← Back to the RFC register
WEKID-RFC-005 Calibration layer Accepted

Adoption of the Sector Calibration and Authority Alignment Protocol

DataInformationKnowledgeExperienceWisdomCross-layer
Stage
 Council decision
Governance surface
Calibration layer
Type
Standards-track
Proposed by
Jim Judge
Working group
Sector Calibration Working Group, designated independent reviewers and affected-sector representatives
Target release
WEKID-STD-001 v1.1 and proposed WEKID-STD-002 v1.0
Requires
WEKID-STD-001 v1.0, especially §§8.3, 14 and 15.3; Sector Calibration Protocol v1.0

Abstract

This RFC proposes adoption of the WEKID Sector Calibration and Authority Alignment Protocol as a normative companion standard, provisionally identified as WEKID-STD-002. It establishes the governed process by which sector communities may adjust layer weights, thresholds, gates and Authority Level reservations while preserving the invariant protections of WEKID-STD-001.

The RFC also proposes conforming amendments to Sections 14.3 and 15.3 of WEKID-STD-001. Together, these changes allow contextual judgment without ungoverned discretion and permit sector adaptation without allowing a calibration profile to weaken a hard gate, stakes floor, precedence rule or human reservation.

Evidence base

The core framework should remain stable while sector communities encode legitimate differences in consequence, reversibility, regulation and decision context. A separate normative companion standard is the appropriate structure because the calibration process is detailed, evidence-intensive and expected to evolve more frequently than the five-layer architecture and fixed authority invariants.
The proposal preserves openness by making profile legitimacy depend on disclosed evidence, public challenge, traceable decisions and versioned artifacts rather than on WEKID LLC selecting sector values privately. It also distinguishes intellectual foundations from normative requirements: the whitepapers remain informative, while ratified standards and RFCs govern conformance.
The proposal is stronger than unrestricted contextual judgment because it identifies what context may tune and what context may never override. It is more adaptable than a single universal scoring profile because qualified sector participants can calibrate the model to documented failure patterns and binding legal obligations.

Where this proposal stands

  • Proposed · 2026-09-09 19:59:28
  • Triaged · 2026-09-09 21:50:48
  • Working-group review · 2026-09-09 21:50:50
  • Public comment · 2026-09-09 21:50:54
  • Council decision · 2026-09-09 21:52:17
  • Versioned release

Public comment

The comment window is not open for this proposal.

Every proposal moves through the same six-stage pipeline. See how the RFC process works.