Alice has been handed software as a new environment. The first two questions are: which things already known are actually true here, and what should be tested next to find out where the model is wrong.
Open
Questions
Do the frozen pull requests belong to Atlas or to onsite-hero-app?
ownershipopenTwo repositories are being treated as one; provenance of the frozen work is unresolved.
Is Repository a substrate, or only an implementation container for Modules?
ontologyopenIf it is only a container, Repository should not be a first-class registry.
Does software require Place, or is Environment a sufficient substitute?
ontologyopenPlace survived construction intact; software may distort it.
Is Deployment an Event, a Transition, or both?
lifecycleopenDetermines whether Deployment deserves its own registry.
When does a Dependency stop being a relationship and become an entity?
dependencyopenExternal dependencies with their own lifecycle behave like entities.
Are permissions simply Constraints, or a distinct form of authority?
constraintopenCollapsing them would simplify the model — or lose the authority distinction.
Does Ownership differ fundamentally from Stewardship in software?
ownershipunder-testConstruction distinguished them clearly; software conflates them in Git.
Yes. identity = self; parent = provenance relationship; founder = historical provenance role; steward = responsibility relationship; owner = legal or asset relationship where applicable. A parent is provenance, a steward is responsibility, and neither by itself grants ownership of another identity.
Source: Steward statement (Jarrod Cobb). · Evidence: ONTOLOGY_ROLES, ONTOLOGY_RELATIONS and ONTOLOGY_WITHHELD in src/modules/software/identity-ontology.ts.
- · identity != parentage != stewardship != legal ownership.
- · A parent is provenance. A steward is responsibility.
- · Neither relationship, by itself, grants ownership of another identity.
- · Founding or creating an entity establishes a provenance relationship, not ownership of that entity's identity.
- · No relationship type may be inferred from another; each must be declared with its own provenance.
- · Legal ownership of assets is preserved separately and is neither disputed nor replaced by this model.
Still unresolved
- · Git itself still exposes only one ownership notion; the four-way distinction is Atlas-side and cannot yet be read back from the host platform.
- · `owned-by` remains on repo.atlas → agent.lovable from the earlier model; it is retained rather than silently rewritten, and its correct kind is not yet established.
- · Whether stewardship should carry its own lifecycle ladder (assumed → active → handed over → withdrawn) is not decided.
State history (append-only)
OPEN: ownership and stewardship were declared as one unresolved question; Git conflates them under repository ownership.
Software Hub ontology pass — original question declaration. · src/modules/software/registry.ts QUESTIONS (Release 1 compilation).
ANSWER CANDIDATE: identity, parentage, stewardship and legal ownership are four distinct relationship types. The prior OPEN state is preserved, not replaced.
Steward statement (Jarrod Cobb), ontology/provenance refinement request. · src/modules/software/identity-ontology.ts · mem/doctrine/identity-parentage-stewardship-ownership.md
Which declared Atlas modules are still actually exercised at runtime?
purposeopenUnexercised modules accumulate maintenance cost without evidence of value.
Next pressure
What would most efficiently show that this part of the model is wrong.
Repository is a first-class software substrate.
Probe: Model a product whose modules are generated rather than stored — no repository at all.
Falsified by: If the product remains fully describable, Repository is an implementation container, not a substrate.
Software has no Place, only Environment.
Probe: Introduce a data-residency requirement and an on-premise deployment.
Falsified by: If residency cannot be expressed without Place, Place survives into software intact.
Dependency is a relationship, not an entity.
Probe: Track an abandoned external dependency through its own lifecycle and successor.
Falsified by: If it needs its own events, provenance and lifecycle, it is an entity.
Event and Observation are genuinely different objects here.
Probe: Find a software fact that is simultaneously both and cannot be split.
Falsified by: A single indivisible case would collapse the distinction in this domain.
Constraints protect more capacity than they consume.
Probe: Measure how many requests in one milestone were refused, deferred or reshaped by governance rather than by technical limits.
Falsified by: A majority would show constraint-space exceeding usable state-space.