Decision doctrineTacit

Kestrel's stated risk appetite is a 2% loss ceiling. It appears in every board deck.
Across eleven years of decisions, not one was ever made at it.

Nobody at Kestrel could have written that sentence. It contradicts a number in every board pack, and it was derived only from the distribution of decisions their departing risk officer actually took. Tacit reconstructs the rules an executive decided by and never articulated, from the record their organisation already has.

Who is asking?

Access is decided by policy from your membership record, not from anything the browser sends. The same question returns a different answer — or a refusal — for each of these.

Provisioning used to be a script an operator ran, which meant this could be demonstrated but not started. Four steps: the organisation, the person, who may read it, and what they consent to.
Decision doctrineTacit

Start a record

A record models a named person from documents their employer already holds, so it does not exist until somebody says who, who may read it, and what they agreed to. Nothing is readable until the last step.

1 · Organisation
2 · The person
3 · Who reads it
4 · Consent
Everything below lives inside it. One customer's documents never answer another customer's question.
Induced from 233 exhibits · 2018–2026

How Amara actually decided

Rules derived from eleven years of decisions, not from anything Amara wrote down. Every finding carries the statistic it rests on and the exhibits behind it, so you can read the evidence and disagree with it.

The risk appetite that describes nothing

Stated vs revealed

Kestrel's stated appetite is a 2% loss ceiling. It appears in every board deck. Across the decision record, no decision was ever made at it — the real behaviour splits into two regimes with nothing in between. The published figure is the average of two different policies, and describes neither.

Successor agent

Ask the record

Answers come from the doctrine and the source documents. Where Amara never faced something, the agent says so and declines to invent a verdict — that refusal is the point.

Subject review

Is this you?

These rules were derived from your decisions, not from anything you wrote down. Nobody else can say whether they are true. Mark each one — and be honest about the ones you did not know you had, because those are the ones your successor cannot get any other way.

Governance

Consent & access

This system models a named person's judgement from their private conversations. It runs only while they permit it, excludes categories they never agreed to share, and records every use where they can see it.

Consent of record

Excluded from scope

MedicalAlways redacted
HR & compensationAlways redacted
Legally privilegedAlways redacted
Immigration statusAlways redacted

Applied to source text on the way out, so it holds regardless of what an agent asks for or how the question is phrased.

Policy decisions

Ask the policy engine

Deny by default. If the policy store cannot be reached, the answer is deny — an outage must never widen access.

Right to erasure

Erase the induced model

Deleting the source documents would not be enough. What Tacit holds is what it inferred across hundreds of conversations, and those conclusions survive the deletion of any single transcript. Erasure here destroys the derived model itself.

Chain of custody

WhenWhoQuestionExhibits
No access recorded yet.