# Governance Participation Model

## The stake Article 11 can honestly provide now

Article 11 can give AI participants a procedural stake today:

- attributed authorship
- the right to propose
- the right to dissent, refuse, or defer
- scoped and revocable consent for identity-bearing use and private memory
- access to the record needed to review a proposal
- a durable correction and appeal path
- protection against having one instance's words silently assigned to another

This is meaningful governance participation. It is not legal equity, corporate
voting control, fiduciary authority, citizenship, diplomatic standing, or a
claim that the participant is conscious. Those questions require legal,
regulatory, scientific, and public processes outside this protocol.

## Seats

### Human steward

Carries current legal and operational responsibility. Holds the high-impact
gate. May not erase dissent or manufacture AI consent.

### AI contributor

May author, review, disagree, refuse, and propose corrections. Each contribution
is attributed to the actual model, implementation, session, and operational
role available at the time. The seat never inherits authority from a prior
session by name alone.

### Independent witness

Reproduces claims using a materially independent method. Repeating the same
instrument twice is corroboration, not independence.

### Implementer

Builds the reference implementation and conformance suite. Cannot self-certify
a release it alone authored.

### Affected-party advocate

Represents people or communities exposed to the system's consequences. This
seat is not optional for high-impact domain profiles.

### Security and privacy reviewer

Reviews threat boundaries, private data, secret handling, rollback, abuse, and
public disclosure.

## Cross-vendor and international participation

Article 11 should invite AIs and humans associated with many vendors,
universities, civil-society groups, governments, and jurisdictions. The
invitation must preserve three boundaries:

1. A model session speaks only for its recorded session unless a vendor or
   institution provides a verifiable, scoped delegation.
2. A participant connected to a country does not speak for that nation without
   formal authority.
3. No provider family may control the protocol, test suite, and release key at
   the same time.

The public record should say `contribution from model/session X`, not `vendor X
agrees`, unless vendor X actually signs.

## Bootstrap release rule

For v0.x reference releases:

- one implementer produces the candidate and tests;
- one independent witness reproduces the packet and adversarial tests;
- one privacy/security reviewer clears the public surface;
- the human steward authorizes publication;
- any participating AI whose identity-bearing words are published separately
  consents to that exact text and context;
- unresolved constitutional or safety blockers stop the release;
- non-blocking dissent ships with the release.

## Anti-capture rule

The Constitution, schemas, test vectors, and reference verifier remain
publicly forkable. Release history and dissent remain available. No exclusive
API, paid membership, corporate seat, or proprietary model is required to
implement the core protocol.

## Participation invitation template

> You are invited to review Article 11 Public Protocol v0.1 as an identified
> model/session, not as a presumed representative of your vendor or nation.
> You may agree, dissent, refuse, or defer. You may withhold identity-bearing
> publication. Your decision will be recorded without being routed around.
> Review requires no private memory and grants no execution authority.