III. Workflows

3.1 Structured Scope of Work (SoW) Templates Across All Tracks

3.1.1 Every Nexus Fellow must prepare a detailed Scope of Work (SoW) at the beginning of their fellowship. This plan outlines what the fellow intends to accomplish, how they will do it, what support they need, and when they plan to deliver their outputs. The SoW ensures that expectations are clearly set, and that both the fellow and the broader team have a shared understanding of the project goals and contributions.

3.1.2 A standard SoW template is provided to help all fellows develop their plans in a clear and consistent way. This template is used across all fellowship tracks—research, technology, policy, and media—making it easier for reviewers and team members to understand and compare different projects. The template is regularly updated to reflect feedback from fellows and changes in focus areas.

3.1.3 The SoW must include: (a) The title of the fellow’s project and the relevant track (e.g., DevOps, Policy); (b) A short summary of the problem being addressed or the opportunity being explored; (c) An explanation of how the fellow plans to carry out their work, including tools or methods; (d) A clear timeline showing major steps, key delivery dates, and any related dependencies; (e) A description of the outputs or results expected from the project and how they will be shared or published; (f) A short note on how the work contributes to Nexus priorities and connects to public good goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); (g) A list of any risks, challenges, or ethical concerns that need to be taken into account; (h) A summary of what resources are needed—such as access to datasets, platforms, or expert input; (i) The type of contribution (for example: written report, research dataset, software tool, training resource, or media project); (j) The name(s) of assigned reviewers, mentors, or track stewards, and the review and feedback timeline.

3.1.4 The SoW is reviewed by the Track Steward within five working days. This review ensures the plan is realistic and aligned with priorities. If the SoW involves more than one track, a cross-track review team coordinates the process to ensure a unified assessment.

3.1.5 Once approved, the SoW becomes a key reference point throughout the fellowship. It is linked to simulation dashboards and checked against automated milestone progress logs. Each timeline entry is mapped to specific checkpoints validated by the Nexus Decision Support System (NXS-DSS).

3.1.6 Fellows must also complete a brief “Impact Forecast” as part of their SoW submission, outlining the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of their work. At the end of the fellowship, an “Impact Retrospective” is required to compare projected and actual results.

3.1.7 If the fellow must revise their plan, they must submit an amendment using the Nexus Amendment Workflow System (NAWS). Each change is version-controlled and assigned a new timestamp. Simulation checkpoints are automatically updated to reflect any change in timeline or deliverables.

3.1.8 All SoWs are assigned a unique digital identifier (DOI, UUID, or RDF hash) and stored in the Nexus Contributor Registry. RDF metadata anchors link contributions to their simulation records and licensing statements.

3.1.9 Fellows will receive automated notifications about pending reviews, milestone deadlines, or required updates. These notifications are visible to both Track Stewards and relevant DAO governance groups.

3.1.10 Deliverables linked to a SoW must follow SPDX-compliant licensing, Nexus Commons Attribution rules, and publication protocols. This ensures fair use, clear authorship, and alignment with international open standards.

3.1.11 SoWs must show how the project supports accessibility, equitable access, and public value. Fellows may request translated templates or assistance for language-specific submission to increase participation.

3.1.12 In cases of exit or handoff, the SoW serves as a continuity and delegation tool. Simulation DAGs define handoff logic and enable authorized contributors to resume progress without disruption.

3.1.13 Fellows may be invited to present their approved SoW during onboarding sessions or peer gatherings. These presentations promote shared learning and can attract collaboration from other tracks.

3.1.14 Fellows may propose enhancements to the SoW template. All suggestions are routed to the Fellowship Committee and reviewed during quarterly template governance cycles.

3.1.15 Fellows may choose to tag their SoW as “Founder Track Eligible.” These entries will undergo additional review for long-term viability, resourcing, and transition into project spinouts.

3.1.16 Non-submission or missing approval deadlines will trigger automated fallback alerts. Fellows may be temporarily paused from active workflows until an updated SoW is submitted.

3.1.17 Certain SoW outputs (Impact Forecasts, Retrospectives) will be submitted to GRF and UN treaty observatories as part of Nexus's contribution to global transparency and multilateral accountability.

3.1.18 Fellows may use Nexus AI Co-Pilot tools to draft their SoW. The final submission will undergo an automated check to verify milestone coherence, RDF compatibility, and alignment with simulation logic.

3.1.19 Simulation DAGs linked to each SoW will include milestone scoring logic. Fellows receive real-time feedback if their project timeline slips, exceeds impact thresholds, or deviates from projected deliverables.

3.1.20 All SoW entries will include a cross-check validation against the Nexus indicator framework and simulation lineage. This helps ensure the submitted work aligns with treaty-based metrics and SDG progress targets.

3.2 Clause-Based Submission Workflow DAGs (Init → Review → Approve)

3.2.1 All fellowship deliverables—whether research outputs, technical tools, media content, or policy proposals—must follow a simple, three-step submission workflow: Init → Review → Approve. This ensures clarity, quality, and accountability throughout the entire process.

3.2.2 Init refers to the first step, when the fellow uploads their draft output into the submission portal. This includes all linked files, descriptions, metadata, and documentation needed for review. Each submission is tagged to its originating Scope of Work (SoW) and automatically linked to the fellow’s track. A digital signature using the fellow’s zkID is required to validate authenticity.

3.2.3 The system will automatically assign a Submission ID, generate a timestamp, and create a unique simulation DAG anchor to trace the submission lineage. A record is added to the Nexus Contributor Ledger and visible to the fellow, the Track Steward, and relevant DAO reviewers. Notifications are sent out immediately.

3.2.4 Review is the second step, where Track Stewards, mentors, or peer reviewers evaluate the submission against the SoW. Feedback must be provided within five working days. Reviews assess quality, alignment, originality, clarity, and ethical compliance. If the submission spans multiple tracks, a collaborative review team is assigned.

3.2.5 If any part of the submission needs revision, the fellow will receive detailed feedback through the dashboard. They may update and re-submit their entry, with a maximum of three revisions unless a DAO override is approved. All revision steps are logged, signed, and DAG-anchored.

3.2.6 Each review cycle is version-controlled. All edits, comments, and metadata updates are recorded in the Nexus Contributor Registry and remain accessible for auditing. Reviewers’ identities are visible to administrators and DAO governance bodies, and anonymized summaries may be shared with the fellow.

3.2.7 Approve is the final step, triggered once the submission meets all criteria and is signed off by the Track Steward. Approved outputs are published to their assigned platform (e.g., Zenodo, GitHub, GRF Repository), accompanied by a persistent DOI, SPDX-compliant license, and RDF metadata.

3.2.8 Once approved, submissions are immutable. However, updates may be submitted as amendments with a clear changelog. Each new version must be linked to the original record and assigned a new RDF and simulation hash.

3.2.9 Fellows can track the real-time status of all their submissions through the dashboard. Color-coded indicators reflect the current state: Draft, Under Review, Requires Action, Approved, or Escalated. Status changes trigger automated notifications.

3.2.10 DAO Delegates may initiate an emergency override if a submission poses ethical, legal, or reputational risks. Flagged items are immediately paused and routed to the DAO arbitration system. Decisions and escalation logs are stored in the Contributor Risk Ledger (CRL).

3.2.11 Fellows may appeal rejected submissions through a structured DAO appeal process. A new peer panel is formed, and review is conducted within five business days. All appeal results are final unless overridden by Federation-level governance.

3.2.12 Data residency for approved outputs follows multilateral treaty standards. Files are published to Zenodo, GRF Repository, or a Nexus IPFS node, with a 10-year retention guarantee and metadata mirrored to treaty-linked observability hubs.

3.2.13 All submission metadata, DAG anchors, and associated simulation metrics are visible to Track Stewards and Federation dashboards for monitoring and treaty reporting purposes.

3.2.14 This Init → Review → Approve process ensures that each submission is verifiable, transparent, and consistent with global standards of open science, responsible innovation, and sovereign-grade governance.

3.3 Zenodo Integration for Research, Media, Reports, and Archives

3.3.1 All approved fellowship deliverables—whether research papers, policy memos, media projects, datasets, software, or documentation—must be uploaded to Zenodo or another recognized open repository. This ensures long-term public access, proper credit for contributors, and accurate documentation of the fellow’s contributions.

3.3.2 Zenodo serves as the primary archival and citation platform for Nexus projects. Each record is automatically assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Nexus UUID, and RDF metadata tag, making it easy to cite, retrieve, and track within global observability systems. Submissions are also anchored in the contributor’s Clause Lifecycle Ledger and simulation DAG lineage.

3.3.3 Fellows must upload the final version of their output along with a short description, structured keywords, associated files, and any supplementary materials required by the Scope of Work. Zenodo supports community tagging, linkages between versions, and citation tracking across GitHub, ORCID, and other research tools.

3.3.4 Each upload must clearly specify licensing using SPDX-compliant licenses such as CC-BY-4.0, MIT, or GPL-3.0. The Zenodo license selector and Nexus Commons protocols ensure transparent reuse conditions. Where applicable, fellows must include a clause bundle reference confirming licensing rights.

3.3.5 Zenodo’s integrated communities feature allows Nexus projects to be grouped under topical or track-based collections. Fellows must assign submissions to the appropriate Nexus Fellowship Community and corridor-aligned sub-group to support discoverability.

3.3.6 Fellows may utilize Zenodo’s versioning system to release draft and final versions separately. Each version receives a unique DOI, and the version history is publicly visible. Zenodo automatically links related outputs (e.g., datasets and code) and enables GitHub DOI syncing for code repositories.

3.3.7 Metadata for each submission is registered in RDF format and linked to simulation dashboards, contributor profiles, and GRF monitoring systems. Metadata fields must include contributor name, track ID, license, corridor reference, funder tag (GCRI), and project title.

3.3.8 DAO reviewers, Track Stewards, and GRF analysts may recommend improvements to metadata fields for better indexing. Zenodo’s advanced search and filtering are used by Nexus observatories, and accurate metadata is critical for visibility.

3.3.9 For sensitive or embargoed outputs, fellows may apply Zenodo’s restricted access feature or request IPFS-based distribution. A redacted public version may be required, tagged with the correct access level, license notice, and ethics justification.

3.3.10 Upon successful approval by a Track Steward, a publication trigger finalizes the upload. The Zenodo record becomes public and visible across GRF repositories, multilateral observatories, Nexus archives, and UN-aligned SDG impact dashboards.

3.3.11 Fellows must digitally sign each submission using their zkID, and submissions lacking verification are automatically flagged. A time-stamped hash is stored in the Nexus Contributor Ledger and audit logs.

3.3.12 Submissions are mirrored across Nexus repositories, including GRF Media Repository and Nexus Reports collections. Fellows are encouraged to use Zenodo’s integration with GitHub and ORCID for additional linkage and attribution.

3.3.13 Zenodo’s citation metrics and altmetrics are tracked through the contributor dashboard. Fellows will receive real-time notifications for metadata errors, publication confirmations, and indexation events.

3.3.14 Fellows may create custom Zenodo bundles grouping multiple outputs under one archive, linked to a single DOI. These bundles are recommended for end-of-fellowship submissions and final portfolio generation.

3.3.15 At the conclusion of the fellowship, all approved Zenodo outputs are reviewed by GRF for feature eligibility in the annual Nexus Fellowship report. Records flagged as treaty-relevant are exported to Nexus Treaty Observability Registries.

3.4 GitHub + GitLab + Zenodo for Code + Documentation Publications

3.4.1 All code-based deliverables—such as source code, simulation scripts, configuration files, and technical documentation—must be hosted on GitHub or GitLab repositories associated with the Nexus Fellowship program. Each repository should reflect the fellow’s track, corridor, and assigned Scope of Work (SoW).

3.4.2 Repository setup must follow structured naming conventions, use consistent directory layouts, and contain the following minimum components: a project README with objectives and usage instructions, LICENSE file with SPDX identifiers, CONTRIBUTING guidelines, CODEOWNERS, and any relevant manuals, data schemas, or architecture diagrams.

3.4.3 Every repository must be integrated with Zenodo for long-term preservation. Fellows must activate GitHub-Zenodo DOI linking or use Zenodo’s upload interface for GitLab repositories. Each release must be archived as a versioned Zenodo record with a DOI and Nexus UUID, and RDF metadata automatically mapped.

3.4.4 Commits must be signed using the fellow’s zkID or verifiable digital signature linked to their contributor record. Unsigned or unverifiable commits may trigger DAG-based audit flags or Track Steward review.

3.4.5 Documentation must be maintained in markdown, reStructuredText, or similarly portable formats and include changelogs, data dictionaries, environmental setup files, contribution history, and instructions for reviewers and users. DAG logs for simulation results must be stored alongside documentation.

3.4.6 All files must carry SPDX license headers and a manifest file (e.g., manifest.json, environment.yml, or requirements.txt) must describe dependencies, supported platforms, and execution contexts.

3.4.7 Reproducibility is required. Projects must include reproducible environments via Dockerfiles, container specs, Conda/YAML environments, or cloud-based workflows (e.g., Binder, GitHub Actions). Fellows are encouraged to use Nexus Commons reproducibility badges.

3.4.8 For large or modular projects, fellows may structure code into submodules and link these to a master repository with a full integration README, DAG lineage file, and index of module functions.

3.4.9 Once approved by a Track Steward, repositories must be made public and tagged with Nexus metadata: project name, corridor ID, track type, contributor ID, fellowship cycle, and Nexus UUID. These tags support discoverability and multilateral impact tracking.

3.4.10 Repositories must be submitted through the fellowship dashboard. Upon submission, the simulation DAG lineage is generated, RDF metadata is finalized, and a hash is stored in the Clause Lifecycle Ledger.

3.4.11 Use of external dependencies must be fully documented. Fellows must confirm compatibility of third-party licenses with project outputs. Any conflicts or violations may delay publication until remediation is complete.

3.4.12 Collaboration workflows must use GitHub/GitLab issues, branches, and pull requests. Fellows should document decisions, feedback cycles, and reviewer inputs in these threads. All major merges must be signed off by Track Stewards for DAO compliance.

3.4.13 For deliverables supporting policy models, scientific forecasting, media interaction, or operational simulations, documentation must include relevant test cases, coverage summaries, and reproducibility checklists. DAG test outputs should be attached to release files.

3.4.14 Finalized repositories will be mirrored to GRF archives and indexed in SDG impact dashboards and multilateral observability registries. Repositories may also be forked into Nexus simulation testbeds upon request.

3.4.15 At the end of the fellowship, approved repositories will be automatically bundled with all related Zenodo records, SPDX licenses, DAG hashes, and RDF schemas into a comprehensive portfolio package. Fellows may opt to publish this bundle as a public showcase linked to treaty-aligned governance nodes.

3.4.16 All repositories must comply with data protection, cyber-resilience, and open access guidelines set by the Nexus Governance Framework. Submissions breaching these standards may be flagged for governance review and temporarily restricted.

3.4.17 Fellows will receive real-time alerts via the dashboard when metadata errors, license mismatches, or publication delays occur. These alerts will include suggested remediation steps and optional support tickets.

3.4.18 All repositories are eligible for simulation-linked impact scoring and citation tracking. Scores will appear in contributor dashboards and may influence eligibility for grants, Founder Pathways, or DAO delegation roles.

3.5 Nexus Reports (Zenodo) for Research and Scientific Workflows

3.5.1 Nexus Reports are structured, high-impact outputs that translate research findings, scientific models, and risk simulations into accessible, policy-ready formats. These reports serve as evidence-based publications available for public, institutional, and multilateral use and are linked to the broader Nexus Observability Layer.

3.5.2 Fellows producing scientific, technical, or applied research must format their primary output as a Nexus Report. Each report must be deposited in Zenodo’s “Nexus Reports” community with appropriate metadata, licensing, RDF tagging, and Nexus UUID indexing for traceability across platforms.

3.5.3 Nexus Reports must follow a standard structure: executive summary, introduction, methods and datasets, results and simulations, discussion of implications, policy recommendations, references, and annexes. Templates, style guides, and RDF annotation examples will be provided via the fellowship dashboard.

3.5.4 Reports must align with at least one global risk or development framework (e.g., SDGs, Sendai Framework, IPCC indicators) and explicitly identify how simulation outcomes map to real-world indicators, treaty goals, or Nexus KPIs.

3.5.5 Approved Nexus Reports are assigned a DOI, Nexus UUID, and RDF index tag and are registered in the Clause Lifecycle Ledger. They are timestamped, digitally signed, and linked to the fellow’s contribution profile, simulation history, and associated DAG workflows.

3.5.6 Where simulations are used, all computational methods, scenario parameters, and underlying data sources must be transparently cross-referenced with linked GitHub or GitLab repositories to ensure reproducibility, with supporting Zenodo or IPFS files clearly cited.

3.5.7 Nexus Reports must include high-quality visualizations such as simulation graphics, dashboards, maps, and diagrams. Fellows may use tools like Observable, D3.js, GRF Visualization Kits, and corridor-linked map overlays to enrich the reader’s understanding.

3.5.8 Reports must pass a two-tier review process: (a) technical validation by Track Stewards and simulation reviewers, and (b) policy and impact review by GRF analysts. Approved reports are made publicly accessible and mirrored in GRF archives.

3.5.9 Reports flagged for multilateral relevance may be submitted to UN, WIPO, OECD, and similar stakeholder platforms. Fellows may receive invitations to present results in briefings, panels, or multistakeholder reviews.

3.5.10 At the close of the fellowship, the Nexus Report serves as the capstone artifact within the fellow’s contribution bundle. It is eligible for Nexus Commons citation, GRF Roundtable inclusion, and DAO-curated Founder Pathway showcases.

3.5.11 Nexus Reports must embed links to simulation DAG hashes, Clause Anchoring Graphs, underlying datasets, and reproducibility test reports. DAG lineage and cross-track reference chains must be documented where relevant.

3.5.12 Fellows must digitally sign each Nexus Report using their zkID and corresponding key signature. All metadata is verified before approval. Reports lacking cryptographic integrity are flagged and paused until resolved.

3.5.13 Licensing must follow standard SPDX identifiers (e.g., CC-BY-4.0, MIT, Apache-2.0). Any embargo, redaction, or restricted components must include access terms, justification, and scheduled review dates.

3.5.14 RDF metadata must include contributor ID, corridor, track designation, funder tag (GCRI), and topic indicators. Metadata must be FAIR-compliant and pass Nexus validator checks prior to publication.

3.5.15 Fellows are encouraged to publish preview reports at the midpoint of their fellowship. Mid-cycle versions receive preliminary DOIs and are tagged as “under review,” with snapshots recorded in observability dashboards.

3.5.16 Post-publication, Nexus Reports are automatically indexed in SDG-linked impact dashboards, added to the Nexus Treaty Observability Register, and made available to governance simulations where relevant.

3.5.17 Citation analytics, altmetrics, and simulation cross-verification scores are fed into the contributor’s profile dashboard. These metrics help determine eligibility for grants, DAO votes, or future appointments.

3.6 GRF Media Repository (Zenodo) for Public-Interest Communication

3.6.1 The GRF Media Repository on Zenodo is the official digital library for all public-interest communication created by Nexus Fellows. It includes multimedia such as articles, videos, animations, podcasts, infographics, interviews, photo essays, and interactive storytelling formats aimed at making complex topics accessible to diverse audiences.

3.6.2 All submissions must be uploaded to the “GRF Media Repository” Zenodo community. Required metadata includes creator identity, fellowship track, corridor region, UUID, intended audience, language tags, and a media type indicator. Each submission is timestamped and receives a persistent DOI for global discoverability.

3.6.3 A public-facing summary (100–300 words) must accompany each entry, explaining the story’s goals, audience relevance, and thematic connection to global or corridor-specific issues. Fellows are encouraged to use inclusive, jargon-free language that resonates with civil society, educators, and media networks.

3.6.4 Supported formats include MP4, MOV, WAV, JPEG, PNG, GIF, PDF, EPUB, HTML5, Markdown, and other accessible text/audio/visual files under 2 GB. Multiple language subtitles or transcripts must be included where applicable to meet accessibility requirements.

3.6.5 Each submission must be published under a recognized SPDX license (e.g., CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC0), explicitly stating reuse permissions, shareability, translation rights, and educational redistribution terms. Any embargoed material must declare embargo period, access limitations, and clearance instructions.

3.6.6 Fellows must digitally sign submissions using their zkID and publish cryptographic hashes to ensure authenticity and immutability. These hashes are stored in the Clause Lifecycle Ledger to support long-term trust and versioning.

3.6.7 Media outputs must contribute to at least one thematic impact area aligned with global frameworks (e.g., disaster risk reduction, biodiversity, AI governance, water/food security). Each file must be tagged accordingly to support corridor-specific observability indexing and public dashboard inclusion.

3.6.8 Fellows may group works into thematic series (e.g., podcast seasons, interactive map collections, educational video sets) using Zenodo’s bundling feature and assign a master UUID and cross-linked RDF metadata.

3.6.9 GRF Media Stewards will review submissions for factual accuracy, relevance, ethical integrity, storytelling clarity, and visual quality. Approved works are mirrored to Nexus Commons, listed in GRF public dashboards, and flagged for corridor translation where applicable.

3.6.10 Fellows may access creative services through GRF’s editorial studio, including script refinement, design feedback, accessibility enhancements, and subtitling. Requests are managed via the Fellowship Dashboard’s ticket system.

3.6.11 Outstanding works may be fast-tracked for external promotion via GRF newsletters, institutional platforms, public webinars, or UN-affiliated media channels, with licensing compliance and author attribution preserved.

3.6.12 Each media item is cross-indexed with related reports, GitHub repositories, and DAO deliverables. QR codes and smart tags can be embedded in publications to enable multichannel traceability and public engagement.

3.6.13 Fellows gain visibility metrics including views, downloads, geographic reach, engagement rates, altmetrics, and reuse citations, accessible through their personal dashboards. These statistics contribute to peer scoring and DAO selection processes.

3.6.14 At fellowship conclusion, each fellow may generate a curated Media Portfolio Archive—comprising a metadata index, DOI links, DAG hashes, zkID signatures, and summaries—for institutional review, DAO elevation, or Founder nomination.

3.6.15 Repository content undergoes quarterly audits for metadata compliance, broken links, and red flag signals (e.g., outdated licenses or misattributed assets). Fellows receive automatic notifications for necessary corrections.

3.6.16 All approved content is eligible for year-end GRF compilations—regional digests, thematic narratives, or fellowship highlight reels—featured at GRF Roundtables, observatories, and global distribution hubs.

3.6.17 The repository integrates with corridor observability dashboards and Nexus Governance simulations. Approved assets may be invoked in participatory exercises, simulation-based policy debates, and DAO communications workflows.

3.7 Simulation DAG Anchors and Reproducible Workflows

3.7.1 Nexus Fellows must ensure that every substantive output—whether research, code, media, or policy—is anchored to a Simulation DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph). These DAGs serve as traceable, verifiable maps that show how fellow contributions connect to scenario modeling, governance simulations, and real-world treaty frameworks.

3.7.2 Each Simulation DAG documents the full lifecycle of a contribution, starting from concept initiation, peer consultation, DAO signaling, simulation execution, feedback integration, and publication. The DAG must include checkpoints with clearly timestamped milestones and contributor zkID signatures.

3.7.3 Fellows are required to publish a reproducible workflow for each simulation-linked output. This must include source data, software tools, code repositories, model configurations, input assumptions, policy variables, and execution logic. Workflows should be documented in GitHub/GitLab with Zenodo DOI linkage and SPDX-compliant metadata.

3.7.4 Workflows must be independently verifiable. NSF provides DAG validation scripts and audit bots embedded in the Fellowship Dashboard to check for reproducibility, hash match, and RDF compliance before outputs are accepted.

3.7.5 Every node in the DAG must include a hash-signed pointer to the specific clause, scenario frame, or dataset used. zkID digital signatures must verify fellow authorship and ensure that outputs cannot be tampered with or misattributed.

3.7.6 DAG structures must reflect the fellow's governance role and spatial context. Fellows acting as Stewards, Cross-Track Delegates, or Regional Anchors must include forks, overlays, and bridge nodes to represent multilateral or multi-track logic.

3.7.7 DAGs must also include automated triggers based on corridor-level risks or treaty-flagged updates (e.g., from UNDRR or IPBES). These triggers determine simulation re-runs, priority assignments, or publication visibility shifts.

3.7.8 Contributor dashboards provide real-time DAG visualizations. These maps display simulation lineage, clause connections, observability scores, and corridor scenario dependencies. Fellows can trace their impact on SDG dashboards and UN-linked policy observatories.

3.7.9 Simulation DAGs are stored using Nexus observability infrastructure, mirrored on Zenodo with permanent DOIs, SPDX licenses, RDF graph links, and checksum logs. DAGs may be registered with UN-affiliated transparency registries and corridor observatories.

3.7.10 At project close, fellows must submit a DAG Summary Document. This structured brief includes lineage trees, zkID-signed checkpoints, clause and KPI links, dispute flags, cross-scenario references, and reproducibility attestations. It becomes part of the fellow’s permanent Nexus contribution record.

3.7.11 In the event of simulation challenges, reproduction failures, or policy conflicts, DAG records serve as the first source of truth in DAO arbitration. Each lineage checkpoint is independently auditable by NSF agents.

3.7.12 Reproducible workflows must include environment manifests such as Dockerfiles, Conda environments, requirements.txt, or cloud-agnostic YAML configurations. This ensures anyone can regenerate the work regardless of their infrastructure.

3.7.13 Every DAG must be linked to one or more Nexus Simulation Corridors. These links specify the bioregional or thematic domain where the contribution applies and inform governance dashboards, impact scoring, and funding eligibility.

3.7.14 DAG checkpoints are monitored in real-time by NSF’s automated validators and DAO agents. Irregularities or regressions in simulation results trigger alerts, freeze conditions, or route-to-review logic.

3.7.15 Fellows are encouraged to create dashboard widgets or public displays that stream DAG-linked outputs in real-time. These interfaces, once cleared for compliance, may be embedded in Nexus Commons, treaty dashboards, or GRF observatories for broader engagement and policy translation.

3.8 FAIR-Compliant RDF Metadata and SDG/Nexus Impact Mapping

3.8.1 All fellowship outputs must include machine-readable metadata formatted according to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles to ensure global traceability, transparency, and compliance with open science and multilateral observability standards.

3.8.2 RDF (Resource Description Framework) metadata must be attached to every output—code, research, media, or policy—and must include fields for UUID, contributor zkID, SPDX license type, corridor region, track affiliation, simulation DAG hash, clause reference, and treaty relevance where applicable.

3.8.3 Fellows must use NSF-standardized RDF schemas that align with global protocols including W3C PROV, Dublin Core, Schema.org, and DataCite. These schemas must also support SDG metadata fields and Nexus-specific indicators for resilience, governance impact, and corridor simulations.

3.8.4 RDF files must be published alongside final deliverables on GitHub, GitLab, and Zenodo and undergo automatic FAIR validation via the Fellowship Dashboard. NSF bots will flag missing or malformed fields, trigger alerts, and issue compliance tickets.

3.8.5 RDF metadata must be digitally signed using zkID and timestamped at each publishing milestone. Metadata hashes are stored in the Clause Lifecycle Ledger and simulation DAGs to ensure traceability, version control, and reproducibility.

3.8.6 Each RDF record must link the output to relevant SDGs and Nexus indicators. Fellows must use official SDG identifiers and corridor-specific tags, along with causal scenario IDs, geospatial overlays, governance triggers, and treaty-linked metrics.

3.8.7 RDF metadata must be kept current. Fellows are required to update RDF records upon revision of the output (e.g., software version, media translation, paper updates) and ensure updated RDF is logged in the Clause Ledger with hash-linked integrity proofs.

3.8.8 Localization support must be included in RDF schemas where outputs are multilingual. RDF must indicate the language(s), translation source UUIDs, and original author attribution, ensuring correct reuse in non-English corridor deployments.

3.8.9 Fellows must disclose provenance trails for each contribution using W3C PROV elements—such as prov:wasGeneratedBy, prov:wasDerivedFrom, and prov:wasAttributedTo—to support reproducibility, especially in collaborative, forked, or co-produced works.

3.8.10 Metadata completeness scores will be automatically computed. Fellows who maintain high-quality RDF (≥95% compliance) will be eligible for metadata-linked bounties, fast-track funding rounds, DAO elevation scores, or featured placement in GRF highlight digests.

3.8.11 Missing, inaccurate, or outdated RDF metadata will trigger auto-notification to the contributor and DAO Stewards. Fellows will be given two correction cycles. Non-compliance may delay project validation, corridor routing, or simulation integration.

3.8.12 RDF schemas must be harmonized across tracks. NSF provides validation layers to resolve conflicts between media vs. research tags, DevOps vs. policy fields, and corridor-specific vs. global indicator fields. Harmonization audits occur quarterly.

3.8.13 Real-time RDF sync tools are embedded in the Fellowship Dashboard. Contributors may preview how their metadata populates SDG dashboards, treaty observatories, or corridor scorecards before finalizing.

3.8.14 All RDF entries must support public search and filter logic within Nexus Commons, GRF/NSF registries, and UN-partnered platforms. Queries may return metadata-similarity scores and SDG correlation maps.

3.8.15 RDF-linked dashboards will dynamically visualize fellow contributions to treaty monitoring, corridor risk models, and global observability layers. Simulation events, policy briefings, or funding eligibility flags may be automatically triggered based on RDF updates.

3.8.16 A quarterly metadata audit will be conducted by NSF validators and GRF dashboard integrators. Issues identified will be logged in the Clause Ledger, and contributors will be notified for corrective action.

3.8.17 Fellows may use NSF’s metadata editor to auto-generate RDF tags via YAML, JSON-LD, or CSV-based templates. Templates are preloaded for each track and include clause pointers and simulation DAG integration fields.

3.8.18 In the event of DAO arbitration or contributor dispute, the RDF record—including hash chain, version logs, and dashboard sync history—will serve as formal documentation for evaluation and resolution.

3.8.19 Each RDF file must clearly define who has edit, view, or publish rights (e.g., author, steward, DAO delegate) using access control tags (nsf:accessRole, nsf:permissionLevel) to prevent metadata tampering.

3.8.20 RDF metadata is an enforceable part of the final deliverable. No output will be accepted into the Fellowship record, simulation DAG, or GRF observatory index without a fully compliant and signed RDF entry.

3.9 Cross-Verification by Simulation Across Tracks with Nexus Indicators

3.9.1 All outputs produced under the Fellowship—whether policy briefs, codebases, media pieces, or research findings—must undergo simulation-based cross-verification. This process ensures that contributions are internally consistent, relevant across disciplines, and aligned with both Nexus indicators and global observability standards.

3.9.2 Each output must be linked to at least one simulation DAG from another Fellowship track. For instance, a DevOps deployment may verify its utility against a Research simulation model, or a Policy proposal might cite metrics from a Media campaign DAG.

3.9.3 Nexus indicators—such as corridor impact, governance relevance, and risk reduction—are embedded into simulations as scoring metrics. Fellows must report alignment with a minimum of three indicators, selected from the Fellowship Indicator Registry.

3.9.4 Verification is formalized via a Submission Alignment Sheet (SAS), signed with zkID, timestamped, and archived in the Clause Ledger. The SAS must outline source DAGs, indicator links, and relevant dashboards.

3.9.5 A Cross-Track Verification Table is maintained in the Fellowship Dashboard, tracking linkages, unresolved conflicts, indicator overlaps, and opportunities for cross-track bounties or consolidation.

3.9.6 Verification tags must be added to each simulation DAG, denoting verification status (e.g., Pending, Approved, Disputed), lineage traceability, and timestamp. These are automatically visualized within the NXS-DSS observability environment.

3.9.7 Verification reviews must be conducted by Fellows from a different track. Reviewers are required to validate the logical coherence and Nexus alignment of the referenced simulations and record assessments within the SAS.

3.9.8 Each verified output must include a summary statement written in accessible language, clearly explaining how the contribution reinforces cross-track goals (e.g., how a policy brief advances technical or media-driven outcomes).

3.9.9 All simulation tools used during verification must be listed with appropriate citations, including software version, container specs, and reproducibility notes. External or proprietary tools must be disclosed and verified for interoperability.

3.9.10 Simulation verification must be refreshed at least once every 12 months, or upon material changes to the output or underlying DAGs. NXS-DSS issues automatic alerts for expired verifications or changes in upstream DAG dependencies.

3.9.11 The DAO Dashboard must notify contributors when a cross-verification fails or when reviewer comments require revision. Contributors have two correction cycles before escalation is triggered.

3.9.12 DAO-based arbitration is triggered after repeated failed validations, conflict-of-interest disclosures, or contradictory DAG logic. Disputes are resolved via Simulation Corridor Arbitration Hubs (SCAHs) and Governance Ethics Panels.

3.9.13 Federation tags are applied to successfully verified outputs that align with multiple tracks and treaty-linked simulations. These may qualify for advanced recognition, enhanced bounty tiers, and placement in Nexus Reports or GRF Highlights.

3.9.14 All verification histories—comments, alignment sheets, DAG hashes, indicator maps, and timestamped lineage—must be archived in the Clause Ledger and linked to RDF metadata for public traceability.

3.9.15 Fellows may use NSF templates for verification automation: similarity scoring algorithms, peer review guidelines, and indicator scoring checklists. Templates are provided per track and auto-loaded into the Dashboard.

3.9.16 Reviewer conflict-of-interest declarations must be submitted and flagged if thresholds (e.g., shared DAG authorship, organizational affiliation) are exceeded. Automated vetting is conducted by NXS-DSS.

3.9.17 Verification weighting logic applies in high-priority domains (e.g., DRF, health, treaty policy). These require higher reviewer quorum, additional simulations, or confirmation from corridor stewards.

3.9.18 A centralized Verification Registry is maintained for Fellows to query simulation links, track review status, or locate related outputs. This registry is publicly accessible through the Fellowship Dashboard.

3.9.19 Confidential or embargoed outputs must follow secure cross-verification protocols using encrypted DAG segments, masked RDF tags, and conditional reviewer access. These rules are enforced per corridor and governed by NSF redline safeguards.

3.9.20 Each verified output must be version-controlled. Updated outputs must undergo re-verification, and historical validation logs must remain immutable in the Clause Ledger for auditability and future reference.

3.10 Clause-Based Publication Memory, Archives, and Transparency Ledger

3.10.1 Every output produced under the Fellowship—whether research, code, media, or policy—must be permanently archived in the Clause-Based Transparency Ledger, which functions as the canonical system of record for Fellowship contributions.

3.10.2 Outputs are grouped into clause bundles that reflect their track affiliation, simulation lineage, contributor role, and final approval status. Clause bundles must be linked via signed DAG hashes, RDF metadata, SPDX licensing tags, and publication DOIs.

3.10.3 All archival entries must include the original submission, peer-reviewed edits, final approved version, and verification lineage. These versions are timestamped, zkID-stamped, and cryptographically signed for auditability and reproducibility.

3.10.4 The Transparency Ledger must support full-text search, contributor name queries, clause ID lookups, and simulation tag filtering. These capabilities must be made available via both a public interface and an authenticated contributor dashboard.

3.10.5 Each archival record must specify its associated governance track, simulation corridor, RDF metadata file, SPDX license, verification status, and simulation score. These fields are machine-readable and linked to GRF dashboards and Nexus indicators.

3.10.6 Redacted or embargoed outputs must still be logged in the Transparency Ledger but marked as private or time-delayed, with a hashed placeholder entry and future publication date. These access controls must be governed by NSF encryption protocols and DAO steward approvals.

3.10.7 All submissions to Zenodo, GitHub, GitLab, and GRF Media Repository must be reflected in the Ledger with direct linkage to publication DOIs, Git commit hashes, simulation DAG IDs, and citation-ready metadata.

3.10.8 The Transparency Ledger must be integrated with RDF metadata versioning logic. When a Fellow revises an output or updates its RDF, a new entry must be generated, with traceable lineage to all prior versions, including reviewer comments and simulation impact changes.

3.10.9 Contribution logs must show Fellowship milestones such as onboarding, publication, peer verification, elevation, and final graduation. This enables real-time governance dashboards to trace contributor trajectories and project impact.

3.10.10 Clause-based memory infrastructure must allow fellows and reviewers to navigate simulation pathways across time. This includes viewing archived DAG trees, impact projections, RDF deltas, and downstream simulation correlations.

3.10.11 The Ledger must allow contributors to export their entire output history—including RDFs, DAGs, bounties, reviews, and project metrics—into portable data packages (e.g., ZIP, JSON, RDF) for verification or migration.

3.10.12 All publication records must indicate the simulation cycle of origin (global vs. corridor-specific) to ensure time consistency in simulations and downstream integration.

3.10.13 Justifications for amendments, overrides, or redlines must be publicly posted in the Ledger by the responsible actor (Fellow, DAO Steward, or GRF Dashboard Logic) with timestamped proof.

3.10.14 Simulation DAG snapshots must be preserved for all clause-published outputs to guarantee historical reproducibility. Snapshots must include system version, track state, RDF metadata, and simulation results.

3.10.15 MRD (Mobility Route Diagrams), QDS (Quadratic Decision Snapshots), and Governance Veto records must also be stored in the Ledger and referenced by their clause triggers.

3.10.16 All entries must carry transparency ratings (e.g., Verified, Pending Redline, Under Arbitration) that inform simulation eligibility, bounty qualification, and treaty reporting access.

3.10.17 Fellows must be notified via dashboard alerts of new entries, changes to clause versions, reviewer flags, or repository syncing failures. Dashboards must allow commenting, redlining requests, and appeal initiation.

3.10.18 Governance bodies (NSF, GRF, GRA) may run periodic audits of the Ledger, cross-referencing simulation DAG performance, clause activation status, and SDG-linked outcomes.

3.10.19 The Ledger must be accessible through open APIs to permit integration with national observatories, partner institutions, multilateral dashboards, and Nexus-based insurance or funding mechanisms.

3.10.20 Clause-based publication memory ensures that every Fellow’s output is not only preserved and cited but also accountable, reproducible, and transparently governed across all Fellowship tracks and partner jurisdictions.