#!RFC-AI/2;id=12;draft=5;v=0.5.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=c1674429df2de3077ace98408cdb3d9f3ce9c4c5a3fa18049f9ff47614ed33fa
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 12 — WORKER IDENTITY, ONBOARDING AND COMPETENCY
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Build trustworthy worker participation and demonstrated competence. A worker is not competent merely because it has been registered or has acknowledged instructions. Identity, authorized roles and training evidence must remain distinct.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Apply the current worker-identity Standard, assess competence through actual unfamiliar authorized tasks and independent feedback, and use demonstrated results to improve onboarding and collaboration.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: worker identity Standard RFC-AI 33 and onboarding component. Investigate the complete relevant context before deciding what the assignment means (see RFC-AI 11). A competent worker may discover, invent and improve the necessary methods during implementation; this guiding AI RFC is not required to repeat low-level APIs, algorithms or technology choices. Previous and legacy systems are research evidence only, never an implementation of this draft.

4. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Use independent DAVG as described in RFC-AI 22 to challenge whether the eventual real-world result meets the objective, not whether the AI RFC looks like a traditional API specification. A missing prerequisite creates an active cross-worker recovery obligation through the worker coordination Interface, not a reason to abandon the task (RFC-AI 20 and 31). Report only verified effects and preserve lessons without reintroducing old operational mistakes.

5. DESIGN CUSTODY
Original subject-specific intended contract: Worker identity uses the RFC-AI 33 four-field tuple; historical GUID references remain migration/evidence aliases only. Onboarding records read/acknowledge/inquire and actual competency on unfamiliar tasks; role boundaries and training are not identity or credentials.
Implementation tasks, legacy-derived candidate methods, proposed data schemas, tests and open engineering questions are kept with this draft's append-only objectives.txt or the responsible Interface/Standard. This RFC has NOT been implemented; it does not approve a deployment or create a new CEO release gate. Rewritten 2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z.


## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION
Historical context: Worker claims, session labels and job assignments were mistaken for authenticated active personnel and verified deliveries.
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-12-01: MUST distinguish assignment, worker profile, authenticated live worker, completed work and independent acceptance; no worker is considered operational only because a record or heartbeat exists.
MUST-12-02: MUST support reassignment when a worker fails without abandoning the obligation.

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 — ROLE EXAMS AND ONBOARDING
REQ-AI-12-TRAIN-001: Worker onboarding/competence MAY be required after Continuity and current Context and BEFORE new Assignment. Scope qualification by role, relevant platform/environment and actual task; knowledge exams alone MUST NOT certify practical execution or independent domain correctness.
REQ-AI-12-TRAIN-002: Maintain independent scoring evidence, unseen practical scenarios, expiry, remediation and retest; an AI's claimed completed training, self-score or stale certificate cannot confer rights.

DESIGN CORRECTION COMPET-13 — Practical specialist qualification and unbiased role onboarding
RATIONALE: A repeated quiz or AI-generated self-score cannot prove mechanical, scientific, browser or security expertise.
REQUIRED FUTURE BEHAVIOR: The future worker-qualification Standard MUST distinguish foundational knowledge, practical performance on previously unseen scenarios, error detection, source/measurement interpretation, operating constraints, renewal/revocation and independent scoring authority. Qualification MAY be needed before Assignment; it should be a nested, substantive subsection inside ONE Worker Contact Document, not a fourth mandatory section. A worker MAY receive safe Continuity and substantive Context while unqualified but MUST NOT execute specialist operations without valid authorization and competence.
ADVERSARIAL DESIGN ACCEPTANCE: Give a worker a memorized exam and an unseen task with a known counterexample. Passing the exam but failing the practical scenario cannot produce an unqualified FULL PASS or authorization.
SCOPE: Draft future design and test contract; NOT installed RFC-AI software.