Governance & Rights
The constitutional commitments, learner rights, accountability rules, and open governance model behind RMP.
RMP makes evidence more powerful by making its limits, provenance, and use inspectable. Conformance is not only a data-format claim; it is a commitment to the rights of the people represented by the evidence.
The RMP Compact
- Observe reality before interpreting it.
- Preserve time when sequence matters.
- Separate measurement from inference.
- Expose uncertainty.
- Validate before consequence.
- Prove capability through performance.
- Measure trajectory, not merely endpoints.
- Treat contextual signals as context, not merit.
- Give people access to and control over their evidence.
- Make validated merit portable.
Rights by design
An RMP implementation should allow a person to understand what was measured, why it was measured, what data contributed, what was observed or inferred, how confident the system was, what decision followed, and how to contest it.
Implementations must define controls for consent, access, correction, export, retention, deletion, explanation, and appeal in proportion to their use and consequence.
Human accountability
An algorithm may assist a decision. It does not eliminate human responsibility. The organization deploying an RMP implementation remains accountable for its outputs and their use.
High-stakes implementations require a documented decision purpose, strong validation, human review, an appeal mechanism, an audit trail, explanations, fairness evaluation, restrictions on weak evidence, and an explicit accountability owner.
Prohibited uses
RMP must not be represented as a universal ranking system for human beings, a medical or psychiatric diagnostic protocol, a personality classification standard, or a system that directly observes thoughts, intentions, emotions, intelligence, or internal neural state.
Contextual and experimental signals must not be converted into consequential judgments merely because they are technically collectible.
Open governance
Proposed changes should identify their rationale, affected sections, evidence, compatibility impact, privacy impact, implementation impact, and a public discussion period. Evidence classifications may evolve as science changes, while historical classifications remain attached to past decisions.