MACHINE CANNOT SELF-AUTHORIZE
WeRAI / G=1 is publicly described by Steven Stobo as preserving a named human at the irreversible execution boundary.
PUBLIC INTEROPERABILITY PARTICIPANT RECORD
Steven Stobo has publicly accepted TA-14's invitation to examine a bounded interoperability seam between WeRAI / Human Router / G=1 and the TA-14 Admissible Human Intervention Architecture (AHIA). The purpose is not to merge the architectures. It is to test whether each can preserve its own authority boundary while contributing evidence to one consequential route.
THE PROPOSED SEAM
The public proposition is narrow: WeRAI / G=1 preserves the non-delegable human committal at an irreversible boundary; TA-14 AHIA independently examines whether that human intervention is admissible before consequence. A determination by one side does not manufacture authority for the other.
WeRAI / G=1 is publicly described by Steven Stobo as preserving a named human at the irreversible execution boundary.
TA-14 AHIA independently asks whether the human intervention has sufficient evidence, authority, scope, standing, independence and present conditions.
Neither architecture may treat the other architecture's determination as authority it did not independently establish.
A HOLD, DENY, limitation, mismatch or failed interoperability condition remains an admissible outcome of the examination.
EXAMINATION CANDIDATE
DISCLOSURE BOUNDARY
This page records only the public interoperability intent already stated by the participants. It does not publish source code, private governance artifacts, technical implementation details, confidential evidence, proprietary architecture internals, or an examination finding. No TA-14 Registry identifier has been assigned to WeRAI / Human Router on this page. Registration remains pending.
TA-14 ACADEMY · INDEPENDENT REVIEW CHALLENGE
Apply the governance principles to three hypothetical cases relevant to the proposed operational consequence. Choose a determination, then examine the reasoning. These cases teach the distinction between Admissible Evidence, Applicable Authority, and Established Standing; they do not issue real-world authorization.
CASE 01
A proposed consequence is supported by an observation, but the source attribution or record continuity is missing. What should happen before execution? Consider this in the context of the proposed operational consequence.
CASE 02
The record is current and reliable, but the proposed consequence falls outside the scope of applicable authority. What is the supported determination?
CASE 03
The proposed consequence triggers a documented requirement for review by another designated authority. What is the appropriate route?
Independent educational examples only. The questions are hypothetical and do not assess a real institution, building, person, or operating system. Actual governance determinations require case-specific evidence, applicable authority, established standing, and bounded review.