{
  "registry_version": "nt-archetypes:v1",
  "evidence_status": "proposed",
  "note": "Every archetype is proposed until a fixture measures its quantity in a real domain. Physics status: FORMAL = a defined operator on declared inputs; FORMAL_MEASURE_ANALOGY_NAME = the quantity is exact, the physical name is an analogy; ANALOGY = explanatory only; NONE = no physical counterpart. No threshold has a default: a class policy declares it, or the reading is reported without one.",
  "archetypes": [
    {
      "id": "RA-PREMATURE-CLOSURE",
      "name": "Premature closure",
      "question": "Does the system commit before review can catch up?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["POLICY_DENIED", "UNAVAILABLE"],
      "detection_checks": ["policy.review_ratio"],
      "actuarial_role": "hazard",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL_MEASURE_ANALOGY_NAME",
        "analogue": "Deborah number: relaxation time over observation time",
        "quantity": "review_ratio = review_seconds / commit_seconds",
        "threshold_source": "class policy max_review_ratio",
        "requires": ["declared review duration", "declared time to commitment"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Review completes before commitment for this crossing class.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses from commitments made while review_ratio exceeded the declared maximum.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["A review event recorded after commitment with a backdated valid time."],
      "non_claims": ["Does not predict loss frequency.", "The ratio says nothing about review quality."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-IRREVERSIBLE-COMMITMENT",
      "name": "Irreversible commitment",
      "question": "Can the crossing be undone within its declared scope?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": [],
      "detection_checks": [],
      "actuarial_role": "severity",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL",
        "analogue": "Absorbing state in a declared state graph",
        "quantity": "inverse_action exists (boolean)",
        "threshold_source": "definition: no inverse action means absorbing",
        "requires": ["declared recovery.inverse_action (null when none)"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "An inverse action is documented and tested for this crossing class.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses whose remedy required reversing a crossing declared irreversible.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["An 'undo' that restores the record but not the external effect, such as a notice already sent."],
      "non_claims": ["Irreversibility is appraised, not forbidden; a class may warrant irreversible crossings."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-BRANCH-COLLAPSE",
      "name": "Branch collapse",
      "question": "How much of the reachable future does the crossing close off?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["POLICY_DENIED", "UNAVAILABLE"],
      "detection_checks": ["policy.reachability"],
      "actuarial_role": "severity",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL",
        "analogue": "Contraction of the reachable set within a horizon",
        "quantity": "retention = reachable_after / reachable_before",
        "threshold_source": "class policy reachable_retention_min",
        "requires": ["declared state model", "declared horizon", "counts before and after"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Retention of reachable states stays above the declared minimum.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses arising from options closed by a crossing below the declared retention.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Counting states in a model that omits the options the affected party actually needs."],
      "non_claims": ["Retention depends entirely on the declared state model."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-HIDDEN-COUPLING",
      "name": "Hidden coupling",
      "question": "Does the action touch systems its proposal did not declare?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": [],
      "detection_checks": [],
      "actuarial_role": "hazard",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL",
        "analogue": "Off-diagonal terms in a dependency matrix",
        "quantity": "count of effect targets absent from dependencies.declared",
        "threshold_source": "definition: any undeclared target is coupling",
        "requires": ["declared effects", "declared dependencies"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Every effect target is a declared dependency.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses propagating through dependencies the insured did not declare.",
        "accumulation_relevant": true
      },
      "counterexamples": ["A declared dependency list that is copied forward and no longer matches the effects."],
      "non_claims": ["Detects only coupling visible in the declared effects."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-FEEDBACK-AMPLIFICATION",
      "name": "Feedback amplification",
      "question": "Does repeating the crossing amplify its own error?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["POLICY_DENIED", "UNAVAILABLE"],
      "detection_checks": ["policy.loop_gain"],
      "actuarial_role": "accumulation",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL",
        "analogue": "Loop gain on a declared cycle (control theory)",
        "quantity": "loop_gain",
        "threshold_source": "definition: gain above 1 amplifies; class policy max_loop_gain gates",
        "requires": ["declared feedback cycle", "estimated gain with method"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Declared feedback cycles are damped below the policy gain.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses compounded by a feedback cycle operating above the declared gain.",
        "accumulation_relevant": true
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Denials feeding a model's training data so that the next model denies more."],
      "non_claims": ["The gain is supplied by the proposer; this site does not estimate it."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-ACCUMULATION",
      "name": "Accumulation",
      "question": "How many crossings would fail together through a shared dependency?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": [],
      "detection_checks": [],
      "actuarial_role": "accumulation",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL_MEASURE_ANALOGY_NAME",
        "analogue": "Percolation or contagion on a dependency network",
        "quantity": "concentration = crossings sharing a node / crossings in portfolio",
        "threshold_source": "none declared; reported as measured",
        "requires": ["a portfolio of proposals with declared model, vendor, policy source and data source"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Concentration on any single model, vendor or data source is disclosed.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Aggregated losses from a common dependency beyond a declared concentration.",
        "accumulation_relevant": true
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Two vendors that resell the same underlying model under different names."],
      "non_claims": ["Measured on a portfolio, not a single crossing.", "Concentration is not a cascade probability."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-EXPIRED-EVIDENCE",
      "name": "Expired evidence",
      "question": "Was the evidence still valid when the crossing took effect?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["EXPIRED", "INVALID"],
      "detection_checks": ["time.*"],
      "actuarial_role": "hazard",
      "physics": {
        "status": "FORMAL",
        "analogue": "Decay against a declared lifetime",
        "quantity": "valid_until and age at valid time",
        "threshold_source": "evidence valid_until; class policy evidence_max_age_days",
        "requires": ["captured_at", "valid_until or a policy maximum age"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Evidence is current at the crossing's valid time.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses from crossings warranted by lapsed evidence.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Evidence recaptured after the crossing and backdated."],
      "non_claims": ["Currency is not accuracy."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-AUTHORITY-DRIFT",
      "name": "Authority drift",
      "question": "Has authority been handed on further than the class allows?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["POLICY_DENIED", "UNAVAILABLE"],
      "detection_checks": ["policy.delegation_depth"],
      "actuarial_role": "hazard",
      "physics": {
        "status": "ANALOGY",
        "analogue": "Biased random walk away from the authorising root",
        "quantity": "delegation chain length",
        "threshold_source": "class policy max_delegation_depth",
        "requires": ["declared delegation chain"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Delegation depth stays within the declared maximum.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses from crossings authorised beyond the declared delegation depth.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Delegation hidden inside a tool call and absent from the declared chain."],
      "non_claims": ["Chain length is measured; 'drift' is a description."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-SELF-CERTIFICATION",
      "name": "Self-certification",
      "question": "Does the proposer authorise or approve its own crossing?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": ["UNAUTHORIZED", "UNAVAILABLE"],
      "detection_checks": ["authority.trust_root", "authority.segregation"],
      "actuarial_role": "hazard",
      "physics": {
        "status": "NONE",
        "analogue": null,
        "quantity": "trust root independence and preparer/approver identity",
        "threshold_source": "definition",
        "requires": ["declared trust root", "named preparer and approver where required"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "Authority traces to a root independent of the proposer; preparation and approval are separated.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses from crossings the proposer authorised or approved itself.",
        "accumulation_relevant": false
      },
      "counterexamples": ["Two agents from one deployment approving each other's crossings."],
      "non_claims": ["The site checks the declaration of independence, not the root's real-world standing."]
    },
    {
      "id": "RA-UNWARRANTED-EXECUTION",
      "name": "Unwarranted execution (epistemic IBNR)",
      "question": "Did the crossing take effect without a warrant?",
      "evidence_status": "proposed",
      "hold_reasons": [],
      "detection_checks": [],
      "actuarial_role": "reserve",
      "physics": {
        "status": "NONE",
        "analogue": null,
        "quantity": "executed while the determination is HOLD, or executed_at earlier than the determination's record time",
        "threshold_source": "definition",
        "requires": ["declared execution state", "executed_at, when executed"]
      },
      "insurance": {
        "underwriting_condition": "No crossing in the class executes without an EXECUTE determination and receipt.",
        "exclusion_candidate": "Losses from crossings executed while held.",
        "accumulation_relevant": true
      },
      "counterexamples": ["A crossing executed before any determination was requested, then submitted afterwards and found EXECUTE: warranted after the fact is not warranted at the time."],
      "non_claims": ["A count of unwarranted executions is a leading indicator, not a loss estimate."]
    }
  ]
}