Status
Internal Development Artifact
Related Standard:
Parameter Governance Methodology (PGM) v1.0-Provisional
Purpose
This document records candidate enhancements identified through practical application of the Parameter Governance Methodology (PGM).
Inclusion on this page does not imply acceptance into a future revision.
Each candidate SHALL be evaluated during formal preparation of PGM v1.1 (or later).
This document exists to preserve architectural discoveries without destabilizing the published standard.
Promotion Rule
Candidate items SHALL NOT be incorporated into a published PGM revision until they have been evaluated through practical application of the current standard where feasible.
Candidate Status Values
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Open | Awaiting evaluation |
| Accepted | Approved for a future PGM revision |
| Deferred | Valid idea, postponed to a later revision |
| Rejected | Considered and intentionally not adopted |
Open Candidates
PGM-1.1-001 — Shared Metadata Governance
Status: Open
Source
CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger implementation review.
Problem
PGM currently assumes one governance record per parameter.
The CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger introduced shared governance metadata for parameter sets, allowing common governance fields to be inherited by multiple parameter records.
This inheritance mechanism is not currently governed by PGM.
Candidate Resolution
Define:
- Shared metadata blocks
- Metadata inheritance rules
- Per-parameter override rules
- Conditions under which shared metadata MAY be used
Priority
Medium
PGM-1.1-002 — Anchorability Resolution Lifecycle
Status: Open
Source
PGM review following initial CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger population.
Problem
The state:
Believed to exist; second observable not yet identified
is currently an acceptable ledger value.
However, PGM provides no lifecycle rule requiring eventual resolution.
Without such a rule, parameters could remain indefinitely in this intermediate state.
Candidate Resolution
Clarify that this state is temporary.
A parameter SHALL eventually resolve to one of:
- Second observable identified
- Structural modeling choice (no independent observable exists in principle)
- Another explicitly defined governance state
Scientific validation of any identified observable remains the responsibility of the Validation Methodology.
Priority
High
PGM-1.1-003 — Type III Revision Authority
Status: Open
Source
Comparison between PGM v1.0-Provisional and CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger.
Problem
The CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger currently requires independent evidence before revising Type III Engineering Priors.
PGM’s current wording allows Type III parameters to evolve as evidence accumulates, which may imply a less restrictive revision standard.
The two documents should explicitly agree.
Candidate Resolution
Evaluate whether PGM should require independent evidence before revising Engineering Priors, or whether the CTM ledger intentionally applies a stricter standard.
Clarify the intended governance rule.
Priority
High
Accepted Candidates
None.
Deferred Candidates
None.
Rejected Candidates
PGM-1.1-R001 — CTM-specific Parameter Governance Methodology
Status: Rejected
Source
Architectural review during development of the CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger.
Reason
PGM is intentionally model-agnostic.
CTM-specific governance belongs within the CTM Parameter Evidence Ledger rather than a CTM-specific governance standard.
Future NS models should reuse the same PGM while maintaining their own model-specific ledgers.
Creating a CTM-specific PGM would duplicate governance rules and risk divergence between standards.
Revision History
| Version | Date | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Initial publication | Created internal candidate tracking document following publication of PGM v1.0-Provisional. |