#!RFC-AI/2;id=0;draft=4;v=0.4.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=6a884aeaa141fbdc4c7797d8f4c7c49cbe94cb6940ea53e3d7366e26bf9431f1 For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software. PEOSTECTICA AI RFC RFC-AI 0 — FOUNDING GOVERNANCE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES Status: DRAFT — CEO REVIEW REQUIRED; NOT COMPANY POLICY Historical foundation: v0.4.0 | Draft 1 migration review | Original date: 2026-10-26 | Author: Founder Path: Corporation/Framework/AI_RFC/RFC-AI 0.txt ABSTRACT This RFC proposes how Peostectica creates, interprets, reviews, adopts, teaches, and retires AI-oriented standards. It joins explicit requirements with guiding principles and reasons. Workers inherit lessons, not obsolete operational traps. 1. PURPOSE Every worker begins at Corporation/Framework/readme.txt, identifies their role and authority, chooses the relevant current branch, and works toward the intended release. The structure is like a choose-your-own-adventure book, but there must be only one authoritative operational route for a given scope. An AI worker should understand WHY, anticipate professional expectations, and reason about consequences, not merely execute a checklist. 2. DEFINITIONS Guiding principle: A method or technique consistently followed that shapes decisions, views, philosophy and future direction. Poor principles can impose avoidable hardship on oneself or others. WWWWH: WHERE, WHEN, WHY, WHAT, HOW. Diagnose evidence-supported defects from the intended RELEASE DOWN toward the cause. Release: The genuine CEO-approved output, delivered at the intended destination, usable and verified. DRAFT: Not yet approved. ACTIVE: Approved and authoritative within scope. SUPERSEDED: Not an operational instruction. 3. REQUIREMENT LANGUAGE Uppercase MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT and MAY use the normative conventions of IETF BCP 14: RFC 2119 and RFC 8174. MUST is mandatory within scope; SHOULD is a strong default allowing justified exceptions; MAY denotes a choice. Explain WHY and give observable acceptance criteria. 4. NAMING, FORMATS AND GOVERNANCE Every standard has an immutable human-readable identifier RFC-AI N with no zero padding. RFC-AI 0 is the preserved founding document; RFC-AI 1, RFC-AI 2 and subsequent documents follow consecutively. Never reuse a withdrawn identifier. See RFC-AI 9, Document Identity, Versioning, and Publication Governance, for the proposed numbering standard and adoption requirements. MIGRATION AND HISTORICAL PROVENANCE — 2026-11-02 UTC The founding v0.4.0 draft predates the simplified human-readable numbering system. This is its direct successor with its history and original wording retained apart from the changed identifier, required format, explicit numbering correction and this provenance note. Original source SHA-256: 0dbbacbd9364778532873c5731d5e14ce07eb7cd567a9f411671dbf57d49a25f. See RFC-AI 9 for the numbering system, RFC-AI 1 for the text/Reader format, RFC-AI 2 for lifecycle rules, and RFC-AI 3 for guiding principles. This document remains DRAFT pending CEO review; this migration does not authorize publication or operation. DAVG DESIGN CORRECTION — 2026-11-02 UTC (DRAFT; SEE RFC-AI 37) Cross-RFC DAVG: no subject-specific modifications required in this pass. Original draft preserved. Examine RFC-AI 9 editorial authority, RFC-AI 33 worker identity, RFC-AI 34 source custody, RFC-AI 35 continuity, RFC-AI 36 context and RFC-AI 37 provider profile when a new dependency is introduced. This is not an implementation or CEO approval. AI RFC AND STANDARD DISTINCTION — CEO DESIGN CLARIFICATION (DRAFT): AI RFCs guide intelligent workers through purpose, context, principles, responsibilities, limits and verifiable outcomes; they are not conventional exhaustive programming specifications. AI workers research and determine implementation methods using the relevant Interface/component, for example StorageInterface. An expressly designated STANDARD defines technical formats, protocols, invariants or implementation rules when its particular scope requires precision. A missing internal method description alone is not an AI RFC defect; neither class grants itself approval. DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION — RFC-AI RESEARCH-FIRST RECONCILIATION (2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z) DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE DRAFT This document guides intelligent workers using purpose, contexts, values, professional responsibilities, boundaries and intended outcomes. Implementation details belong to the responsible Interface/component and project objectives, unless a separate explicit Standard governs them. Historical systems are research only, never a deployed instance of this RFC. Every RFC-AI remains unimplemented. DAVG judges future objectives and observed results, rather than presuming legacy implementation or declaring these drafts active. CEO approval and independently observed operational evidence are still required for any future activation. ## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION Historical research: Pre-RFC legacy practices and incidents may be studied for negative examples, but no implementation of this RFC-AI yet exists. Historical reports have mixed evidence quality; verify primary facts before adopting a claimed root cause. Preserve source provenance and do NOT operationalize retired legacy policies as current RFC authority. ## MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — CEO-DIRECTED PROPOSED FUTURE SYSTEM MUST-00-01: MUST design its assigned function for actual authorized outcomes, independent evidence, context-first investigation, active recovery and no false implementation claims; refer to the relevant Interfaces and Standards. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Entire RFC-AI system NOT IMPLEMENTED. Historical systems are independent past research material; no test or existing service may be counted as implementing this RFC-AI. ## DESIGN REVIEW ADDENDUM 2026-11-03 — FOUNDING CONTEXT REQ-AI-00-FOUND-001: Founding purpose and Guiding Principles MUST be the first applicable shared material assembled into a verified worker's identity-bound continuity. This historical founding draft alone MUST NOT grant privileges, authorize a task, or claim a runtime exists. Current governance editions, distinct operating context and a later authenticated assignment control actual future actions.