Home

II. Lifecycle

2.1 Role Types and Expertise

2.1.1 Role Taxonomy and Clause-Linked Structure The Nexus DevOps Track defines a comprehensive ecosystem of technical roles aligned with full-stack, sovereign-grade open infrastructure delivery. Each role is clause-governed, simulation-auditable, and corridor-deployable. Fellows are expected to contribute across interconnected layers of NE infrastructure with high reproducibility, security, and localization fidelity. (a) Role pathways are DAG-scored, module-impact weighted, and tracked in the DAO Contributor Identity Ledger. (b) Fellows may hold multiple active roles with clear separation of simulation contexts. (c) Role transitions are clause-triggered and peer-reviewed through reproducibility checkpoints.

2.1.2 Protocol and Compiler Systems Engineers Focus: base layer design, compiler toolchains, and simulation-integrated protocol governance. (a) Responsible for clause compiler stacks, simulation interpreters, DAG engines, and contract-bound logic execution. (b) Must demonstrate mastery in systems programming (Rust, C++), verifiable compute (ZK/TEE), and RDF-based contract mapping. (c) Outputs include fallback-compliant clause engines, testnet pipelines, and reproducible protocol simulations. Expected deliverables include .dag and .rdf simulation graphs, .wasm and LLVM-IR binaries for portable clause execution, and clause-compatible VM runtimes. Compiler targets must support Nexus Clause VM specs, LLVM-based optimization pipelines, and zero-trust enclaving interfaces for TEE/ZK auditability. Focus: base layer design, compiler toolchains, and simulation-integrated protocol governance. (a) Responsible for clause compiler stacks, simulation interpreters, DAG engines, and contract-bound logic execution. (b) Must demonstrate mastery in systems programming (Rust, C++), verifiable compute (ZK/TEE), and RDF-based contract mapping. (c) Outputs include fallback-compliant clause engines, testnet pipelines, and reproducible protocol simulations.

2.1.3 Infrastructure Automation and Observability Engineers Focus: secure deployment orchestration, observability stack integration, and enclave compliance. (a) Build and maintain GitOps, IaC, OpenTelemetry pipelines, sovereign enclave clusters, and NSFSigned rollouts. (b) Outputs must meet corridor deployment requirements, redline observability, and reproducibility automation metrics. Key deliverables include reproducibility dashboards, failover playbooks, and simulation-anchored deployment manifests. Baseline observability KPIs include p95 latency below 200ms for pipeline alerts, sub-5 minute time-to-detection on DAG failures, and 99.99% SLA uptime for sovereign node observability endpoints. (c) Tooling stack includes Terraform, ArgoCD, Prometheus, Loki, Vault, Enarx, and corridor-specific DAG runners. Deployment targets must support corridor-compliant Kubernetes clusters, secure enclave runtimes (Enarx/Nitro/SGX), and NSF-signed runtime configurations integrated with clause-verifiable logging. Focus: secure deployment orchestration, observability stack integration, and enclave compliance. (a) Build and maintain GitOps, IaC, OpenTelemetry pipelines, sovereign enclave clusters, and NSFSigned rollouts. (b) Outputs must meet corridor deployment requirements, redline observability, and reproducibility automation metrics. (c) Tooling stack includes Terraform, ArgoCD, Prometheus, Loki, Vault, Enarx, and corridor-specific DAG runners.

2.1.4 API Architects and Application Logic Fellows Focus: gateway APIs, DAG-fed applications, and corridor-localized UX/UX interfaces. (a) Design simulation-fronted UIs, multilingual dashboards, treaty-aligned API schemas, and zero-trust frontend workflows. (b) Contributions must support simulation anchors, DAG rollback hooks, and sovereign deployment modes. Simulation interfaces must include OpenAPI+RDF bindings, GraphQL schemas annotated with clause metadata, and corridor-aware versioning controls. (c) Preferred expertise includes TypeScript, GraphQL, OpenAPI, Next.js/Svelte, with RDF+SPDX clause bindings. Dashboard tooling should align with Grafana, D3.js, and corridor-localized data visual layers that can display clause observability logs, DAG simulation flows, and contributor impact traces. Focus: gateway APIs, DAG-fed applications, and corridor-localized UX/UX interfaces. (a) Design simulation-fronted UIs, multilingual dashboards, treaty-aligned API schemas, and zero-trust frontend workflows. (b) Contributions must support simulation anchors, DAG rollback hooks, and sovereign deployment modes. (c) Preferred expertise includes TypeScript, GraphQL, OpenAPI, Next.js/Svelte, with RDF+SPDX clause bindings.

2.1.5 Interoperability and Standards Fellows Focus: cross-corridor compatibility, clause schema adaptation, and treaty-aware digital diplomacy. (a) Lead integration of NE modules with W3C, OSPO Alliance, IEEE P2874, and OECD/G20 trust infrastructure. (b) Must deliver RDF/JSON-LD validators, SPDX+Zenodo syncing tools, and corridor policy forks. (c) Simulation outputs must verify inter-corridor clause forks and treaty harmonization.

2.1.6 Simulation DAG Engineers and Scenario Modelers Focus: modeling, forecasting, reproducibility validation, and fallback systems. (a) Architect DAG simulators, corridor-level fallback graphs, redline impact templates, and clause failure trees. (b) Must be proficient in scenario-driven design, cross-chain DAG topologies, and corridor resilience modeling. (c) Contributions feed into funding logic, corridor alerting, and DAO arbitration forecasting. Technical specifications include use of standardized JSON/YAML schemas for DAG submission, minimum simulation test coverage of 85%, and clause annotation for every failure path node. Toolchains must include the Nexus DAG Auditor, clause replay engine, fork validator, corridor stress-test runner, and RDF linkage validator for simulation traceability. Focus: modeling, forecasting, reproducibility validation, and fallback systems. (a) Architect DAG simulators, corridor-level fallback graphs, redline impact templates, and clause failure trees. (b) Must be proficient in scenario-driven design, cross-chain DAG topologies, and corridor resilience modeling. (c) Contributions feed into funding logic, corridor alerting, and DAO arbitration forecasting.

2.1.7 Security Engineers and Zero Trust Architects Focus: sovereign security, clause-forced runtime trust, and verifiable identity management. (a) Develop ZK-ID systems, runtime enclave hardening, clause-bound token auth, and DAG anomaly detection. (b) Outputs must pass NSF Zero Trust Readiness Certification (ZTRC) with full audit trail. (c) Required skills include zk-SNARKs, SGX/SEV, TPM/TEE orchestration, and DAG threat modeling.

2.1.8 Clause Governance and DAO Systems Fellows Focus: DAO module integration, clause vote design, and contributor governance tooling. (a) Implement DAO simulators, quorum logic validators, treasury interaction scripts, and contributor metrics engines. (b) Tools include Snapshot, Gnosis Safe, IPFS DAG replication, and clause-weighted voting algorithms. (c) Contributions inform governance dashboards, audit trails, and grant triggers.

2.1.9 Multimodal Interaction and Embedded Systems Fellows Focus: extended UI/UX for VR/AR/MR corridors, embedded observability, and sensor-DAG links. (a) Build UI simulators for immersive simulation walkthroughs, sensor protocol bridges, and AR-anchored clause visualization. (b) Stack includes WebXR, Unity, ROS, corridor-bound IoT runners, and Git-based enclave firmware.

2.1.10 Strategic Integrators and Corridor Coordinators Focus: interface with RSB/NWG partners, institutional deployments, and corridor certification. (a) Serve as corridor liaisons coordinating simulation validations, legal clause forks, and cross-regional deployments. (b) Deliver corridor observability reports, ethics compliance simulations, and deployment readiness reviews. (c) Outputs feed into DAO export readiness scoring, GRF observability, and NSF corridor grants. Minimum corridor integration requirements include: (i) treaty index mappings based on OECD/UN classifications, (ii) jurisdiction-specific legal clause fork validations reviewed through regional legal observatories, and (iii) ethics simulation thresholds validated via reproducibility metrics and dual-use DAG stress tests. Fellows must maintain corridor handbooks, peer-review schedules, and deliver clause-backed readiness memos for all sovereign deployment clearances. Focus: interface with RSB/NWG partners, institutional deployments, and corridor certification. (a) Serve as corridor liaisons coordinating simulation validations, legal clause forks, and cross-regional deployments. (b) Deliver corridor observability reports, ethics compliance simulations, and deployment readiness reviews. (c) Outputs feed into DAO export readiness scoring, GRF observability, and NSF corridor grants.

2.1.11 Data Provenance and Lineage Engineers Focus: end-to-end clause-anchored data lineage, RDF/SPDX integration, and reproducibility metadata. (a) Manage semantic traceability across GitHub, Zenodo, DAG commits, and SPDX-annotated contributions. (b) Deliver SPDX 3.0 manifests, RDF provenance maps, and clause-hashed digital fingerprints. (c) Tooling includes git-crypt, rdflib, ReproZip, and RDFa-based signature pipelines. Outputs are simulation-verifiable and DAO-indexed for funding eligibility.

2.1.12 AI/ML Infrastructure and Model Governance Engineers Focus: sovereign-aligned machine learning infrastructure with clause-verified model behavior. (a) Maintain clause-bound model pipelines with ZKML verification, bias testing, and reproducibility tagging. (b) Contributions must include model cards, training logs, simulation rollback tests, and audit-ready lineage. (c) Stack includes PyTorch, ONNX, JAX, MLflow, and ZKML libraries, deployed in corridor-certified enclaves.

2.1.13 Clause Observability and Telemetry Analysts Focus: real-time monitoring of clause execution, fallback simulation alerts, and sovereign observability maps. (a) Develop dashboards for clause coverage, DAG health, rollback events, and redline triggers. (b) Tooling includes Grafana, Loki, Prometheus, Fluentbit, and clause-event log processors. (c) Outputs must feed DAO alert systems and corridor ethics review boards.

2.1.14 Testing, Reproducibility, and Fuzzing Engineers Focus: clause integrity testing, simulation replay fidelity, and sovereign-grade fuzzing protocols. (a) Design unit, integration, and clause-level fuzz tests with fallback verification logic. (b) Required to maintain ≥90% test coverage, ≥85% reproducibility match, and scenario fallback integrity. (c) Tools include Hypothesis, AFL++, dag-replay, clause-diff, and GitHub Actions simulation runners.

2.1.15 Clause DevRel, Documentation, and Onboarding Architects Focus: contributor enablement, DAO communications, and open documentation infrastructure. (a) Maintain developer portals, reproducibility checklists, simulation API walkthroughs, and DAO onboarding flows. (b) Deliver SDK docs, clause examples, corridor tutorials, and proposal kits in RDF + Markdown. (c) Tools: Docusaurus, MkDocs, GitBook, ChatOps integrations, and GitHub onboarding workflows linked to Nexus Passport roles.

2.1A DevOps Role Index

This charter-defined role index establishes the technical and legal foundation for all DevOps operations under the authority of the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI). All roles are enforceable under clause-governed contracts, simulation-verifiable DAGs, sovereign reproducibility logs, and open-source compliance mandates. These roles are designed to operationalize Nexus Ecosystem (NE) infrastructure across the Global Risks Alliance (GRA), Regional Stewardship Boards (RSBs), and National Working Groups (NWGs), and are subject to NSF clause registry validation.

Each role includes defined input/output specifications, simulation tooling mandates, corridor deployment triggers, and legal audit responsibilities. Role progression is measured through reproducibility scores, DAO reputation indexes, clause submission histories, and corridor validation ledgers.

I. Core Infrastructure and Systems Roles

2.1.1 Protocol Systems Engineers Develop treaty-compliant sovereign consensus layers, corridor-localized DAG execution graphs, and high-availability fallback chains. Enforce modular failover policies and simulate zero-knowledge traceability.

  • Legal Scope: Clause-linked consensus forks, DAO-quorum thresholds

  • Technical Tools: Rust, C++, Solidity, Cairo, Move, Circom

  • Outputs: .dag, .rdf, .wasm, protocol replay graphs, sovereign execution logs

  • Deployment Targets: Bare metal, sovereign cloud, TEEs

2.1.2 Compiler and Clause VM Engineers Draft and maintain clause-aware compilers, sovereign bytecode runtimes, and reproducibility-valid VMs. Clause execution environments must be sandboxed and traceable.

  • Legal Mandate: Clause verifiability enforcement, SPDX-RDF linkage

  • Tooling: LLVM IR, ClauseVM, WebAssembly, Enarx ABI, SGX sealers

  • Outputs: .clvm, DAG opcode maps, ZK-proof runtime graphs, rollback simulation traces

  • Compliance: Reproducibility index > 85%, TEE-execution attestations

2.1.3 Infrastructure Automation (SRE/IaC) Automate enclave deployments using GitOps with rollback DAGs and corridor-residency enforcement. Uphold reproducibility SLAs.

  • Legal Mandate: Clause-tagged IaC states, rollback simulation scorecards

  • Tools: Terraform, ArgoCD, Vault, Consul, sovereign DAG runners

  • Outputs: DAG rollout manifests, rollback DAGs, sovereign audit proofs

  • Corridor KPIs: Uptime > 99.95%, rollback observability within 60s window

2.1.4 Cloud/Enclave Integration Engineers Integrate corridor deployments into trusted execution zones using verifiable attestation logic. Must maintain multilateral corridor compliance charts.

  • Tooling: Nitro, Enarx, SGX, SEV-SNP, sovereign Kubernetes modules

  • Outputs: Enclave binding proofs, corridor boundary attestations, ethics overlay triggers

  • Legal Scope: Dual-use clause filters, treaty-compliant region lists

2.1.5 Security and Zero Trust Architects Design zero-trust enforcement layers, DAG-level breach detection graphs, and sovereign authentication DAG trees with ZK validation.

  • Tools: TPM 2.0, zk-SNARKs, remote attestation, DAG-triggered ACLs

  • Outputs: Redline enforcement DAGs, breach rollback templates, clause freeze triggers

  • Legal Enforceability: DAO redline approval hooks, ethics escalation charts

II. Observability, Telemetry, and Simulation Engineering

2.1.6 Observability Stack Engineers Provision clause-centric observability pipelines across corridor deployments, including alert DAGs, simulation KPI dashboards, and ethics observability zones.

  • Tooling: Prometheus, Grafana, Loki, OpenTelemetry, sovereign DAG monitors

  • Outputs: .rdf observability indexes, clause-linked alert scorecards

  • Legal Hooks: GRF observability tribunal hooks, ethics DAG validation

2.1.7 Simulation DAG Engineers Engineer corridor DAGs with clause annotations, risk triggers, and reproducibility benchmarks. Interface directly with NSF clause registry and regional review boards.

  • Tools: NetworkX, DAGitty, clause-annotated GraphML, OpenAPI+RDF schemas

  • Outputs: simulation DAGs, ethics threshold validators, corridor deployment scorecards

  • Technical Mandates: Minimum 90% node coverage, rollback coverage > 3 tiers

2.1.8 Replay, Fuzzing, and Reproducibility Engineers Design reproducibility pipelines, clause-diff validators, and corridor-specific replay DAGs. Required for clause dispute resolution and treaty dispute fallback testing.

  • Tooling: Hypothesis, AFL++, ReproZip, dag-diff, RDFa anchors

  • Outputs: reproducibility diff logs, DAG replay traces, Zenodo/GitHub trace chains

  • Legal Standards: Reproducibility index > 90%, tribunal admissible trace logs

2.1.9 Scenario Simulation Modelers Model corridor-wide climate, economic, or geopolitical scenarios. Link models to DAG fallback trees and dual-use simulation alerts.

  • Data Sources: GEO, OpenEO, Copernicus, IRI Climate, World Bank APIs

  • Outputs: RDF-encoded simulations, corridor fallback DAGs, risk overlays

  • Charter Mandate: DAO grant triggers must cite ≥1 scenario DAG validated zone

2.1.10 API Architects Design clause-compliant APIs for corridor communication, clause orchestration, and simulation submission. Ensure compatibility with DAG ingestion formats and legal indexing metadata.

  • Legal Mandate: Clause-to-API signature traceability, corridor invocation recordkeeping

  • Tools: OpenAPI, GraphQL + RDF, REST+SPDX, AsyncAPI, ClauseRPC

  • Outputs: API schema specs, corridor simulation interface validators, OpenAPI+RDF bundles

  • Compliance Triggers: DAG ingestion test coverage ≥ 95%, API observability hooks active

2.1.11 UX/UI Frontend Engineers Construct reproducibility-focused visual interfaces for clause observability, ethics overlays, simulation replay, and DAO governance.

  • Tooling: SvelteKit, D3.js, React + Next.js, TailwindCSS, Cesium, MapLibre

  • Outputs: DAG walk-throughs, clause submission GUIs, ethics visualization dashboards

  • Deployment Context: Corridor-facing UX for NE portals and GRA public infrastructure

2.1.12 Embedded + IoT Systems Engineers Integrate sovereign corridor sensor data into clause-compatible ingestion workflows, including telemetry from water, food, energy, or early warning systems.

  • Tools: LoRaWAN, MQTT, ROS, sovereign firmware registry, RDF-device bridges

  • Outputs: corridor-device RDF feeds, telemetry clause bindings, DAG-enabled firmware logs

  • Compliance Targets: Hardware-clause handshake SLAs, failover boot triggers tested

2.1.13 AR/VR/Extended Interaction Engineers Render interactive DAG simulations and sovereign scenario walkthroughs for policy training, observability, and ethics certification.

  • Tools: WebXR, Unity, Unreal Engine, Babylon.js, SimulationWebGPU

  • Outputs: DAG walk-through demos, interactive treaty modules, clause-responsive overlays

  • Governance Hook: GRF-certified walk-throughs required for deployment in crisis corridors

III. Governance, Legal, and Compliance Stack DevOps

2.1.14 Clause SDK Developers Maintain developer toolkits for building, simulating, and validating clause-bound logic across modules, DAGs, and governance hooks.

  • Tools: SPDX Toolkit, RDFLib, DAG-spec DSLs, Typescript/Python SDKs

  • Outputs: clause compilers, RDF-annotated validators, simulation-compatible legal templates

  • Legal Requirement: Clause hashes signed to Zenodo+GitHub anchors, tribunal-verifiable logs

2.1.15 DAO Governance Engineers Implement DAO workflows, simulation-backed quorum logic, and clause-triggered governance hooks with corridor-residency scoring layers.

  • Tools: Snapshot, Gnosis Safe, DAOstack, OpenZeppelin Governor, quorum DAG engines

  • Outputs: DAO vote DAGs, governance clause workflows, region-weighted quorum proofs

  • Compliance Logic: DAO audit trail coverage ≥ 90% of submission history

2.1.16 Ethics and Redline Monitoring Engineers Map dual-use triggers, enforce redline clause overlays, and simulate corridor-specific fallout pathways based on ethical review DAGs.

  • Tools: RDFa + Ethics DAGs, Clause Redline Monitor, simulation alert circuits

  • Outputs: breach DAGs, redline filter clauses, ethics tribunal trigger graphs

  • Legal Compliance: Tribunal certified logic, NSF fallback DAGs enabled on breach

2.1.17 Credentialing and Identity Verification Engineers Implement sovereign identity credentialing pipelines via Nexus Passport infrastructure and enable corridor-linked verifiable claim audits.

  • Tools: Verifiable Credentials, ZK-ID, ENS, Passkit, Decentralized ID stack

  • Outputs: credential DAGs, contributor identity proofs, DAO claim issuances

  • Compliance Mandate: All simulation authors must have RDF-bound sovereign ID

2.1.18 Data Provenance & Lineage Engineers Design clause-bound data lineage frameworks that trace simulation inputs, code commits, and corridor deployments across Zenodo, GitHub, and RDF metadata ecosystems.

  • Tools: SPDX, RDFa, PROV-O, Dublin Core, Git-LFS tracking

  • Outputs: provenance DAGs, clause-signed RDF trails, reproducibility certificate bundles

  • Legal Enforcement: Required for all clause-published modules under NSF observability

2.1.19 AI/ML Governance Engineers Operationalize clause-regulated model lifecycle governance, enabling ZK-verified AI contributions, adversarial simulation testing, and reproducibility proof issuance.

  • Tools: PyTorch, TensorFlow, MLflow, ZKML frameworks, Model Card Toolkit, DagEval

  • Outputs: model audit DAGs, clause-scored training logs, fairness + safety simulators

  • Governance Trigger: GRF-certified ZKML clause required before corridor deployment

2.1.20 Search, Indexing, and Retrieval Engineers Deploy clause-traceable semantic indexing, corridor-tagged vector search, and structured retrieval pipelines for simulation, treaty, and DAO records.

  • Tools: Haystack, Weaviate, ElasticSearch + RDF plugins, vector embedding DAGs

  • Outputs: corridor semantic search APIs, clause trace routers, simulation recall dashboards

  • Legal Interface: Required for all GRA-DAO indexed records and reproducibility queries

V. Ecosystem Enablement, Support, and Documentation

2.1.21 DevRel and Documentation Engineers Produce onboarding kits, simulation walkthroughs, reproducibility guides, and clause audit explainers for contributors across all tracks.

  • Tools: Docusaurus, GitBook, MkDocs, RDF-enhanced Markdown

  • Outputs: clause SDK manuals, corridor-localized reproducibility docs, NSF-signed templates

  • Legal Specification: Each public module must include charter-compliant onboarding trail

2.1.22 Corridor/RSB/NWG Support Engineers Provide frontline DAG triage, localized clause fixes, sovereign ethics report intake, and corridor simulation escalation routing.

  • Tools: JIRA w/ clause hooks, DAG monitor dashboards, sovereign ethics reporting apps

  • Outputs: region-flagged rollback DAGs, corridor ethics overlays, audit resolution logs

  • Mandate: All critical incidents routed through DAO redline override corridor fallback

2.1.23 Platform Reliability and Compliance Engineers Audit corridor SLA compliance, test rollback traceability, enforce reproducibility guarantees, and publish resilience KPIs across the NE observability layer.

  • Tools: ReproZip, Grafana, Loki, DAG uptime validators, rollback DAG scorers

  • Outputs: corridor compliance attestations, reproducibility ledgers, audit DAG maps

  • Legal Hooks: Required for clause certification, treaty fallback readiness, and DAO voting audit trails

2.1.24 Vulnerability Disclosure and Security Coordination Maintain redline breach alerts, DAG-based fallback routes, DAO override enforcement codes, and treaty response readiness triggers.

  • Tools: SLSA, OpenSSF scorecards, breach DAG injectors, emergency clause routers

  • Outputs: ethics trigger DAGs, ZK-confirmed incident logs, DAO redline escalation flows

  • Legal Activation: GRF/NSF must receive breach DAG in reproducibility-verified format

2.2 Proposal System and Clause-Based Workflow

This section governs the formal system through which DevOps Fellows initiate, revise, submit, and ratify proposals under the Nexus Governance Protocols. Each submission must comply with clause-verifiable logic, RDF-indexed metadata, and simulation-based validation to qualify for NSF Clause Registry anchoring. The proposal system serves as a sovereign engineering gateway, enabling reproducibility, ethics enforcement, and public interest alignment at the infrastructure level.

2.2.1 Proposal Initiation Protocol Proposal initiation begins with a clause-defined declaration of intent, anchored in reproducibility metadata, sovereign jurisdiction alignment, and contributor accountability.

(a) Proposals must initiate with a clause-init block, including RDFa-structured metadata, SPDX-compliant licensing conditions, corridor mapping, and Nexus Passport ID signature. (b) Accepted formats for submission include .clause, .dag, .rdf, and .jsonld, transmitted via GitHub Pull Request or Nexus Interface with DAG validation pre-hooks. (c) Each contributor must have passed sovereign identity verification and corridor-specific contributor licensing issued via NSF and RSB quorum.

2.2.2 Review-to-Acceptance Workflow All proposals undergo multi-stage simulation and clause review for legal traceability, ethics scoring, and corridor readiness certification.

(a) Technical validation includes test coverage thresholds (≥85%) for DAG reproducibility and fallback chain simulation. (b) Ethics compliance must pass dual-use simulation thresholds, redline exposure DAGs, and corridor ethics overlays. (c) Legal review includes clause schema validation, treaty alignment scoring, and SPDX + RDF index enforcement. (d) CRB (Clause Review Board) verification ensures downstream interoperability and DAO fundability. (e) Simulations must prove bioregional applicability with at least one corridor fallback DAG attached.

2.2.3 Contributor Roles in Proposal Lifecycle Contributor participation is classified into enforceable roles with distinct simulation, reproducibility, and audit responsibilities.

(a) Maintainers: Enforce clause syntax integrity, validate reproducibility chain, and supervise DAG health. (b) Reviewers: Evaluate peer-submitted proposals for treaty relevance, ethics safety, and corridor constraints. (c) Architects: Define clause-ontology schemas, DAG node interconnects, and treaty-bound simulation DAGs. (d) Stewards: Conduct final pre-quorum approval, GRF public alignment validation, and register DAO ratification logs.

2.2.4 Proposal Output Formats All proposals must provide structured outputs for audit, DAG verification, and clause compliance.

(a) Code submissions must include .dag, .rdf, .sim, and SPDX-bound .json manifest files. (b) Governance proposals require DAG-based quorum maps, voting logs, and clause-linked rationale ledgers. (c) All formats must support pipeline reproducibility and TEE-executable audit replays.

2.2.5 Clause Integration and Registry Anchoring Each accepted proposal becomes part of the NSF Clause Registry with DAO-anchored reproducibility trails.

(a) All merged contributions are clause-hashed using RDF/SPDX anchor templates and published to Zenodo + GitHub. (b) Each clause must be reproducible using 3+ DAG replay validators across sovereign nodes. (c) Rejected proposals require a formal NSF rejection memo with reproducibility traces and governance commentary.

2.2.6 DAO Escalation for Disputed Proposals Disputed proposals may escalate to the GRA DAO through simulation-backed clause challenge paths.

(a) DAO escalation must present audit-ready simulation logs, ethics traces, and corridor fallback rationales. (b) All escalated proposals undergo sovereign zone replay validation before quorum admission. (c) DAO decisions are immutably anchored into the NSF Clause Registry and inform future fastlane path eligibility.

2.2.7 Corridor Simulation Requirement Corridor deployment requires sovereign-ready simulation packaging with redline observability protocols.

(a) All corridor-targeted modules must simulate in ≥1 bioregion with treaty-mapped fallback DAGs. (b) Deployment requires ethics DAG peer review, risk overlay matching, and ≥75 corridor compliance score. (c) RSBs may veto modules that fail local ethics compliance, simulation readiness, or treaty alignment thresholds.

2.2.8 Timeframes and Reproducibility Audits Proposals must complete validation, peer review, and reproducibility testing within time-bound quorum windows.

(a) Reproducibility testing must occur within 14 calendar days using sovereign audit replay chains. (b) Proposals failing reproducibility must undergo clause repair before reconsideration. (c) Minimum three independent corridor validators must confirm simulation results using DAG forensic tools.

2.2.9 Fastlane Protocol for Urgent Submissions Fastlane protocols enable emergency response, disaster-readiness modules, and sovereign override triggers.

(a) Proposals flagged for clause-fastlane are fast-tracked to GRF + NSF without standard quorum wait time. (b) Emergency simulation DAGs must be replayable within 48 hours with traceable redline injection logs. (c) NSF tribunal reserves full freeze rights pending post-fastlane reproducibility arbitration.

2.2.10 Annual Proposal Review Audit NSF and GRF jointly audit proposals each year for reproducibility strength, redline resolution speed, and clause maturity.

(a) All review results are published as RDF open-access ledgers across NE and Zenodo. (b) Audit outcomes determine clause stability ratings, DAO trust indexes, and contributor progression eligibility. (c) Fellows failing reproducibility targets may be assigned re-onboarding through ethics or clause-refactoring modules.

2.3 Open Source Contribution and Modular Onboarding

2.3.1 Modular Contributor Entry Points Modular entry to the Nexus Fellowship DevOps Track ensures scalable, clause-verifiable participation that is jurisdictionally traceable, legally sovereign, and technically aligned with reproducible infrastructure standards.

(a) Entry modules are divided into simulation nodes, observability agents, SDK scaffolders, compliance verifiers, and DAG orchestration kits with corridor-bound triggers. (b) Each contributor is routed through an identity-authenticated onboarding pipeline aligned to the specific NE module stack and their declared role archetype (e.g., Clause Integrator, DAG Strategist, AI Alignment Maintainer). (c) Licensing, identity verification, and simulation scaffolding are initiated via an SPDX + RDF-linked profile with NSF passport issuance and regional observability flagging.

2.3.2 Contribution Licensing and Legal Commitments All accepted contributions must conform to clause-enforceable licensing standards that codify public-good commitments, sovereign accountability, and simulation reproducibility.

(a) Each contributor must sign a dynamically versioned Contributor License Agreement (CLA), traceable via RDF identity anchors and published through NSF’s Clause Registry. (b) Contributions are published under dual licenses: a corridor-binding Public Infrastructure Commons license and a standard open-source license (Apache 2.0, MIT, or GPL). (c) Clause-bound manifest files (clause.toml, .nxsclause.json) declare module relevance, treaty compatibility, corridor location, and sovereign escalation logic.

2.3.3 DAG-Certified Commits and Pull Request Workflows DevOps commits are DAG-certified to enforce simulation trust, rollback lineage, corridor reproducibility, and sovereign validation.

(a) All commits must include SPDX headers, RDF contribution lineage, .dag references, and GitHub Actions that trigger sandbox DAG simulations. (b) Pull Requests are not accepted unless they pass ethics overlays (.ethdag), corridor simulations (.cdag), and redline compliance (.redline.json). (c) Upon merge, clause hashes and DAG nodes are automatically sent to Zenodo, NSF Clause Registry, and corridor observability logs.

2.3.4 Fellowship Readiness Pipelines Structured progression pipelines allow contributors to elevate their reputation graph while maintaining clause-verifiable reproducibility.

(a) Contributors unlock Maintainer-level access after 3 merged DAGs with RDF and ethics trace validation. (b) Advancement to Architect status requires corridor-ready simulations, DAG fallbacks, and treaty scoring overlays. (c) Stewards and regional founders must demonstrate clause score reproducibility ≥85% across sovereign enclaves.

2.3.5 Observability Integration and Trustless Logs All contributor actions are logged in sovereign, zero-trust observability streams with clause-indexed reproducibility trails.

(a) Grafana dashboards, Loki logs, and sovereign DAG replay nodes must be integrated into all NE module contributions. (b) Alert thresholds (e.g., latency, DAG divergence, ethics violations) must be linked to sovereign fallback simulators. (c) Any observability failure above defined SLAs triggers clause freeze review and reproducibility recall.

2.3.6 Mentorship and Peer Review Ecosystem The modular onboarding system embeds mandatory mentorship, sovereign peer validation, and GRF public interest evaluation.

(a) Each new contributor is paired with a Maintainer for reproducibility walkthroughs and DAG audit calibration. (b) Reviewers must provide clause-line DAG feedback, ethics impact scores, and sandbox test lineage. (c) Tribunal-triggered peer review is required in cases of reproducibility anomaly, ethics conflict, or clause simulation failure.

2.3.7 Clause-Indexed Documentation and Knowledge Kits Documentation is structured to serve both sovereign traceability and clause-anchored auditability across NE modules.

(a) Each contribution must include a simulation-replayable technical brief, encoded in RDF, SPDX, and .nxsdoc.json. (b) Knowledge kits must offer replay DAGs, ethics overlays, TEE compatibility notes, and jurisdiction trace maps. (c) All kits must link to corridor-specific observability docs, disaster deployment blueprints, and fallback test scenarios.

2.3.8 Corridor Deployment Preparation Tracks Contributors building toward corridor readiness must demonstrate legal-compliant, ethics-secure, and sovereign-stable deployments.

(a) Sovereign deployment checklists must be run and passed with reproducible DAGs, treaty index confirmation, and disaster readiness simulations. (b) Corridor-ready modules must prove ≥90% reproducibility score, DAG test coverage, and corridor ethics DAG pass. (c) NSF validators authorize corridor deployment only upon clause replays across 3 bioregional environments.

2.3.9 Security, Reproducibility, and Clause Freezes Clause compliance and reproducibility drive enforcement of security triggers, rollback conditions, and DAO emergency override.

(a) Clause simulation integrity must be validated via fallback DAG audits and TEE-signed replay chains. (b) Violations invoke clause-freeze states that suspend contributor permissions and trigger NSF Tribunal review. (c) Freeze events are logged immutably and broadcast to DAO oversight dashboards for sovereign incident review.

2.3.10 Recognition, Reputation, and Fellowship Progression Contributions increase a fellow’s legal weight, public trust, and corridor deployment eligibility across sovereign NE nodes.

(a) Each clause-verifiable action adds to a Contributor’s public reputation graph, available via the GRA Contributor Index. (b) Role progression (Contributor → Maintainer → Architect → Steward → Founder) is simulation-indexed and reproducibility-weighted. (c) DAO voting power and corridor access tiers are scored based on reproducibility proofs, ethics scorecards, and clause replay consistency.

2.4 Rotational Access to NE Module Sprints

2.4.1 Purpose and Scope of Rotational Sprints Rotational sprints are designed to equitably distribute DevOps Fellow access to all Nexus Ecosystem (NE) modules while preserving clause-governed fairness, legal traceability, and sovereign reproducibility. Each sprint operates as a legally defined and simulation-auditable timeframe wherein contributors engage with pre-designated NE modules, aligned to corridor-specific deployment readiness, ethics thresholds, and clause maturity cycles.

(a) Sprint access is administered through a federated slotting engine coordinated jointly by NE Labs, NSF simulation validators, corridor RSBs, and GRF technical secretariats. (b) Access is prioritized according to DAO vote-weighted impact zones, corridor disaster response priorities, simulation coverage debt, and clause publication backlogs. (c) All sprint participants are subject to sovereign observability mandates, corridor fallbacks, and clause reproducibility SLAs (minimum ≥ 85%) with RDF trace outputs and rollback verification DAGs.

2.4.2 Module Tracks and Participant Roles Modules are segmented into technical domains with sovereign clause enforcement zones. Participant roles are assigned in nested archetypes and duty-scoped by DAG lineage, observability requirement, simulation impact, and corridor feedback.

(a) Core module domains include:

  • NXSCore (simulation compute and sovereign runtime clusters),

  • NXSQue (event-driven orchestration and resource logic),

  • NXSGRIx (risk data pipelines and benchmarking),

  • NXS-EOP (AI/ML inference, simulation, and analytics),

  • NXS-EWS (early warning, anomaly detection, response protocols),

  • NXS-AAP (anticipatory planning, blockchain action automata),

  • NXS-DSS (decision intelligence dashboards),

  • NXS-NSF (financial mechanism enforcement, smart treasury interfaces). (b) Recognized roles include:

  • Core Engineers (clause SDK and VM logic),

  • DAG Authors (simulation graph modeling),

  • System Integrators (cross-module APIs and corridor compliance),

  • Ethics Validators (treaty binding and redline detection),

  • Observability Architects (sovereign enclave and fault injection design),

  • Clause Compilers (SPDX/RDF manifest logic),

  • Governance Facilitators (RSB reporting and DAO simulation auditing).

2.4.3 Sprint Scheduling and Corridor Governance Sprints are corridor-governed and anchored to treaty-verified simulation milestones. Each sprint integrates multilateral accountability, impact velocity scoring, and audit-readiness triggers.

(a) Sprint cadence is structured in rolling 4-week cycles including:

  • Week 1: Credentialing & onboarding,

  • Week 2: Simulation DAG building,

  • Week 3: Observability benchmarking and reproducibility scoring,

  • Week 4: Final DAG commits, rollback validation, and DAO-triggered treasury audits. (b) Sprint eligibility windows are published quarterly through DAO, NSF, and RSB observability dashboards. (c) Corridor simulation leads must maintain sovereign audit chains, backed by real-time logging to GRF observatories and NSF Clause Registry.

2.4.4 Reproducibility Enforcement and Freeze Thresholds Sprint reproducibility is enforced through sovereign DAG cross-validation, simulation replays, ethics DAG benchmarking, and corridor fallback observability.

(a) Each sprint module must pass DAG replays across at least 3 sovereign corridors with ≥ 85% reproducibility index and clause-lineage validation. (b) Clause freeze is invoked if: (i) Ethics score < 70 (based on corridor DAG overlay), (ii) Simulation coverage < 75% of declared corridor scenarios, (iii) Observability SLA violations exceed sovereign corridor latency, fault injection, or alert threshold ranges. (c) NSF auditors, corridor RSBs, and GRF public interest committees may initiate sprint resets or clause quarantine triggers with formal DAG rollback justifications.

2.4.5 Fellowship Credit, Advancement, and DAO Fundability Sprint participation is DAO-score linked, with direct correlation to contributor ranking, clause reputation, module stewardship candidacy, and corridor-specific grant eligibility.

(a) Fellows who complete ≥ 3 reproducibility-passed sprints become eligible for Maintainer promotion, DAO voting elevation, and clause anchoring privileges. (b) Simulation-backed DAG scorecards and ethics resolution trails are used by GRA treasury to calculate clause-weighted retroactive funding and regional grant matches. (c) All contributions are published with RDF metadata, SPDX clause wrappers, and Zenodo/NSF indexation for treaty-bound reproducibility scoring.

2.4.6 Sovereign Enclave Credentialing and Role Clearance Contributors must secure sovereign credentialing to engage with corridor deployment zones, which include legal, ethical, and observability verifications.

(a) All participants must pass clause-linked KYC/DAO identity proofing and corridor clearance tests. (b) Credentials include sovereign access tokens, observability clearance flags, and DAG-keyed simulation sandbox licenses. (c) Violations of credentialing obligations trigger clause revocation audits and DAG-access suspension by NSF.

2.4.7 Observability Dashboard Reporting and Sprint Replay Real-time dashboards are mandated for each sprint and include reproducibility metrics, DAG score trends, fault injection outcomes, and ethics flags.

(a) Dashboards must use Grafana/Prometheus/Zenodo interfaces with RDF export compatibility. (b) Each sprint must be reproducible via DAG playback within NSF’s simulation replay shell, available for DAO peer review and corridor arbitration. (c) Failure to publish observability dashboards triggers a clause freeze review and reproducibility downgrade.

2.4.8 Regional Escalation and Fallback Protocols Sprint governance includes region-specific fallback protocols and escalation ladders to ensure sovereign zone resilience.

(a) All corridor nodes must implement rollback DAGs, treaty response DAGs, and sovereign override triggers. (b) Escalation to GRF public interest tribunal is mandatory if ethics breach or redline clause is violated. (c) Fall-back DAGs must be NSF-auditable and corridor-certified for continuity and redundancy.

2.4.9 Sprint Archive and Treaty Indexing All completed sprints must be archived in clause-certified formats and indexed under Nexus Treaty Standards for sovereign access.

(a) Required formats: .rdf, .spdx, .dag, .nxsledger.json, and TEE-signed checksum logs. (b) Zenodo and NSF repositories must receive archival snapshots within 48 hours post-sprint. (c) Indexed sprints are made searchable by clause ID, corridor region, and treaty compliance tag.

2.4.10 Public Interest Certification and GRF Endorsement Sprint outputs are evaluated for public good alignment and formally certified by GRF under transparent, reproducible audit standards.

(a) GRF may assign corridor-specific observability reviewers to validate outputs. (b) Certification requires passing public ethics DAGs, sovereign simulation thresholds, and RDF-accessibility scores. (c) Certified sprints are tagged for promotion within GRF Fellowship Journals and DAO funding priorities.

2.5 Progression Scoring System

2.5.1 Purpose and Strategic Alignment The progression scoring system defines how DevOps Fellows advance through structured tiers based on reproducibility, clause-compliant contributions, sovereign simulation records, and DAO community validation. This system ensures that merit-based advancement is traceable, treaty-compliant, and funding-ready under Nexus governance.

(a) Progression is clause-anchored, encoded in DAG reproducibility logs, and validated through corridor-specific simulation DAGs. (b) Scores are weighted by impact across NE modules, governance adherence, ethics compliance, and reproducibility resilience. (c) All scores influence DAO voting weights, mentorship eligibility, and fellowship-to-founder transition options.

2.5.2 Contribution Scoring Tiers Contributors are recognized along a five-tier progression model, enforced via RDF metadata, SPDX clause audits, and corridor simulation feedback loops.

(i) Contributor – Completion of 1+ clause-verified commits with DAG trace and Zenodo-indexed reproducibility. (ii) Maintainer – Completion of ≥3 sprints with sovereign reproducibility ≥85% and ≥1 ethics validation. (iii) Architect – Design of ≥2 cross-module DAGs and stewardship of ≥1 corridor integration cycle. (iv) Steward – Participation in ethics escalations, corridor fallback protocols, and public clause reviews. (v) Founder – Delivery of 3+ MVPs with treaty-ready reproducibility DAGs and eligible for NE Labs spinout access.

2.5.3 Clause Anchoring and Simulation Replay Audits Advancement tiers require clause verification via simulation replay and reproducibility audits by NSF, GRF, and corridor RSB nodes.

(a) Clause anchors must include SPDX tags, RDF lineage references, reproducibility metadata, and Zenodo DOI. (b) DAGs must pass sovereign replay trials under diverse corridor fault scenarios. (c) Contributors must maintain ≥90% reproducibility score across simulations and peer-reviewed fallback coverage.

2.5.4 DAO Voting Rights and Grant Eligibility Progression scores are DAO-integrated, weighted by peer audit score, DAG impact rank, and ethics DAG participation.

(a) Maintainers gain voting rights in GRF proposal registries. (b) Architects receive grant co-sponsorship eligibility via corridor treasury pathways. (c) Stewards are eligible for clause arbitration participation and DAO quorum formation triggers.

2.5.5 Corridor Reputation Scores and Sovereign Indexes Each contributor receives a sovereign reputation profile derived from simulation observability, reproducibility resilience, and ethics responsiveness.

(a) Index includes corridor-specific scores (simulation throughput, ethics DAG score, rollback readiness). (b) Profiles are indexed via RDF clause registries, accessible via NSF and GRA dashboards. (c) DAO-anchored reputation boosts are tied to reproducibility stability across ≥3 corridor simulation cycles.

2.5.6 Promotion Review Mechanisms Tier promotions are reviewed quarterly by a cross-corridor Fellowship Tribunal composed of NSF validators, DAO members, and regional GRF reviewers.

(a) Tribunal requires DAG scorecards, clause trace logs, and ethics peer validation. (b) Appeals and rollbacks of tier promotions must pass simulation reproducibility replay and treaty compliance audit. (c) Final promotion resolutions are logged into the NSF Clause Ledger and GRF publication index.

2.5.7 Simulation-Indexed Impact Auditing Fellow impact is tracked by DAG-indexed simulation outcomes linked to public impact indicators, such as corridor crisis readiness or treaty clause influence.

(a) Metrics include: DAG velocity, ethics DAG uptime, fault injection resiliency, corridor load-balancing simulations. (b) Clause-linked outputs must be published to GitHub, Zenodo, and RDF-indexed audit chains. (c) Fellows must submit quarterly observability digests for peer scoring and GRF endorsement.

2.5.8 Fellowship-to-Founder Transition Requirements Advancement to Founder status within NE Labs requires fulfillment of reproducibility, simulation resilience, and corridor governance mandates.

(a) Required: 3 MVPs validated via NSF clause auditors with >85% reproducibility and corridor simulation acceptance. (b) DAG traceability of all MVPs must be confirmed by GRF observability nodes. (c) Candidates must pass DAO founder tribunal vote with ≥75% quorum on clause maturity, impact score, and reproducibility trace.

2.5.9 Public Recognition and Standards Elevation Tier progression data is transparently published for treaty bodies, partner institutions, and DAO observatories.

(a) GRF and GRA dashboards publish anonymized DAG scores, reproducibility indexes, and clause metrics. (b) Fellows achieving Architect or higher tiers are eligible for Nexus Standards contributions and public clause authorship credit. (c) Data is RDF-exportable and eligible for international credentialing via ORCID, Zenodo, and Nexus Passport loops.

2.5.10 Audit Trail and Legal Retention All progression scores, audit trails, and simulation records are retained under Nexus Treaty archival protocols.

(a) Clause-verifiable logs are retained for 10+ years in NSF, RSB, and Zenodo multi-region observability vaults. (b) Promotion and simulation replay audits must be checksum verified, enclave signed, and reproducibility certified. (c) Legal audit access is governed by DAO consent flags and GRF public interest clauses.

2.6 Tier-Based Recognition: Contributor → Maintainer → Architect → Steward → Founder

2.6.1 Purpose and Role Differentiation The tier-based recognition model establishes a clause-enforceable, simulation-reproducible framework that codifies the professional maturity of all DevOps Fellows operating within the Nexus Ecosystem (NE). Tier progression is grounded in reproducibility performance, sovereign observability compliance, ethics simulation scoring, and modular deliverables across the corridor infrastructure.

(a) This model ensures accountability across sovereign corridor zones and supports inter-jurisdictional clarity for both internal DAO tracking and treaty-facing public systems. (b) Each tier encapsulates simulation verification thresholds, Git-linked traceability, RDF/SPDX code licensing proofs, and Zenodo-indexed reproducibility metrics. (c) Role advancement is simulation-auditable and DAO-ratified, governed by the clause enforcement logic laid out under NSF compliance protocols and GRA observability mandates.

2.6.2 Tier I – Contributor The Contributor tier is the initial entry point to the NE DevOps track, intended for onboarding autonomous Fellows into module workstreams with traceable clause logic and minimum viable simulation requirements.

(i) Expected outputs: SPDX-wrapped commits on public repositories, simulation DAG proof-of-execution files, clause validation reports. (ii) Reproducibility thresholds: ≥75% successful DAG playback on corridor test environments with corridor-neutral observability signature. (iii) Technical stack: GitHub/GitLab, RDF clause markup, simulation shell (e.g., DAG-runner, Loki logs), SPDX license macros. (iv) Governance access: read-only access to corridor dashboards and ethics DAG trails; non-voting participant in DAO forums. (v) Limitations: no access to sovereign enclave testbeds, corridor fallback triggers, or DAO treasury interfaces.

2.6.3 Tier II – Maintainer Maintainers are mid-tier Fellows with operational oversight over DAG integration workflows, reproducibility audits, and cross-track module interface management.

(i) Responsibilities: Merging corridor-compliant DAGs, clause signature checks, reproducibility index enhancements, regression testing pipelines. (ii) Outputs: ≥3 sovereign reproducibility DAGs with NSF verification; simulation health index reports with corridor alert overlays. (iii) Simulation stack: Grafana dashboards, Prometheus metrics, corridor-signed RDF diff maps, ethics rulechain modules. (iv) Privileges: DAO voting rights on module acceptance, DAG rollout approvals, and proposal batching logic. (v) Treasury access: eligible for corridor-linked microgrants and clause-indexed payout matching.

2.6.4 Tier III – Architect Architects are sovereign-certified technical strategists responsible for designing reproducible simulation infrastructure, clause orchestration engines, and corridor observability overlays.

(i) Key outputs: clause-router DAG schemas, RDF-governed simulation templates, cross-module integration maps, fallback graph scripts. (ii) Corridor metrics: reproducibility across ≥3 corridor fault domains, sovereign audit resilience score ≥90%, DAG coverage of 4+ modules. (iii) Technical stack: GraphQL-RDF APIs, TEE simulation wrappers, SPDX bundlers, simulation lineage validators. (iv) DAO rights: corridor configuration voting rights, reviewer selection, and module ethics audits. (v) Standards roles: eligible to propose new clause schemas and participate in NSF clause evolution working groups.

2.6.5 Tier IV – Steward Stewards operate as corridor governors and ethics arbiters, managing sovereign simulation fallout zones, treaty DAG escalation, and public clause integrity assurance.

(i) Governance duties: validation of redline violations, treaty fallback resolution DAGs, observability regression audits. (ii) Corridor outputs: ethics DAG bundles, rollback DAG maps, sovereign observability topology overlays. (iii) Legal footprint: cross-treaty compliance management, DAO vote-binding quorum triggers, NSF arbitration invocation. (iv) Treasury role: clause freeze reviewers, fallback fund allocators, regional pilot fund deployers. (v) Mentorship: required to oversee 3+ Maintainer-level contributors across 2 corridors and validate clause reproducibility mentorship logs.

2.6.6 Tier V – Founder Founders are the highest governance and deployment tier in the DevOps track, eligible for sovereign clause authorship, DAO-backed MVP launches, and NE Labs spinout roles.

(i) Foundational requirements: ≥3 MVPs accepted by corridor simulation committees with clause-verifiable reproducibility >85%; GRF validation of treaty index integration. (ii) Technical deliverables: clause inference engines, sovereign DAG compilers, reproducibility bootstrappers. (iii) Execution privileges: Founder Zone residency, DAO-funded MVP trials, SAFE/SAFT-eligible clause treasuries. (iv) Legal capacity: corridor clause authorship rights, treaty clause drafting seats, DAO budget quorum initiators. (v) Long-term responsibility: spinout custody logic, founder-linked corridor grants, sovereign reproducibility inheritance protocols.

2.6.7 Clause and Metadata Encoding for Tier Recognition Tier milestones are formally encoded through RDF clause graphs, SPDX trace logs, Zenodo-linked reproducibility metadata, and DAO signature chains.

(a) All outputs must carry clause anchor tags, DAG node IDs, simulation coverage index, and governance pathway logs. (b) GitHub/GitLab commits must include SPDX license hash, RDF contribution manifest, and reproducibility diff report. (c) Every promotion event is logged in the NSF Clause Registry with DAG verification and corridor observability snapshots.

2.6.8 Tier Suspension, Demotion, and Dispute Process Sovereign reproducibility failures, ethics DAG infractions, and corridor performance collapses may lead to tier demotion, suspension, or DAO-triggered sanctions.

(a) Conditions: DAG failure rate >30%, clause falsification, or GRF redline escalation. (b) NSF arbitration must include reproducibility replay DAG, corridor simulation overlays, ethics audit DAG trail. (c) DAO re-validation vote requires ≥2 corridor consensus signatures and tribunal RDF registry unlocks.

2.6.9 Inter-Tier Mentorship and Fellowship Loopbacks Mentorship duties across tiers are DAO-enforceable and clause-traceable. Loopbacks may occur during treaty cool-offs or observability failures.

(a) Mentors must generate Zenodo-published reports and reproducibility debug DAGs for all mentees. (b) NSF audit modules tag mentorship DAGs with lineage score, fallback injection training, and clause integration reports. (c) DAO-recognized mentors may recover corridor reputation loss through DAG-backed remediation tracks.

2.6.10 Global Recognition and Standards Integration Each tier is interoperable with ISO, IEEE, ORCID, and Nexus Treaty metadata systems for public accreditation and clause governance.

(a) RDF-tier metadata must map to ORCID profiles, Nexus Passports, and Zenodo contributor graphs. (b) Tier V profiles are pre-qualified for Nexus Clause Standards authorship and UN treaty simulation panels. (c) Tier certificates include TEE-signed DAG ID, checksumed clause lineage, and corridor-recognized simulation rank.

2.7 Clause-Defined Thresholds to Enter Founder Track

2.7.1 Foundational Purpose and Legal Standing This section defines the legally enforceable thresholds and technical preconditions for DevOps Fellows to enter the Founder Track, as governed by the GRA under NSF clause-enforcement, with execution authority via NE Labs. Thresholds are codified using reproducible simulation data, DAG verifiability, and cross-corridor observability performance.

(a) Entry into the Founder Track grants access to Founder Zone privileges, spinout pipeline eligibility, DAO treasury disbursement rights, and regional clause authorship. (b) Thresholds are clause-verifiable, traceable through SPDX-RDF lineage chains, and simulation replay logs validated by corridor auditors. (c) All conditions must pass NSF arbitration review and be publicly auditable through the GRF DAG index.

2.7.2 Clause-Verified Output Requirements A Fellow may be elevated to Founder status upon delivery and successful clause-validation of:

(i) Three (3) MVPs accepted by simulation validators across a minimum of two (2) corridor clusters. (ii) No fewer than 500 lines of clause-verified code tagged with SPDX and RDF metadata, committed through reproducibility-backed DAGs. (iii) A complete clause bundle for each MVP mapped to treaty index categories and corridor observability thresholds.

2.7.3 Simulation Reproducibility Criteria\

(i) Each MVP must sustain a minimum reproducibility threshold of 85% across corridor-specific stress test DAGs and fault zones. (ii) A minimum of three sovereign fallback DAGs must be implemented with corridor traceable metadata and NSF clause anchors. (iii) MVPs must demonstrate fault-tolerant resilience and clause rollback capability in GRF-monitored environments.

2.7.4 DAO Governance and Approval Conditions\

(i) All Founder Track nominations must pass a GRA quorum vote (≥67%) and receive independent verification by NSF reviewers. (ii) Nominations require support documentation including: clause commit logs, DAG scorecard summaries, reproducibility index digest, and ethics compliance reports. (iii) DAO members must certify corridor simulation acceptance, ethics DAG stability, and reproducibility lineage.

2.7.5 Corridor Observability and Clause Impact\

(i) Candidates must demonstrate high observability ratings (≥90%) in at least two corridor zones, validated by RSB dashboards and NSF log audits. (ii) Founder-ready modules must be clause-indexed into Zenodo and Nexus Standards with corresponding ORCID linkage. (iii) Clause outputs must exhibit cross-jurisdictional reproducibility and modular dependency DAG stability.

2.7.6 Technical and Legal Stack Integration\

(i) Technical stack must include DAG schema authoring, SPDX license integration, RDF clause mapping, TEE simulation support, and corridor metadata encapsulation. (ii) Legal and compliance stack must pass treaty simulation scoring thresholds and ethics DAG validation with rollback trace paths. (iii) Candidate contributions must conform to NSF clause format requirements and pass reproducibility trace audits with full Zenodo DOI indexing.

2.7.7 Founder Onboarding and Transition Logic\

(i) Upon approval, candidates are granted Founder Zone residency, clause-authority privileges, and may begin the SAFE/SAFT issuance process for MVP commercialization. (ii) New Founders are required to submit spinout logic memos, MVP-to-standards mapping documents, and corridor reproducibility onboarding reports. (iii) Founder onboarding is overseen by NE Labs, NSF Tribunal, and the GRA budget subcommittee for treasury integration.

2.7.8 Failures, Rejection Appeals, and Dispute Resolution\

(i) Failed attempts to meet thresholds are logged with reason codes in the NSF Clause Ledger and reproducibility fault index. (ii) Fellows may appeal within 30 days via clause replay, fallback DAG resubmission, or ethics DAG revision. (iii) All appeals are resolved through DAO sub-quorum and NSF observability arbitration.

2.7.9 Public Disclosure and Passport Update\

(i) Upon successful admission, the Fellow's Nexus Passport is updated with Founder status metadata, simulation proof links, and RDF clause index. (ii) Founder elevation is recorded in the GRF DAG viewer, NSF public clause register, and Zenodo portfolio index. (iii) Data is exportable in OpenAPI + RDF schema for recognition by ISO, WIPO, OECD, and treaty governance bodies.

2.7.10 Long-Term Obligations and Founder Clause Governance\

(i) Founders must maintain sovereign reproducibility metrics ≥85% and ethics DAG responsiveness ≥90% on a rolling quarterly basis. (ii) Clause regression or failure to maintain corridor observability may trigger DAO vote for demotion or remediation. (iii) Long-term Founder status is conditional on treaty clause authorship contributions and corridor reproducibility governance cycles.

2.8 Residency Linked to Corridor Zones with Sovereign Enclave Access and Peer Review Rights

2.8.1 Corridor Residency Protocols and Jurisdictional Mapping Residency within a Nexus Corridor confers sovereign privileges, simulation deployment authority, and localized clause authorship eligibility. It binds each Fellow to a specific bioregion and geopolitical regulatory simulation domain recognized by GRF and NSF.

(a) Residency is granted upon verified clause contributions to corridor-specific modules and passage of simulation audits on corridor observability maps. (b) Jurisdictional mapping is anchored to RDF identities, Nexus Passports, and simulation DAG trails validated by RSBs and NACs. (c) Each residency status shall be reviewable via corridor dashboards, simulation logs, and DAO-linked reproducibility metadata.

2.8.2 Sovereign Enclave Access Rights Fellows with corridor residency may access sovereign enclave environments, including edge testbeds, corridor-node APIs, and treaty deployment pipelines.

(i) Enclave access is clause-controlled, governed by corridor-level DAG authorizations and reproducibility thresholds ≥80%. (ii) API and data gateway permissions are gated via ZK-proof-based residency badges and GRF observability credentials. (iii) Enclaves include corridor-specific compute clusters, simulation orchestration systems, and treaty fallback DAG vaults.

2.8.3 Peer Review and Ethics Evaluation Participation Resident Fellows are obligated to contribute to the corridor peer review loop, including clause audits, fallback simulations, and reproducibility scoring panels.

(i) Peer reviewers must have ≥2 corridor deployments and no active clause disputes in the previous 6 months. (ii) Reviews are traceable via clause DAG signatures, reproducibility indexes, and Zenodo audit trails. (iii) Ethics review mandates at least one simulation DAG re-run, sovereign observability score above corridor median, and ethics DAG certification.

2.8.4 Residency Escalation, Portability, and Dispute Logic Residency may be escalated to Multi-Corridor Resident (MCR) status or reassigned via peer vote in response to performance, simulation faults, or treaty conflicts.

(i) Escalation criteria include clause authorship across ≥3 corridors and reproducibility >90% sustained across 2 or more zones. (ii) Residency disputes are escalated to NSF arbitration and GRF tribunal panels, supported by RDF DAG signatures and fallback DAG performance logs. (iii) Portability is permitted via corridor-to-corridor clause replay and DAG integrity audits passed in both source and destination zones.

2.8.5 Sovereign Clause Protection and Regional Immunity Corridor residency embeds sovereign immunity clauses for Fellows acting in good faith within emergency simulation deployments and clause-governed response DAGs.

(i) Fellows executing fallback DAGs during corridor crisis events are granted provisional immunity from DAO demotion or rollback. (ii) NSF must verify simulation trace integrity and ethics DAG compliance before immunity is granted. (iii) GRF may override immunity in cases of clause corruption, reproducibility sabotage, or treaty fraud.

2.9 DAO Co-Governance Activated by Simulation-Proven, Clause-Passed Infrastructure Improvements

2.9.1 Legal Foundation and DAO Trigger Protocols Co-governance between Fellows and the Global Risks Alliance (GRA) DAO shall be activated through simulation-backed infrastructure improvements that satisfy clause-based execution thresholds. All improvements must be digitally signed, reproducibly simulated, and corridor-certified to unlock participatory governance rights.

(a) DAO activation is conditional upon submission of verifiable clause sets, backed by simulation DAGs, and authenticated through the NSF Clause Registry. (b) Clause-passed proposals must include RDF-indexed authorship, reproducibility metrics, simulation coverage maps, and sovereign observability dashboards. (c) Activation requires corridor peer validation and approval from two independent simulation reviewers assigned by the GRA Technical Committee.

2.9.2 Simulation-Proven Infrastructure Gateways Fellows shall unlock DAO voting privileges and budget allocation participation by demonstrating:

(i) ≥2 infrastructure contributions that pass sovereign reproducibility simulation thresholds across at least one corridor. (ii) Inclusion of fallback DAGs for fault domains with ≥90% success in rollback or alternative pathway resolution. (iii) Observability scores ≥85% for each submission, including automated alerts, sovereign enclave testing, and peer-reviewed reproducibility. (iv) Proven traceability of clause-to-impact through Git commits, SPDX hashes, RDF-authored DAG logic, and Zenodo-linked validation packages.

2.9.3 Clause-Passed Contributions and DAO Budget Voting All clause-passed improvements are automatically submitted to the DAO for inclusion into bioregional budget cycles.

(i) Budget eligibility is tied to GRF-reviewed simulation impact reports and corridor governance feedback loops. (ii) Clause-passed improvements are staged on a Git-based proposal ledger with OpenAPI+RDF definitions and DAG anchors. (iii) DAO votes are quorum-governed (≥67% corridor approval required), and all approved improvements are entered into the corridor treasury roadmap.

2.9.4 Technical Specifications for DAO Proposal Submission Each co-governance proposal must include:

(i) A clause file (.clause) with RDF metadata and SPDX license reference. (ii) A reproducibility test suite (.dag or .yaml format) covering all primary failure domains. (iii) Observability logs from Grafana, Prometheus, or corridor-native dashboards. (iv) Ethics DAG outputs validated by the GRF Ethics Committee, including simulation trace snapshots and rollback replay results. (v) Enclave-tested deployment manifest for sovereign zones (e.g., Kubernetes + Enarx bundle).

2.9.5 DAO Quorum Activation and Governance Integration Simulation-proven infrastructure shall trigger corridor quorum activation:

(i) Each improvement must pass two cycles of simulation replay under NSF auditors. (ii) Corridor quorum is defined by ≥5 active corridor residents participating in peer review and governance scoring. (iii) DAO quorum activates the proposal into the GRA constitutional ledger and corridor deployment schedule. (iv) All governance logs are published to the GRF DAG viewer and NSF Clause Registry.

2.9.6 Contributor Tier Elevation via DAO Participation Contributors earning three clause-passed DAO improvements with treasury integration may qualify for:

(i) Tier elevation to Steward or Founder roles under 2.6 guidelines. (ii) Participation in regional clause authorship panels. (iii) Membership in corridor funding committees and DAO budget governance boards. (iv) Sponsored observability instrumentation deployments and corridor pilot integration mandates.

2.9.7 Ethics and Observability Constraints DAO co-governance is bound by reproducibility ethics and fault-resilience guarantees:

(i) Observability thresholds for eligibility: ≥85% monitoring completeness, zero data obfuscation, sovereign fault recovery logs. (ii) DAO voting may be frozen if simulation audit trails are incomplete or clause traceability is invalid. (iii) DAO members must pass ethics DAG scorecards and observability certifications.

2.9.8 Revocation and Clause Failure Protocols DAO rights may be revoked in cases of clause rollback failure, reproducibility regression, or governance breaches:

(i) Revocation triggers include: reproducibility index drop >15%, falsified DAG lineage, or corridor enclave violation. (ii) NSF triggers clause freeze and initiates arbitration under GRF oversight. (iii) DAO members may propose countermeasures or remediation DAGs to requalify for governance reinstatement.

2.9.9 Transparency and Public Governance Interface DAO proposals and simulation-backed infrastructure improvements shall be visible on public dashboards:

(i) GRF DAG viewer publishes proposal metadata, simulation scores, clause links, and RDF graphs. (ii) All DAO decisions include timestamped logs, Git commit hashes, and corridor observability status. (iii) Nexus Passports of DAO participants are updated with co-governance credentials and public voting records.

2.9.10 Long-Term Governance Impacts and Clause Mutation Pathways DAO co-governance contributions may mutate the clause infrastructure itself:

(i) Clause mutations must follow DAO amendment workflows, including simulation regression testing and treaty clause impact analysis. (ii) Clause evolution requires joint NSF + GRA vote and corridor reproducibility benchmarking. (iii) Foundational clauses shall be archived with lineage metadata, rollback fallback DAGs, and treaty simulation equivalence mappings.

2.10 Exit Logic into NE Labs for Spinouts or Commons-Based Stewardship Roles

2.10.1 Purpose and Governance Framing This section establishes the exit logic from the Nexus DevOps Fellowship into commercialization or stewardship pathways, governed under the multilateral authority of NE Labs, GRA, and NSF. Exit scenarios must satisfy simulation reproducibility thresholds, clause integrity checks, and observability compliance before formal migration to spinout or commons programs.

(a) Fellows exiting into NE Labs engage in clause-bound SAFE/SAFT pathways and undergo DAO-coordinated onboarding. (b) Fellows entering stewardship roles within GCRI remain under NSF clause enforcement and regional DAO supervision. (c) All exits require clearance from corridor peer review boards, reproducibility auditors, and ethics simulation validators.

2.10.2 Eligibility Criteria for Spinout and Stewardship Tracks (i) Minimum three clause-verified MVPs published via DAG and reproducibility tested in sovereign corridor environments. (ii) Proven traceability to GitHub/SPDX lineage, Zenodo documentation, and OpenAPI clause schema. (iii) DAO quorum approval of exit intent and RSB/NSF endorsement of simulation validity, clause lineage, and corridor readiness.

2.10.3 Spinout Conversion and NE Labs Onboarding (i) NE Labs candidates must submit a clause-backed MVP dossier, corridor deployment evidence, and reproducibility logs. (ii) Clause-linked SAFE/SAFT kits shall include licensing declarations (SPDX), token allocations, regional IP mappings, and DAG mutation logs. (iii) MVPs shall undergo clause mutation risk reviews by NSF before acceptance into NE Labs commercialization track.

2.10.4 Commons Stewardship Assignment (i) Fellows contributing to long-term public infrastructure (e.g., GRIX, EWS, DSS modules) may transition to stewardship. (ii) Stewardship roles involve observability maintenance, clause update coordination, corridor peer review leadership, and reproducibility audits. (iii) Assignment requires endorsement from at least one RSB and verified ethics DAG certification by GRF.

2.10.5 Clause-Indexed Transfer Package All exits must include a clause-indexed transfer package:

(i) RDF + SPDX files detailing authorship, licensing, reproducibility benchmarks, and ethics validations. (ii) DAG deployment paths with rollback metadata and corridor-specific performance metrics. (iii) Enclave compatibility documentation and sovereign observability test summaries.

2.10.6 Simulation Reproducibility and Rollback Readiness (i) Exiting Fellows must pass reproducibility audit (≥85%) in all primary fault domains. (ii) DAG rollback simulations must demonstrate ≥90% deterministic trace recovery and zero clause conflicts. (iii) NSF must validate OpenAPI-compliant simulation environments and treaty index linkage.

2.10.7 DAO-Backed Treasury Disbursement and Licensing (i) Exit into spinout or stewardship tracks unlocks clause-anchored treasury allocations and DAO-controlled grant disbursements. (ii) DAO treasury decisions are logged in corridor DAG viewers and linked to clause execution records. (iii) Licensing pathways include modular dual-license (e.g., Apache+Commons) and treaty-indexed attribution clauses.

2.10.8 Ethics and Corridor Observability Obligations Post-Exit (i) All exit-bound Fellows must maintain corridor observability ≥80% and ethics DAG score ≥90% for one audit cycle post-transition. (ii) Observability gaps or ethics regressions trigger NSF remediation protocols or GRA arbitration. (iii) DAO may revoke spinout rights or suspend stewardship mandates for clause violations or reproducibility sabotage.

2.10.9 Post-Exit Reporting and Accountability (i) Fellows must submit quarterly clause performance updates, simulation benchmarks, and corridor impact reports. (ii) Clause impact is traceable via RDF graph analytics and GRF-linked observability metrics. (iii) GRF and NSF publish Founder and Steward dashboards to transparently showcase outputs, regressions, and treaty relevance.

2.10.10 Reinstatement and Long-Term Affiliation Logic (i) Exited Fellows may return to Fellowship under new clause proposals or simulation initiatives. (ii) Long-term affiliation with GCRI may evolve into governance roles, clause mentorship programs, or simulation board appointments. (iii) All transitions are archived in the Nexus Passport and DAG governance ledger, with treaty-linked credentialing for global recognition.

PreviousI. AlignmentNextIII. Deliverables

Last updated

Was this helpful?