Governance Approach¶
Safety and compliance
Governance is not a PDF. Governance is enforced structure.
In high-stakes systems, “please follow the policy” is not governance. Governance means the system is architecturally unable to produce invalid actions — and can show exactly why it refused.
Two layers of governance
Interpretation layer
Policies, procedures, definitions of allowed actions, and escalation pathways. This is where humans specify intent.
Enforcement layer
Constraints that make policy violations technically impossible (validation rules, permissions, invariants, and hard blocks).
Audit layer
Trace logs, source provenance, and change history: who/what/when/why for every decision and refusal.
Why constraints beat prompts
A model can be persuaded. A constraint cannot.
Prompt discipline is a useful interface pattern — but it is not a security boundary.
Decision lifecycle (with refusal as a first-class outcome)
flowchart TB
Q["Proposed action / answer"] --> V["Validate constraints</br>(governance)"];
V -->|"Pass"| T["Attach trace + evidence</br>(audit-ready)"];
V -->|"Fail"| A["Abstain / escalate</br>(never guess)"];Practical design choices
Encode critical rules as constraints
Compliance, safety, and policy rules become validation logic (e.g., SHACL-style shapes) — not optional guidelines.
Keep facts and provenance immutable
Facts don’t get overwritten. Source links remain stable so audits can reproduce outcomes.
Separate fact from hypothesis
Predictions and simulations are labeled and isolated so they never masquerade as evidence.
Log every trace
Every path and refusal is recorded with stable identifiers, timestamps, and sources.
Make escalation explicit
When the system refuses, it should say what is missing and who can authorize exceptions.
Measure governance coverage
Track which constraints are enforced, which are missing, and how often refusals occur.