Reconstruct and Challenge an Action-Level Decision
The minimum evidence needed to understand which action was proposed, which policy applied, how the path resolved, and where a reviewer can challenge it.
Start with the exact proposed action
A useful record identifies the acting principal, tool, target, purpose, relevant data class, delegation context, and normalized action fields evaluated by policy. Without that envelope, a later reader cannot tell whether the verdict addressed the action that actually crossed the boundary.
Record validation state and missing context explicitly. Absence must not be transformed into a plausible value merely to complete the schema.
Preserve the decision path
Keep the active policy reference, dimension scores, red-line result, optional model evidence, policy disposition, human decision, and simulated or real execution status as separate events in order.
This ordering lets a reviewer ask whether evidence informed the policy path, whether a human changed the disposition, and whether any tool action occurred before authority was established.
Design for challenge, not only storage
A record becomes useful when someone can locate the source policy, inspect the inputs, understand the limitations, and record a correction or appeal without rewriting the original event.
The example records show a reconstructable shape, not a universal audit format or a compliance conclusion.
What this page does not establish
- A complete record can explain a decision without proving that the policy was appropriate or legally sufficient.
- Hashes can reveal later change when comparison material is available. They do not prevent tampering or prove independent custody.
- Evidence quality depends on truthful identity, action context, policy version, and execution status supplied by the surrounding system.