The Aurora Hierarchy
The Aurora Ecosystem is organized into layered subsystems. Each layer has a distinct authority domain and may not subsume or redefine the layer above it.
Authority flows downward. Enforcement flows upward.
Overview
The hierarchy separates legitimacy (what rules and commitments exist) from implementation (how those commitments are executed). This separation prevents governance drift, ambiguity at the execution boundary, and enforcement collapse.
This page is a canonical overview of the layer model only. Content authority remains with the referenced documents and repositories.
The Layers (L0–L6)
L0 — Governance (Authority Layer)
Defines authority boundaries, disclosure requirements, and traceability constraints. This layer is normative and constitutional: nothing below it may redefine legitimacy, authority boundaries, or provenance requirements.
Components: Neurotransparency Doctrine (NTD), Neurotransparency Specification (NTS), Aurora Research Initiative (ARI)
L1 — Method (Workflow Topology)
Structures how governed reasoning is performed and recorded. Method operationalizes L0 requirements into workflows and artifact classes, but does not define legitimacy and does not perform enforcement.
Component: Aurora Workflow Orchestration (AWO)
L2 — Language & Ontology (Meaning Layer)
Stabilizes meaning across artifacts using controlled vocabularies, symbols, and semantic compression. This layer affects interpretation and representation, not authority.
Components: Lexon, Glyphtrace
L3 — Lineage (Continuity Layer)
Preserves historical continuity by maintaining dependency and provenance chains across artifacts and decisions. This layer records history; it does not judge correctness.
Component: Tracelink (planned)
L4 — Validation & Enforcement (Execution Layer)
Mechanically validates artifacts and enforces declared constraints defined upstream (L0–L1). Validation prepares artifacts for enforcement. Enforcement gates state mutation at the execution boundary. Nothing in this layer may define governance rules; it only applies declared contracts and verifiable run evidence.
Components: Stamp (validation), CRI-CORE (enforcement)
L5 — Publication & Distribution (Output Layer)
Produces frozen, citable outputs (e.g., PDFs, releases, metadata-injected artifacts). Publication does not imply legitimacy; it reflects that upstream governance, method, validation, and enforcement requirements have been satisfied for the artifact set.
Component: Forge (publication engine) · Repository: Waveframe-Publications (canonical sources)
L6 — Demonstrations (Application Layer)
Practical examples that demonstrate how the ecosystem behaves under real workflow conditions. Demonstrations exercise validation and enforcement surfaces without redefining upstream layers.
Examples: Claim lifecycle demo, finance governance (RACI) demo, Stamp demo
Why the Hierarchy Matters
Without strict layering, governance, method, semantics, history, enforcement, and publication blur together. The hierarchy keeps legitimacy (L0) distinct from workflow topology (L1), representation (L2), continuity (L3), execution-boundary enforcement (L4), publication outputs (L5), and demonstrations (L6).
The result is a system where decisions can be traced to explicit commitments, artifacts can be validated against declared contracts, and outputs can be cited without ambiguity.