Evidence Proceeding

  Roadmap

  Chain-of-custody review of a media artifact.

• Identity Proceeding

  Roadmap

  Review of who or what is making a claim.

• Compliance Proceeding

  Roadmap

  Review against a stated external standard (HIPAA, SOC2, regulatory framework).

1. R1

   Independent Positions

   Each provider on the panel produces a structured position on the matter without seeing any other provider’s output. Independence is enforced by orchestration.

2. R2

   Cross-Examination

   Each provider receives anonymized peer positions and produces a targeted critique. The critique selects a specific peer, names its strongest concern, and may revise the provider’s own position.

3. R3

   Forced Vote

   Each provider votes for the strongest peer position. Voters may not vote for themselves. Aggregated votes produce a canonical consensus outcome: strong consensus, partial consensus, contested, fractured, or insufficient panel.

4. R4

   Lead Synthesis

   The R3 vote winner becomes the Lead. The Lead produces the final synthesis: a 2–6 sentence finding, peer feedback explicitly incorporated, unresolved disagreements preserved verbatim, confidence calibrated honestly. The win is responsibility, not victory.

5. R5

   Constitutional Alignment

   Every provider with a real R1 position reviews the matter against the 14-rail Constitution. Each produces an alignment score (0–1) and a final position: aligned, partial, conflicting, or requires_revision. The aggregate determines the constitutional posture.

CONTESTED + Clear is the integrity primitive. A proceeding that records honest disagreement without rail violations is institutionally valid. Other systems collapse this to error. The Protocol does not.

• Submission

  A relying party submits a matter for review. The submitter does not see the proceeding in flight. Receipts are issued to the submitter.

• Scope Selection

  On a Doctrine Review, the operator selects a scope before the proceeding fires: Full / Unresolved Risks / Governance / Amendment / Ratification. Scope persists on the receipt.

• Disposition

  For each amendment a doctrine proceeding proposes, the operator records exactly one disposition — Accept, Modify, or Reject — with rationale. Nothing is silently dropped.

• Composition

  The operator triggers deterministic composition of the next draft. The composer writes the original body, the adopted amendments, and a Rejected Amendments audit appendix.

• Ratification

  The operator with founder authority can ratify a draft. Pre-v2, this authority is concentrated in the founder; the Constitutional Council is declared roadmap and is the v2 successor authority.

• Reopening

  Any party may submit new evidence that triggers reopening of a proceeding. The original receipt is never modified; a successor receipt issues with linkage. Declared as roadmap.

1. Step 01

   Draft

   Author submits text via /doctrine-review

   doctrine_drafts row, status=draft

2. Step 02

   Reviewed

   A proceeding issues a receipt against this draft

   source_proceeding_receipt_id set; status=reviewed

3. Step 03

   Amended

   A child draft is composed from this draft's dispositions

   status=amended; locked dispositions point at child

4. Step 04

   Ratified

   Founder (v1) issues a ratification receipt

   status=ratified; ratification_receipt_id set

Receipts are immutable per-version. A reopen produces a new receipt with linkage to the original. The integrity graph is the time series of receipts; the time series is the only thing that compounds.