II. Lifecycle

2.1 Track-Specific Research Fellow Designation and Passport Rights

2.1.1 Purpose and Fellowship Structure This clause establishes the governance framework for the formal designation of Research Fellows across Nexus Charter Tracks I–V. Fellows are not employees but sovereign-grade, independent researchers contributing under clause-certified scopes of work (SoWs). Their legal, operational, and recognition status is encoded into a simulation-verified Contributor Passport that reflects corridor-specific authority, simulation lineage, and treaty-compliant outputs.

(a) Track-based designation pathways include: (i) Five-stage progression: Volunteer → Contributor → Research Fellow → Principal Fellow → Cluster Editor; (ii) GitHub-tagged scorecards with SPDX+RDF metadata anchoring; (iii) DAO-governed simulation DAGs that validate contribution integrity and enforce SoW compliance.

(b) Multilateral recognition of each Fellow’s designation is operationalized through: (i) Nexus-recognized institutional Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with host universities, think tanks, and international organizations; (ii) Mutual recognition agreements coordinated via GRF and NSF across aligned jurisdictions; (iii) Cross-corridor metadata indexing for academic and institutional portability under RDF/DOI schemas. This clause establishes the governance framework for the formal designation of Research Fellows across Nexus Charter Tracks I–V. Fellows are not employees but sovereign-grade, independent researchers contributing under clause-certified scopes of work (SoWs). Their legal, operational, and recognition status is encoded into a simulation-verified Contributor Passport that reflects corridor-specific authority, simulation lineage, and treaty-compliant outputs.

(a) Track-based designation pathways include: (i) Five-stage progression: Volunteer → Contributor → Research Fellow → Principal Fellow → Cluster Editor; (ii) GitHub-tagged scorecards with SPDX+RDF metadata anchoring; (iii) DAO-governed simulation DAGs that validate contribution integrity.

2.1.2 Legal Designation and Non-Employment Status All individuals participating in Nexus Fellowship are formally engaged as independent contractors under Canadian and/or Swiss non-employment legal structures, in strict compliance with ICMA-modeled governance.

(a) Core legal characteristics: (i) No employer-employee relationship shall be inferred with GCRI, NSF, GRA, or any affiliated entity; (ii) Contributor rights and obligations are defined by a clause-native Independent Contributor Agreement (ICA); (iii) All assignments require pre-approved clause-linked SoW with simulation traceability.

2.1.3 Passport Logic and DAO Routing Contributor Passports operate as sovereign-grade, digitally signed credentials embedded with simulation lineage, clause compliance logs, and corridor-specific permissions. These passports not only serve as decentralized identity proofs but also as operational trust anchors for governance workflows within the DAO.

(a) Passports record: (i) Role tier, jurisdictional bindings, and DAO routing metadata; (ii) Simulation safety scores, ethics certification, and performance trajectory; (iii) Voting privileges for merge-rights, arbitration, or governance amendments.

(b) Governance impact mechanisms: (i) Simulation lineage scores influence quorum weight in DAO-based policy changes or conflict resolution arbitration; (ii) Verified ethics certifications are required for high-trust functions such as dispute adjudication, clause override, or corridor re-routing; (iii) In the event of a contributor breach, suspended passport privileges automatically trigger fallback DAG quorum reassignment.

(c) DAO routing engine: (i) Contributor credentials determine DAG routing across corridor-specific workflows; (ii) Incompatible clause-tagged submissions activate dispute flags that are reviewed by NSF auditors and routed to GRF ethical review; (iii) Merged rights are governed through a voting index based on lineage score, peer endorsement, and cross-corridor simulation continuity.

Contributor Passports thus serve as dynamic governance artifacts—fusing simulation, legal identity, and role performance into a portable, verifiable instrument that scales with the complexity of sovereign research coordination. Contributor Passports operate as sovereign-grade, digitally signed credentials embedded with simulation lineage, clause compliance logs, and corridor-specific permissions.

(a) Passports record: (i) Role tier, jurisdictional bindings, and DAO routing metadata; (ii) Simulation safety scores, ethics certification, and performance trajectory; (iii) Voting privileges for merge-rights, arbitration, or governance amendments.

2.1.4 DAO-Managed Credential Escalation Role progression occurs through DAO-led credential escalation, where corridor nodes submit verified scorecards for quorum validation.

(a) Requirements for tier advancement: (i) GitHub/Zenodo delivery of reproducible clause-tagged simulations; (ii) Successful audit replay and treaty-aligned performance; (iii) Ethics index compliance and peer endorsement via DAO quorum.

2.1.5 SoW Enforcement and Redline Protections Clause-based SoWs govern every engagement, delineating scope, simulation inputs, KPIs, and legal protections.

(a) Each SoW must include: (i) Jurisdiction-specific metadata and treaty compatibility flags; (ii) Simulation DAG UID and fallback route signatures; (iii) DAO-certified budget and milestone schedules.

(b) Redline clauses prevent post hoc task changes, unauthorized IP claims, or governance override without quorum.

(c) Deviation Protocols: (i) All deviations from an approved SoW trigger automatic flagging through observability hooks; (ii) Deviations above a defined threshold initiate an auto-quarantine of affected outputs pending review; (iii) A DAO-triggered dispute pathway is activated, escalating first to corridor-specific auditors, then to NSF–GRF arbitration; (iv) Repeat deviations or breach events may result in contributor de-escalation, role suspension, or DAO merge-right revocation pending redress. Clause-based SoWs govern every engagement, delineating scope, simulation inputs, KPIs, and legal protections.

(a) Each SoW must include: (i) Jurisdiction-specific metadata and treaty compatibility flags; (ii) Simulation DAG UID and fallback route signatures; (iii) DAO-certified budget and milestone schedules. (b) Redline clauses prevent post hoc task changes, unauthorized IP claims, or governance override without quorum.

2.1.6 Residency, Stipends, and DAO Resource Rights Principal Fellows and Cluster Editors may access financial and institutional support under ecosystem-backed programs.

(a) Entitlements include: (i) DAO-funded residency stipends and clause-certified project-based payments; (ii) Institutional access to compute infrastructure, labs, and publication platforms such as Zenodo and GitHub; (iii) Entry into clause-anchored bounty pools, sovereign-aligned grants, and incentive disbursements through DAO fiscal sponsors.

(b) Financial treatment of stipends: (i) Residency stipends may be classified as research grants disbursed via ecosystem fiscal agents; (ii) Project stipends may be processed as non-employment-based bounty payments tied to simulation deliverables and governance triggers; (iii) All distributions must comply with local tax laws and must be logged in the DAO observability stack and NSF audit trails.

(c) Fellows remain responsible for declaring income in their local jurisdictions and may request verification letters from GCRI or affiliated DAO sponsors for compliance and financial disclosure purposes. Principal Fellows and Cluster Editors may access financial and institutional support under ecosystem-backed programs.

(a) Entitlements include: (i) DAO-funded residency stipends and project-based stipends; (ii) Institutional compute, lab access, and Zenodo/GitHub credentialing; (iii) Access to clause-anchored bounty pools and sovereign grants.

2.1.7 Cluster Editors and Applied Track Leadership Cluster Editors lead thematic and jurisdiction-specific research programs, coordinating simulation outputs with multilateral partners.

(a) Responsibilities: (i) Oversight of simulation DAGs, clause pipelines, and observability tools; (ii) Governance of peer review, research arbitration, and SoW budgets; (iii) Interfacing with GRA nodes, NWGs, and host institutions.

2.1.8 Fellowship-to-Founder and Staff Transitions Fellows may transition to Founder-level or Staff Researcher roles based on performance and DAO invitation.

(a) Criteria for transition: (i) At least 12 months of sustained contribution with KPI fulfillment; (ii) Demonstrated leadership within corridors and successful clause deployment; (iii) Invitation-only onboarding into paid project leadership or commercial acceleration tracks.

2.1.9 Global Credential Interoperability Contributor Passports are aligned with international credentialing protocols and academic mobility standards.

(a) Interoperability standards: (i) ECTS/Bologna-compliant credentialing and course mapping; (ii) ISO/DOI indexing for clause-tagged simulations and outputs; (iii) OECD, WIPO, IMF, and UNESCO-aligned metadata standards; (iv) Recognition across both academic and professional regulatory frameworks, including peer-reviewed journals, national research bodies, and recognized treaty-based registries coordinated via GRF and NSF. Contributor Passports are aligned with international credentialing protocols and academic mobility standards.

(a) Interoperability standards: (i) ECTS/Bologna-compliant credentialing and course mapping; (ii) ISO/DOI indexing for clause-tagged simulations and outputs; (iii) OECD, WIPO, IMF, and UNESCO-aligned metadata standards.

2.1.10 Public Auditability and GRF/NSF Verification Contributor roles and credentials are anchored into the Nexus Clause Registry, verifiable across public infrastructures.

(a) Verification protocols: (i) IPFS-synced audit logs of clause outputs and credentials; (ii) GRF dashboards for role tracking and ethics review; (iii) NSF Clause Integrity Board records and DAO performance index scoring.

2.2 Research Entry Requirements and Proposal Protocol

2.2.1 Entry Pathways for Track I Research All applicants shall initiate participation under the sovereign digital public goods framework codified in the Nexus Research Charter, which is operationalized through institutional and jurisdictional legitimacy frameworks including GRF/NSF-recognized mutual recognition agreements, memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) networks, and corridor-based credential reciprocity schemes codified in the Nexus Research Charter. Entry into Track I must align with clause-governed workflows as recognized under Swiss ZGB Articles 60–79 and the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.

(a) Open Proposal Submission: (i) Submission of clause-tagged research proposals via GitHub or approved Nexus platforms; (ii) Proposals must include structured RDF/SPDX headers, jurisdictional relevance, and simulation-readiness indicators; (iii) DAO preference scoring logic shall apply in cases of corridor-specific quota prioritization.

(b) Challenge-Based Entry: (i) Participation in DAO-issued challenge rounds, tied to SDG corridor priorities and thematic bounties; (ii) Outputs are evaluated via simulation lineage, reproducibility metrics, and treaty compatibility.

(c) Institutional Referral: (i) Submission through partner universities, research centers, or think tanks recognized under GRF/NSF mutual recognition agreements; (ii) Candidates must be sponsored by a verified Cluster Editor or Principal Fellow.

2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria and Legal Compliance All research fellows shall operate strictly under an Independent Contributor Agreement (ICA), ensuring non-employment classification under both Canadian and Swiss legal systems, with fallback applicability to the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR 319–362) in cases of jurisdictional uncertainty. The ICA establishes the legal independence of all fellows, requiring scope-of-work (SoW) declarations and clause-verifiable task bindings prior to project initiation. (ICA), ensuring non-employment classification under both Canadian and Swiss legal systems.

(a) Acknowledge and accept the Independent Contributor Agreement (ICA); (b) Complete ethics onboarding and clause compliance certification (including GDPR and treaty awareness); (c) Undergo verification for non-employment status under Canadian or Swiss contractor frameworks; (d) Teams must submit coordinated ICA packages with role-specific SoWs to ensure clause-based accountability.

2.2.3 Proposal Architecture All proposals must be clause-indexed, reproducible, simulation-ready, and designed for modular reuse across Tracks II–V through embedded cross-track compatibility logic and standardized RDF/SPDX templates, meeting the technical and legal thresholds required for public release under RDF/SPDX licensing protocols.

(a) Clause-Indexed Objectives: Clearly scoped targets mapped to SDG corridors or risk domains; (b) Simulation Forecast Plan: Proposed foresight methods, scenario diversity, and fallback DAGs; (c) Licensing and Attribution: Open-source declaration with RDF/SPDX metadata attached; (d) KPI Framework: Predefined measurable outcomes, linked to DAO monitoring protocols; (e) Auto-validation encouraged via NXS-EOP simulation linting tools.

2.2.4 Evaluation and Approval Workflow Proposal validation shall follow multilateral review processes and simulation-based verification, with a focus on ethical triggers and failsafe pathway activation. Each submission is tested against known governance conditions through structured foresight DAGs, while ethics checkpoints are used to detect simulation edge cases, flag treaty conflicts, and initiate pre-dispute reviews. Verified simulations feed directly into DAO deliberation tiers to confirm or reject activation based on cross-jurisdictional quorum rules and scenario consensus scores as structured under Nexus Charter quorum protocols, NE simulation layers, and DAO-voting enforcement.

(a) Initial peer flagging through GitHub and DAO feedback; (b) Simulation integrity tests via NE modules (e.g., NXS-EOP, NXS-AAP); (c) GRF/NSF cross-jurisdictional validation using ontology matchers and compliance registries; (d) Final DAG onboarding after quorum verification; (e) Quorum deadlock scenarios escalate to GRA/GRF override panels.

2.2.5 Simulation Safety and Treaty Compliance Review Research compliance shall be assessed against international treaties including GDPR, TRIPS, Nagoya Protocol, Aarhus Convention, and Sendai Framework.

(a) Clause-based simulation audit for fallback reliability; (b) Treaty review checklist covering GDPR, TRIPS, Nagoya, Aarhus, and Sendai alignments; (c) Governance safety screening by NSF Clause Integrity Board; (d) NSF Legal Ontology Engine monitors for new global digital frameworks and flags emerging treaty requirements quarterly.

2.2.6 Researcher Accountability and Redress Pathways All accepted Fellows act as sovereign contributors with duty of care to adhere to KPIs, clause obligations, and fallback escalation processes enforced by DAO quorum.

(a) Contributors assume full project ownership as sovereign researchers; (b) Disputes or failure to meet KPIs activate redline review and DAO resolution tiers; (c) Fellows may exit voluntarily but must complete offboarding simulation replay and archive export; (d) Corridor-specific Cluster Editors may activate pre-dispute simulations in the event of non-performance or protocol breach.

2.2.7 Residency and Sponsorship Matching GCRI and NSF coordinate non-employment-based residency and funding options through fiscal sponsor vehicles and DAO-managed stipends.

(a) Local host institutions or city labs under NSF/NWG nodes; (b) Regional Cluster Editors for corridor integration; (c) GCRI-backed stipends or fiscal sponsors under DAO vote; (d) Stipends are disbursed as grants or DAO bounty payments, reported under appropriate tax codes (T4A-equivalent).

2.2.8 Contribution Metadata Anchoring Clause-indexed contributions must be legally and technically anchored to ensure FAIR-compliant transparency, reproducibility, and jurisdictional traceability.

(a) Version-controlled through GitHub/GitLab; (b) Metadata-anchored through RDF/SPDX/Zenodo; (c) Linked to Contributor Passports and global credential registries; (d) Dual claim disputes resolved through SPDX-signed contributor declarations reviewed by GRF Ethics Council.

2.2.9 Contributor Scorecard Initialization Each Fellow is registered in the Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL), a sovereign-grade registry linking simulation lineage, ethics certification scores, and clause-based reputation markers to DAO eligibility, track mobility, and governance privileges. These metrics influence voting thresholds, eligibility for higher contributor tiers, and access to elevated dispute or arbitration roles within the GRA quorum process with simulation-verified scoring linked to DAO eligibility and role mobility.

(a) Clause-indexed project ID; (b) Simulation DAG with observability hooks; (c) ZK-backed contributor performance ledger; (d) Scorecards are updated biweekly and reviewed quarterly for track elevation.

2.2.10 Public Transparency and Peer Review Obligation All contributions must comply with open science standards, public reproducibility mandates, and DAO-verified ethics enforcement protocols.

(a) Publish outputs to Nexus Reports or Zenodo within 90 days; (b) Undergo DAO-moderated peer review within the first milestone window; (c) Remain public under ODC-By or CC-BY licensing for reproducibility and governance audit; (d) Stalled peer review escalates to automated arbitration via DAO quorum trigger with rollback powers.

2.3 Research Pathways: Observational, Experimental, Applied

2.3.1 Pathway Differentiation by Research Typology Each research pathway—observational, experimental, and applied—shall be clearly designated and clause-tagged in the initial scope-of-work declaration, with specific simulation expectations and treaty-aligned governance structures. These categories guide peer review expectations, funding eligibility, and simulation complexity thresholds across Tracks I through V.

(a) Observational: Focused on non-interventional data gathering and analysis. Must include citation traceability, treaty-compliant ethical clearance, and explicit documentation of informed consent protocols. Researchers must ensure compliance with data subject rights and privacy standards under GDPR, HIPAA, and relevant local frameworks, including audit logs for data minimization and consent revocation procedures.

(b) Experimental: Requires clause-indexed control structures and foresight DAGs simulating variables and risks under replicated conditions.

(c) Applied: Requires institutional validation, clause-certification, and impact DAGs demonstrating field-level implementation, resource governance, or public infrastructure transformation.

2.3.2 Simulation Protocol Mapping Per Research Type Each pathway must integrate DAG-anchored foresight models proportional to the nature and scale of inquiry.

(a) Observational research must demonstrate observability logs and jurisdictional compliance; (b) Experimental research must use stress-tested fallback DAGs, anomaly detection layers, and predictive scoring under risk corridors; (c) Applied research must integrate policy triggers, simulation-enforced budgets, and treaty activation scoring linked to field implementation.

2.3.3 Clause Layering and Legal Foresight Each research type shall embed legal foresight clauses mapped to international regulatory regimes, ensuring that outputs are executable, auditable, and legally interoperable.

(a) Observational: GDPR, Aarhus, and UNESCO Open Science standards; (b) Experimental: TRIPS, Nagoya Protocol, and OECD Research Integrity Guidelines; (c) Applied: SDG 6/7/13/15/17 reporting clauses, Sendai Framework metrics, and national adaptation treaty annexes.

2.3.4 Institutional Roles and Verification Channels Each pathway requires pre-designated institutional validators, simulation reviewers, and metadata archival structures approved by GRA/NSF/GRF for enforcement. DAO governance interlinks with institutional validators through clause-defined escalation paths, enabling seamless transitions between peer review outcomes and formal DAO quorum actions.

(a) GRF-recognized peer review panels for Observational, whose decisions are routed to GRA quorum voting if contested or flagged for escalation; (b) NSF Clause Integrity Board + Zenodo lineage hooks for Experimental, with DAG trigger logic initiating NAC review in cases of clause inconsistency or verification failure; (c) DAO-integrated dashboards and treaty-monitoring tools for Applied, where clause deviations or jurisdictional conflicts are routed through predefined simulation thresholds that can trigger DAO arbitration or override voting. Each pathway requires pre-designated institutional validators, simulation reviewers, and metadata archival structures approved by GRA/NSF/GRF for enforcement.

(a) GRF-recognized peer review panels for Observational; (b) NSF Clause Integrity Board + Zenodo lineage hooks for Experimental; (c) DAO-integrated dashboards and treaty-monitoring tools for Applied.

2.3.5 Funding Triggers and Proposal Matching Fellowship bounties, grants, or stipends must be aligned with the pathway type, funding readiness stage, and clause-certification status.

(a) Observational proposals qualify for retroactive grants based on data integrity and public publication; (b) Experimental pathways may receive DAO-timed bounties post-verified simulations; (c) Applied projects may qualify for pre-approved clause budgets or institutional co-financing subject to implementation validation.

2.3.6 Track Interoperability and Escalation Rights Fellows may pursue multi-pathway research progression, subject to DAG validation and GRA/NSF/GCRI review. Track switching and escalation into founder tiers depend on simulation lineage strength and cross-track impact. Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL) entries, including ethics scoring and clause-verifiable simulation audits, shall serve as weighted inputs for DAO voting thresholds, stipend eligibility, and eligibility for elevation to governance or advisory roles within thematic clusters.

(a) Observational → Experimental requires validated forecast modeling; (b) Experimental → Applied requires MVP simulations or corridor pilots; (c) Applied → Cluster Lead role eligible upon DAO-approved implementation scoring. Fellows may pursue multi-pathway research progression, subject to DAG validation and GRA/NSF/GCRI review. Track switching and escalation into founder tiers depend on simulation lineage strength and cross-track impact.

(a) Observational → Experimental requires validated forecast modeling; (b) Experimental → Applied requires MVP simulations or corridor pilots; (c) Applied → Cluster Lead role eligible upon DAO-approved implementation scoring.

2.3.7 Risk Corridor Compatibility and Clause Resilience Each pathway must embed fallback clause compatibility and scenario stress models aligned with risk typologies specific to the region or corridor of deployment.

(a) Observational data must be redundantly mirrored across corridor backups; (b) Experimental models must stress test variable triggers and treaty bottlenecks; (c) Applied simulations must show adaptive clause performance and fiscal resilience.

2.3.8 Peer Review, Dispute, and Withdrawal Mechanics Peer validation for each research pathway shall be DAG-gated and clause-governed, allowing for pathway-specific rollback and DAO-triggered arbitration. Cluster Editors, empowered under GRA oversight, are authorized to initiate or approve rollback requests, trigger clause breach audits, and resolve peer validation conflicts within their thematic domains. Clause thresholds and simulation anomalies will serve as triggers for escalation to DAO arbitration or GRF treaty panels.

(a) Observational peer conflicts escalate to Cluster Editor boards, who may quarantine outputs or reroute for secondary clause review; (b) Experimental disputes route to GRF treaty panels, with Cluster Editors having provisional override rights pending GRF confirmation; (c) Applied conflicts may invoke clause correction workflows and rollback DAGs, with DAO dashboards logging arbitration results and NCRL updating contributor reputational metadata accordingly. Peer validation for each research pathway shall be DAG-gated and clause-governed, allowing for pathway-specific rollback and DAO-triggered arbitration.

(a) Observational peer conflicts escalate to Cluster Editor boards; (b) Experimental disputes route to GRF treaty panels; (c) Applied conflicts may invoke clause correction workflows and rollback DAGs.

2.3.9 Metadata Continuity and Lineage Anchoring All outputs must retain RDF/SPDX compliance, simulation timestamps, and clause execution provenance across transitions or pathway escalation.

(a) Git-linked commits with SPDX traces; (b) Lineage DAG tags in Nexus Contributor Ledger; (c) Real-time DAG snapshots for dispute audit trails.

2.3.10 Global Replicability and Institutional Portability Each research pathway must demonstrate replicability across institutional, regional, and treaty systems. All outputs must qualify for Nexus Reports and Zenodo publication. Clause SDKs shall be co-developed or embedded with host institutions through formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or inter-institutional cooperation agreements, ensuring the portability of clause-executing environments. These MOUs shall specify the simulation infrastructure, data lineage protocols, ethics compliance enforcement, and fallback jurisdictional measures under which the SDKs operate.

(a) Observational: FAIR data replication protocols with clause-tagged attribution agreements and audit hooks for consent revocation; (b) Experimental: Foresight DAGs and reproducibility test suites embedded into host institutions’ simulation environments with Nexus-certified validators; (c) Applied: Clause-verified implementation reports tied to treaty-aligned dashboards, with SDK portability mechanisms for regional deployment and host-site policy compliance. Each research pathway must demonstrate replicability across institutional, regional, and treaty systems. All outputs must qualify for Nexus Reports and Zenodo publication.

(a) Observational: FAIR data replication protocols; (b) Experimental: Foresight DAG and reproducibility test suites; (c) Applied: Clause-verified implementation reports, linked to public dashboard portals and treaty anchors.

Let me know if you’d like comments added or prefer a compliance audit next for Section 2.3.

2.4 Research Supervisor, Steward, and Peer Review Architect Roles

2.4.1 Role Classification and Jurisdictional Accountability The Nexus Research Fellowship establishes three primary oversight roles—Research Supervisor, Research Steward, and Peer Review Architect—tasked with safeguarding clause compliance, simulation reproducibility, and institutional fidelity. These roles are embedded in the Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL) with jurisdiction-tagged functions, ethics clearances, and treaty-indexed responsibilities. Each role operates as an autonomous governance node within the simulation DAG, clause infrastructure, and treaty ecosystem of Nexus Research.

(a) Research Supervisors oversee Scope-of-Work (SoW) adherence, enforce clause simulation triggers, and audit corridor-specific compliance logs; (b) Research Stewards coordinate cross-institutional cluster governance, ensure policy harmonization, and enforce fallback simulation reliability; (c) Peer Review Architects manage validation logic for reproducibility, reviewer DAG credentialing, and clause-indexed ethics audits.

2.4.2 Clause Assignment and DAG Role Routing Clause responsibilities are distributed via DAG anchors and RDF/SPDX-tagged tasks unique to each research domain.

(a) Supervisors initiate clause-routing logic based on simulation gates, jurisdictional corridor alignment, and SoW clauses; (b) Stewards oversee clause mutation cycles during cross-track transitions and inter-cluster delegation; (c) Peer Review Architects validate reproducibility via clause lineage tracebacks and trusted reviewer DAG instantiation.

2.4.3 Conflict of Interest and Ethics Safeguards All roles must undergo annual ethics recertification, privacy compliance review (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA), and transparency audits.

(a) Any data ownership, funding, or institutional dual-role conflict mandates self-reporting and temporary DAG hold; (b) Breach Index thresholds auto-escalate to GRF Ethics Panel, triggering clause quarantine; (c) NCRL scores drop on ethics recertification lapse, impacting stipend rights and eligibility for escalation tiers.

2.4.4 Simulation Oversight and Lineage Verification Role holders are legally accountable for simulation DAG integrity, reproducibility validation, and fallback activation.

(a) Supervisors validate simulation checkpoints against declared SoW clauses and corridor-specific datasets; (b) Stewards ensure that lineage paths meet treaty-bound simulation replication across jurisdictions; (c) Peer Review Architects must perform forensic audit trails for clause-proven outputs and fallback cascade logs.

2.4.5 DAO Governance Interaction and Threshold Rights Each oversight role holds specific quorum and override rights within the GRA DAO governance stack, subject to simulation lineage and clause breach severity.

(a) Supervisors may invoke emergency override if clause logic fails or SoW deviation is proven by CI/CD logs; (b) Stewards may suspend corridor-wide deployment of outputs pending treaty misalignment checks; (c) Peer Review Architects can trigger automated rollback protocols for outputs flagged by breach analytics.

2.4.6 Cross-Track Mobility and Escalation Pathways The roles interface with Track I–V through structured NCRL-driven merit systems and treaty-aligned DAO pathways.

(a) Verified Peer Review Architects become eligible for GRA citation board and Nexus Standards Tribunal; (b) Research Supervisors advancing projects in 3+ tracks or jurisdictions are shortlisted for NSF task forces; (c) Stewards delivering treaty-aligned outputs across corridors may initiate DAO policy updates or Observatories.

2.4.7 Host Institution Anchoring and Clause Embedding All oversight roles must be integrated via MOUs or host-level SDG-aligned frameworks, including SDK deployment.

(a) Clause SDKs must be instantiated within institutional policy environments under reproducibility mandates; (b) Stewards co-develop audit templates and clause schemas with host nodes for local enforcement; (c) Peer Review Architects ensure SDK portability and clause reproducibility reports are recognized across institutions.

2.4.8 Metadata Compliance and Reproducibility Rights Role actions must be anchored in SPDX metadata, Zenodo repositories, and clause-based provenance registries.

(a) Supervisors tag RDF lineages for simulation exports and fallback configuration; (b) Stewards document cross-corridor metadata changes and jurisdictional attribution; (c) Peer Review Architects publish clause-referenced reproducibility proof packages with reviewer lineage logs.

2.4.9 Dispute Arbitration and Rollback Authority Roles hold conditional rollback authority and arbitration triggers integrated with NAC, DAO, and treaty monitors.

(a) Supervisors rollback outputs due to unverified simulation lineage, clause drift, or model deviation; (b) Stewards freeze clause upgrades during treaty conflicts or jurisdictional overload; (c) Peer Review Architects invoke audit escalation and DAO re-ratification for non-reproducible artifacts.

2.4.10 Role Succession, Term Limits, and DAO Ratification Appointments are clause-certified and NCRL-registered with renewable terms and DAO-led ratification protocols.

(a) Roles require term-end clause summaries, successor audits, and simulation continuity DAGs; (b) Maximum tenure is capped at 36 months unless quorum re-election passes with ≥75% DAO approval; (c) Successors must clear treaty literacy, clause simulation, and peer validation exams prior to confirmation.

2.5 Publication and Simulation Verification Eligibility Criteria

2.5.1 Clause-Linked Research Output Requirements All research outputs must be clause-tagged, simulation-verifiable, and anchored within the Nexus Ecosystem’s compliance and reproducibility architecture. No research shall be accepted into the official publication pipeline without verifiable linkage to a clause-governed simulation artifact.

(a) Every research submission must include a unique Clause ID, SPDX license tag, and RDF lineage stamp; (b) Outputs must be traceable to an NE module-specific simulation (e.g., GRIX, EOP, DSS, AAP) and demonstrate the linkage via metadata hash anchors; (c) A clause-to-SDK reproducibility index of ≥ 95% must be achieved across corridor-specific validation models; (d) All outputs must include signed commit hashes and metadata for DAG re-execution validation; (e) Narrative outputs must be accompanied by clause-indexed bibliometric overlays and simulation artifact abstracts.

2.5.2 Verification DAG Pathways and Metadata Anchoring The simulation verification lifecycle must follow a structured DAG path managed through the Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL) and observability dashboard.

(a) DAGs must include a tri-phase validation structure: Pre-Simulation Audit, Real-Time Execution Check, and Post-Simulation Reproducibility Scoring; (b) All simulation checkpoints must be hash-anchored in IPFS and tagged with SPDX-compliant metadata including DAG lineage, corridor tag, and fallback status; (c) Contributor metadata must include signed attestations of simulation reproducibility and jurisdictional trust level; (d) DAG lineage must include references to prior clause mutations, simulation upgrades, or fallback trigger logs; (e) Metadata must be compatible with RDF/SPDX schema and compliant with FAIR principles.

2.5.3 Simulation Certification Thresholds Simulation certification is performed by NSF-accredited certifiers and validated by DAO peer committees.

(a) Outputs must pass reproducibility thresholds in at least two corridor-specific simulation contexts; (b) zkML proofs must accompany DAG replays to confirm output determinism and simulation integrity; (c) Failure to meet certification criteria triggers clause quarantine, contributor notice, and DAO arbitration; (d) Repeated failures may lead to contributor de-escalation in the NCRL and restriction of stipend eligibility; (e) Simulation outputs must include evidence of enclave compliance where applicable (TEE/Nitro/Enarx).

2.5.4 Peer Review and Ethics Prerequisites Peer-reviewed outputs must undergo clause-indexed validation by DAO-recognized reviewers with verified simulation credentials.

(a) All human subject research must adhere to WMA Helsinki, GDPR, HIPAA, and SDG-aligned ethical protocols; (b) Peer reviewers must validate simulation lineage, metadata compliance, and reproducibility attestations; (c) Ethics Passport must be valid and simulation scorecard ≥ 85% to be eligible for publication; (d) Review DAGs must be stored alongside publication metadata and audited post-publication; (e) Ethics drift detection systems must trigger DAO or GRF ethics panel review prior to output approval.

2.5.5 DAO Ratification for High-Impact Outputs Policy-impacting or treaty-relevant outputs must be ratified via DAO quorum and simulation audit trail.

(a) Outputs cited in treaties or multilateral frameworks must secure 75% DAO quorum vote post-simulation audit; (b) Simulation logs, clause lineage, and jurisdictional impact matrix must be available for DAO and treaty actors; (c) DAO ratified outputs are granted Nexus Passport Endorsements and treaty corridor clearance; (d) Observability dashboards must visualize simulated impact paths and corridor activation traces; (e) Outputs with financial or safety triggers require co-validation by NSF and GRF ethics arbitration boards.

2.5.6 Dual Affiliation and Repository Standards Outputs must declare Nexus Reports as primary repository, with dual indexing permissible via institutional MOUs.

(a) Host institutions must support RDF/SPDX clause embedding and data sharing via standardized SDK; (b) Co-published outputs must include metadata portability tests and simulation cross-verification reports; (c) Clause SDKs must validate dual-hosted outputs against sovereign reproducibility scores and treatise anchors; (d) DOIs must be linked to GitHub/Zenodo/Nexus Registry with audit-ready lineage; (e) Repository metadata must include ethics clearance, simulation index, and fallback trigger references.

2.5.7 Observer Node Portability and Treaty Hooks Outputs targeting observatory integration must include SDK portability proofs and treaty alignment declarations.

(a) Outputs must be executable within at least two observer node configurations (e.g., UNDRR, UNFCCC, IPCC); (b) Clause portability and SDK run logs must be embedded in metadata and verified by node auditors; (c) Treaty hooks must be explicitly declared, including specific policy relevance (e.g., SDG6, CBD, Paris); (d) Simulation DAGs must integrate observatory fallback scenarios and corridor-specific resilience benchmarks; (e) Outputs must include auto-adaptation protocols for treaty updates or SDG scorecard shifts.

2.5.8 NCRL Influence on Stipend and Review Eligibility Contributor rewards, review eligibility, and stipend release depend on NCRL performance and clause compliance.

(a) A simulation reproducibility score below 85% restricts publication, voting, and bounty access; (b) Clause drift or ethics breaches trigger temporary de-escalation and review of all pending outputs; (c) DAO stipend disbursement must be validated by simulation proof logs and observability scorecards; (d) NCRL role tier advancement is dependent on cross-track reproducibility, ethics scores, and corridor impact; (e) Contributors flagged for repeated reproducibility or ethics violations are referred to the GRF Ethics Tribunal.

2.5.9 Quarantine and Clause Deletion Protocols Outputs that violate simulation, ethics, or treaty mandates are subject to DAG quarantine or clause rollback.

(a) Peer Review Architects may trigger clause deletion if breach thresholds are met or simulation logs fail; (b) Quarantined outputs must include automated rollback logs and immutable proof of DAG failure; (c) Revisions must be submitted with clause mutation proofs and updated DAG reproducibility scores; (d) Quarantine DAGs must be accessible to DAO, NSF, and GRF with rollback advisories noted; (e) Repeat offenders may have their Ethics Passport revoked and NCRL role downgraded.

2.5.10 Treaty Recognition and Cross-Jurisdictional Precedence Outputs spanning multiple treaties or legal regimes must declare precedence logic and jurisdictional resolution paths.

(a) Clause logic must reconcile GDPR, TRIPS, Nagoya Protocol, and regional data governance frameworks; (b) Fallback tags must specify resolution mechanism: treaty override, national opt-out, or DAO arbitration; (c) DAO decisions must include simulation-based legal precedence graphs and clause mutation history; (d) Outputs with overlapping treaty obligations must undergo scenario modeling for regulatory conflict resolution; (e) Verification DAGs must be ratified by at least one NSF-recognized multilateral observer or treaty enforcer.

2.6 Ethics Review for Human Subjects, Biosafety, Climate Impact

2.6.1 Multi-Domain Ethical Safeguards and Scope All research must align with ethical frameworks governing human subjects, biosafety, and environmental integrity, and must adhere to both international and DAO-verified governance mechanisms. Outputs must undergo ethics scoring and clause-based verification before public release or policy ratification.

(a) Mandatory alignment with WMA Helsinki, GDPR, HIPAA, and SDG-linked climate and health ethics standards; (b) Biosafety protocols must reference WHO, Nagoya Protocol, and CBD conventions; (c) Climate research must comply with UNFCCC and IPCC-aligned risk mitigation clauses; (d) Risk and ethics clauses must be tagged in each DAG lineage and simulation output; (e) Outputs must be evaluated using jurisdictional fallback logic prioritizing data subject protections and public health law where legal obligations conflict.

2.6.2 Clause-Indexed Ethics Passport System Contributors must maintain valid Ethics Passports encoded with simulation audit logs and peer-review endorsements.

(a) Ethics Passports must reference jurisdictional compliance markers and NCRL-tier status; (b) Each passport embeds simulation ethics scoring and audit-proof lineage for transparency; (c) Breaches or low scores automatically suspend publishing rights and bounty eligibility; (d) Passports are reviewed bi-annually or following ethics violation flagging via simulation; (e) Passport systems are overseen by NSF-recognized ethics validators and GRF panels, and include ethics score decay logic and DAG requalification triggers.

2.6.3 Consent Frameworks and Data Subject Rights For human subjects and data-sensitive domains, contributors must implement clause-bound consent workflows.

(a) Explicit and revocable informed consent is required for all observational or participatory research; (b) Data subject rights must be enforceable via clause-based metadata (right to revoke, restrict, correct); (c) Clause SDKs must log consent flows and attach them to DAG replays and simulation checkpoints; (d) Withdrawal of consent triggers DAG quarantine or rollback of affected outputs; (e) Cross-border data use must be governed by GDPR/Swiss equivalent + explicit clause authorization; (f) Synthetic or AI-generated data involving real-world health or biosafety conditions must include informed synthetic disclosure and usage disclaimers.

2.6.4 Ethics Simulation and Forecast DAGs Each research project must model ethics risks via foresight DAGs pre-approved during the proposal phase.

(a) DAGs must simulate possible ethical failure points and mitigation fallback mechanisms; (b) Risk escalation DAGs must include auto-escalation nodes for treaty, health, or climate breaches; (c) Each ethics simulation must include corridor-specific stress scenarios and scorecard output; (d) DAG scoring <85% in ethics validation triggers quarantine or GRA/NAC review; (e) DAG escalation triggers are overseen by quorum-designated simulation agents from GRA Ethics Cluster.

2.6.5 Biosafety and Dual-Use Clause Protocols Research involving biosafety or dual-use risk must comply with treaty-anchored safeguards and clause controls.

(a) Clause IDs must link to Nagoya, WHO, and Biosafety Protocol cross-references; (b) Outputs must include simulation of misuse pathways and risk containment DAGs; (c) Dual-use declarations must be DAO-certified and submitted pre-deployment; (d) Clause SDKs must restrict unauthorized replication of sensitive outputs; (e) Breach or misuse triggers DAO-mandated rollback, blacklist propagation, and insurance reserve triggers via NXS-AAP fallback budget hooks.

2.6.6 Environmental and Climate Impact Clauses All research outputs with potential environmental effects must be modeled through treaty-aligned sustainability DAGs.

(a) IPCC, UNFCCC, and CBD references must be embedded into clause tags and simulation DAGs; (b) Outputs must declare net environmental impact, including carbon, biodiversity, and resource effects; (c) Projects with threshold impact levels require additional ethics and DAO quorum verification; (d) Simulation lineage must show fallback planning, budget reserves, and mitigation token logic; (e) Environmental clauses are treated as non-waivable within the Nexus Treaty Routing Layer and are included in DAG-based simulation rollback gates.

2.6.7 DAO Arbitration and Ethics Escalation Protocols Ethics violations trigger a multi-tier escalation starting at contributor flagging and ending with GRF Ethics Tribunal.

(a) Tier 1: DAG scoring anomaly triggers contributor notice and observability dashboard update; (b) Tier 2: GRA/NAC simulation agents initiate automated clause replay and DAG integrity check; (c) Tier 3: NSF or GRF ethics committee conducts full simulation and treaty compliance audit; (d) Sanctions may include temporary suspension, role de-escalation, or long-term ban with insurance-backed rollback; (e) All escalations are archived and scored on contributor performance dashboards.

2.6.8 Cross-Track Ethics Harmonization and Role Eligibility Contributors in Tracks II–V must align to Track I ethics clauses and verification DAGs.

(a) All simulation DAGs must include Track I ethics fork before public deployment; (b) Contributors seeking Cluster Editor or Peer Architect roles must pass ethics credentialing reviews and NCRL simulation lineage checks; (c) Ethics breaches in one track propagate across NCRL and role observability metrics; (d) Harmonization DAGs must map shared clause dependencies and ethics risk overlays; (e) DAO role promotion or stipend approval requires ≥90% ethics DAG compliance and GRF review eligibility.

2.6.9 Public Interest, Commons, and Community Safety Clauses All research outputs must serve the public good, avoid harm, and uphold community sovereignty.

(a) Outputs impacting vulnerable populations must show simulation overlays for mitigation; (b) No output may violate sovereignty, dignity, or indigenous rights clauses; (c) Community safety risk triggers require fallback budget validation through NXS-AAP and treaty bonding; (d) DAO must approve outputs with systemic risk scores exceeding baseline thresholds via GRF observatory dashboards; (e) Failure to meet these obligations results in clause revocation and treaty-level rollback.

2.6.10 Nexus Observatory Integration for Ethics Monitoring Ethics data must feed into NE observatories and simulation pipelines for real-time governance.

(a) Clause drift, ethics score anomalies, and DAG trigger logs must be indexed and visualized; (b) Risk forecasts and ethics heatmaps are published to GRF observatories and DAO ethics boards; (c) Ethics Passport status must be synced with contributor observability dashboards in real-time; (d) Continuous scoring models must be adaptive to simulation outcomes and interjurisdictional shifts; (e) Nexus observatory pipelines must link ethics scoring to clause mutation engines, GRF alerts, and Treaty SDG dashboards.

2.7 Global Lab Residency, Visiting Fellowships, Corridor Assignments

2.7.1 Eligibility and Designation Pathways All participants entering global lab residencies, visiting fellowships, or corridor-specific assignments must hold active Fellowship Passports and demonstrate verified simulation lineage and reproducibility compliance.

(a) Eligibility requires completion of ≥3 approved Track I contributions with clause-linked audit trails; (b) Designation tiers include: Visiting Fellow, Resident Researcher, Principal Fellow, Cluster Editor; (c) DAO role votes and GRF confirmations are required for Cluster Editor assignments; (d) Candidates must pass ethics passport scoring thresholds (≥90%) and simulation reproducibility tests; (e) Transition approvals must be logged in the Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL).

2.7.2 Host Institution Coordination and Clause Agreements Assignments must be backed by formal institutional recognition via clause-registered MoUs or multilateral coordination protocols.

(a) Host institutions must co-sign clause-indexed MoUs with NSF or GRA under international jurisdictional templates; (b) Agreement clauses must include onboarding terms, corridor observability, safety provisions, and IP recognition; (c) Clause SDK deployment at host sites must include compliance logs and observability nodes; (d) Participating labs must register contributor outputs into shared DAG lineage archives; (e) NSF must verify institutional clause passport recognition before activation.

2.7.3 Corridor Assignment Architecture and Legal Interlocks Fellows assigned to corridor-specific labs or observatories must adhere to cross-border legal protocols and trust-tier standards.

(a) Corridor assignments (e.g., SDG6 basin, biodiversity zone, climate corridor) must be tagged with treaty compliance overlays; (b) Clause execution is bound to corridor-specific fallback logic and sovereign insurance hooks via NXS-AAP; (c) All deployments must undergo pre-assignment DAG simulations under Nexus Treaty Routing Layer; (d) Jurisdictional redundancy must be embedded in enclave backups and dual-verification checkpoints; (e) Fellows must hold corridor-specific deployment privileges with DAO-confirmed residency tokens.

2.7.4 Residency Stipends and Resource Allocation Protocols Fellows and Residents may receive stipends and infrastructure access through clause-certified budgets, not employment contracts.

(a) All stipends are DAO-routed as grant disbursements or corridor bounties—not wages; (b) Budgets are tied to corridor outputs, clause completions, and milestone verifications; (c) Fiscal agents or sponsoring institutions must validate outputs via CI/CD-linked ledger entries; (d) Residency benefits (e.g., lab access, insurance, housing) are clause-governed and capped by pre-approved ceilings; (e) Breach of clause triggers audit quarantine, payout suspension, or disqualification.

2.7.5 Visiting Fellow Mobility and Multi-Nodal Assignments Fellows may hold simultaneous visiting designations across compliant host sites, with clause-based role partitioning.

(a) Each designation must include DAG replication rights, contribution limits, and observability bounds; (b) NSF maintains DAG-level multi-site tracking of ethics and simulation lineage; (c) Role mobility is tracked via NCRL entries and governed by jurisdictional eligibility rules; (d) Fellows must not exceed corridor capacity limits or threshold breach risk scoring without additional DAO quorum; (e) DAO roles can be time-limited or corridor-scoped with revalidation cycles.

2.7.6 Simulation and Clause Validation for Residency Outputs All research emerging from corridor or residency participation must comply with simulation standards and clause-verifiability.

(a) All outputs must be tagged with DAG lineage and corridor-treaty references; (b) Clause ID, simulation fallback, insurance hooks, and RDF indexation are mandatory; (c) Outputs undergo peer review by host institution and NSF compliance checkers; (d) Clause violations trigger DAG quarantine and potential observatory rollback warnings; (e) Only validated outputs are eligible for DAO rewards or academic credentialing.

2.7.7 Arbitration and Conflict Protocols for Assigned Fellows Fellows in residence or corridor roles are governed under multilayered arbitration logic via NSF, GRF, and host institution fallback clauses.

(a) Tiered escalation begins with DAG anomaly reporting and contributor scorecard review; (b) Arbitration includes NSF governance agents, GRA simulation auditors, and local MoU signatories; (c) Clause arbitration logs are stored in NCRL and mirrored to IPFS-anchored observability dashboards; (d) Contributors may appeal sanctions via GRF ethics panels and submit clause rectification DAGs; (e) Residency rights may be revoked by majority DAO vote in case of repeated breach.

2.7.8 Cross-Track Residency Harmonization All residency and visiting fellowship programs must support reuse, inter-track collaboration, and transdisciplinary clause infrastructure.

(a) Residency programs must include multi-track clause visibility and API integration plans; (b) Outputs must be portable across Track I–V simulation environments with RDF traceability; (c) Shared observatory infrastructure must allow clause execution from adjacent research tracks; (d) Multinodal DAG routing logic must be implemented to track peer contributions across sites; (e) Reuse eligibility is linked to RDF standard compliance and simulation DAG compatibility scoring.

2.7.9 Corridor Insurance and Safety Deployment Frameworks High-risk corridor roles must be protected by insurance, safety, and sovereign fallback DAG protocols.

(a) Clause IDs must embed treaty insurance hooks via NXS-AAP and corridor-bonded vaults; (b) Contributor movement must be synced with safety observability scoring across regional nodes; (c) Deployment DAGs must include emergency rollback, conflict zone freeze, and insurance trigger logic; (d) NSF must approve safety provisioning and partner agency coordination for high-risk assignments; (e) Safety violations auto-escalate to GRF with funding lock and withdrawal mechanisms triggered.

2.7.10 DAO Credentialing and Recognition for Global Assignments DAO must maintain active dashboards and governance logs of all global fellowship designations.

(a) Contributor observability dashboards must track active residencies, stipend triggers, and clause compliance rates; (b) NCRL must sync residency tokens with simulation outputs and ethics scores; (c) DAO must approve institutional credentialing, Zenodo/RDF publishing, and external certification claims; (d) GRF publishes corridor observatory signals, risk maps, and residency impact profiles quarterly; (e) All recognitions are non-employment and subject to clause verifiability audits and revalidation cycles.

2.8 Joint Lab Collaboration with Academic and Nonprofit Entities

2.8.1 Formal Recognition and Clause-Indexed MoUs All joint lab partnerships with academic institutions or nonprofit research entities must be governed by clause-indexed memoranda of understanding (MoUs), anchored by DAO-approved templates and validated by the Nexus Standards Foundation (NSF).

(a) Each MoU must define scope, research track affiliation, funding alignment, and IP stewardship; (b) NSF must verify RDF tagging and clause versioning before research activity begins; (c) GRA governance approval is required for projects receiving DAO funds, corridor privileges, or simulation access; (d) Joint MoUs must include fallback provisions and dispute resolution clauses referencing Nexus Treaty Protocol; (e) Participating entities must register under the Nexus Institutional Partnership Ledger (NIPL); (f) All MoUs must undergo periodic clause-audit verification by GRF with risk-tiering overlays.

2.8.2 Governance Role Allocation and DAG Interoperability Joint labs must implement Nexus-compliant governance architecture that aligns with GRF oversight and simulation DAG interoperability.

(a) Role categories include: Clause Research Coordinator, Institutional Editor, Ethics Officer, and Data Steward; (b) Each role must integrate with Nexus Contributor Role Ledger (NCRL) and support simulation scoring obligations; (c) Clause SDK deployment at joint labs must support DAG-compatible governance workflows; (d) Reproducibility checkpoints must be mirrored across both parties with fail-safe lineage tagging; (e) Joint lab contributors are assigned corridor visibility levels subject to ethics passport scoring; (f) Cluster Editor oversight must be defined for thematic dispute resolution and clause rollback authority.

2.8.3 Academic and Scientific Licensing Protocols All code, datasets, and research models generated in joint labs must be licensed using standardized SPDX or ODC-compatible terms.

(a) Research outputs must include clause ID and jurisdictional traceability across simulation backends; (b) Commons licensing must be approved via DAO quorum or pre-approved GRF policy; (c) NSF maintains the license registry with Zenodo and GitHub anchors; (d) Any institutional copyright claims must be disclosed and validated in the clause routing logic; (e) Licensing redlines must be encoded in DAG for use in arbitration and dispute management.

2.8.4 DAO Participation and Shared Funding Responsibilities Joint labs must align with DAO fiscal architecture, whether as clause-matching contributors or as co-funders of specific corridor deployments.

(a) DAO grants to labs are routed via milestone-based clause verifiability, not institutional standing; (b) Partner institutions may contribute co-funding via tracked DAG invoices and CI/CD audit trails; (c) Shared budgets must be allocated using pre-approved Nexus budget allocation formats; (d) All funds are disbursed based on simulation outputs and governance KPIs; (e) DAO reserves the right to pause, amend, or revoke funding based on clause performance; (f) DAO token rewards must follow score-based quota logic with clause-tier eligibility thresholds.

2.8.5 Observability and Contributor Scorecards Joint lab contributions are tracked across simulation DAGs and clause routing networks via observability dashboards.

(a) Contributor scorecards must be accessible to GRA and GRF via IPFS-anchored registries; (b) Simulation failures, ethics breaches, or DAG anomalies trigger contributor de-escalation; (c) Joint lab contributions are monitored via Grafana, Prometheus, and clause-score APIs; (d) Score thresholds govern stipend eligibility, DAO role access, and renewal rights; (e) Discrepancies must be resolved via joint observability councils between institutions and DAO compliance leads; (f) Clause Replay Trigger APIs must be configured to flag anomaly thresholds for DAO arbitration.

2.8.6 Multi-Jurisdictional Clause Deployment Clause-driven research must adhere to international law, including cross-border simulation deployments and fallback jurisdiction logic.

(a) NSF and GRF must approve jurisdiction routing overlays for all cross-border clauses; (b) Each jurisdiction must have predefined treaty overlays (TRIPS, GDPR, IPCC, CBD, etc.); (c) Conflict resolution priority must follow GRF-approved jurisdictional hierarchy; (d) Joint labs must embed dual-TEE fallback routes in enclave-based simulation layers; (e) Fallback DAGs must include sovereign corridor compliance checkers and insurance triggers; (f) Clause risk tiers must be documented and reviewed quarterly with ethics passport scoring.

2.8.7 Knowledge Transfer and Educational Integration Joint labs must contribute to the Nexus education mission by generating clause-linked learning materials and open-access curricula.

(a) Partner universities must embed NE clause SDKs in curriculum, projects, or institutional repositories; (b) Outputs must be registered under RDF/DOI credentialing schemes with public access rights; (c) GCRI and GRF retain the right to co-publish education deliverables under Nexus Reports; (d) All learning resources must pass simulation reproducibility scoring before issuance; (e) Institutional students and staff may be whitelisted as entry-tier fellows upon curriculum compliance.

2.8.8 Peer Review and Arbitration Protocols All disputes arising in joint lab settings must be governed via NSF-led arbitration panels and DAO escalation procedures.

(a) Each partner must appoint a clause arbitration liaison with simulation scorecard access; (b) Conflicts must be routed via GRA → NAC → GRF with DAG logs and ethics passport records; (c) Arbitration decisions are logged in NCRL and stored with IPFS hashes in clause memory; (d) Persistent violations may result in DAO withdrawal, clause suspension, or publishing disqualification; (e) Clause rectification DAGs must be submitted for reinstatement; (f) DAO arbitration outputs must be classified as binding or advisory and noted in clause audit logs.

2.8.9 Strategic Planning and Corridor Impact Scaling All joint labs must align their simulation goals with strategic SDG corridors and Nexus foresight roadmaps.

(a) Clause-tagged projects must link to NXS-GRIx corridor targets (water, climate, food, energy); (b) High-impact outputs must be routed to GRF for policy citation, early warning, or risk assessment use; (c) Labs must run corridor-scale simulations quarterly with reproducibility reports; (d) Partner impact reports must align with GRF-issued scenario cases and treaty hooks; (e) GCRI or GRA may issue grants or DAO tokens for high-impact simulation outputs.

2.8.10 Termination and Succession of Joint Research Joint research projects must be governed under clause termination protocols and successor clauses.

(a) Clause termination must be reviewed by GRA and NSF with DAG completeness audit; (b) Succession clauses must be pre-approved and linked to corridor simulation continuity; (c) Institutional exits must include license handoffs, observability deactivation, and RDF closure logs; (d) Successor teams must pass onboarding, ethics certification, and clause verification scoring; (e) Terminated outputs must remain available in Nexus archives for audit and reference.

2.9 Elevation to Research Architect or PI Path

2.9.1 Eligibility and Tiered Progression Criteria Fellows seeking elevation to the roles of Research Architect or Principal Investigator (PI) must satisfy performance, governance, and ethics criteria verified through DAO milestone audits and GRF observability.

(a) Eligible Fellows must complete a minimum of three clause-indexed deliverables with reproducibility scoring above the threshold set by GRF; (b) A 12-month minimum Fellowship duration is required for elevation eligibility unless waived by the Central Bureau (CB); (c) DAO ratification is necessary following submission of a clause-linked elevation proposal and SoW outline; (d) Each elevation candidate must maintain compliance with ethics passports, clause audit trails, and contributor risk indices; (e) Clause performance must demonstrate reuse across Tracks I–V, as verified through simulation lineage and NCRL records.

2.9.2 Independent Contractor Structure and Legal Non-Employment All elevated contributors continue under independent contractor status, in compliance with Canadian and Swiss law, avoiding employment entanglement.

(a) Research Architects and PIs must operate under new or extended SoWs with explicit deliverable scope and jurisdiction tags; (b) Payments must be disbursed via fiscal sponsor, escrow, or DAO treasury with non-employment status legally codified; (c) Each SoW must be pre-approved by NSF and tracked through IPFS, clause ID, and DAG lineage systems; (d) Elevation does not entitle any employment rights and must remain aligned with Nexus sovereign protocol.

2.9.3 Roles and Responsibilities at Elevated Levels Elevated contributors take on expanded mandates including mentorship, arbitration leadership, and cluster coordination.

(a) Each Research Architect must steward a thematic research cluster with cross-jurisdictional collaborators; (b) PIs must serve as validators and peer-review leads for clause outputs within their field; (c) Supervisory roles include pathway authorization, role elevation voting, and breach management; (d) Cluster Editors report to Research Architects and feed DAO governance signals based on corridor analytics.

2.9.4 Governance, Observability, and Audit Compliance Research Architects and PIs are bound by elevated observability thresholds, auditability rules, and cross-clause risk scoring.

(a) All contributions must be DAG-compliant and simulation-verifiable with TEE or zkML wrappers; (b) Simulation lineage must show evidence of reuse, dispute validation, or policy translation; (c) PIs are required to pass quarterly compliance checks with NCRL and clause risk dashboards; (d) Elevation can be revoked based on audit anomalies or ethics flagging by GRF or GRA.

2.9.5 Strategic Fundraising and Project Sustainability Roles Elevated contributors are expected to initiate and maintain funding for their clause domains.

(a) Research Architects must coordinate joint fundraising with ecosystem sponsors and institutional partners; (b) PIs may receive non-employment-based funding incentives via pre-approved clause budgets; (c) All budget proposals must align with DAO revenue models and clause routing efficiency metrics; (d) Sustainability planning must include training, documentation, and knowledge transfer for open access use.

2.9.6 Rights and Responsibilities for Clause Stewardship Elevated contributors must serve as clause custodians with oversight responsibilities.

(a) Clause mutation, correction, or retraction must pass through Research Architect review; (b) PIs act as signatories for clause certification and RDF closing statements; (c) Stewardship roles include tracking clause reuse, SDG alignment, and DAG observability signals.

2.9.7 Transition to Staff Researcher and Central Bureau Roles Transition from elevated fellow status to formal staff designation is limited to invitation-only CB appointments.

(a) A 12-month proven contribution history is required, with no breach records; (b) CB staff roles are subject to separate employment agreements governed by the host legal entity; (c) Staff appointment does not affect prior independent contractor contributions or rights.

2.9.8 Role in GRA Affiliate Networks and Talent Pools Elevated fellows may be shortlisted for GRA talent deployments across corridors, missions, and treaty initiatives.

(a) Each corridor-based affiliate appointment must be clause-linked and validated by GRF scenario cases; (b) Candidates must maintain active simulation outputs and clause engagement to remain eligible.

2.9.9 Arbitration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Advisory Functions Research Architects and PIs are eligible for arbitration panel roles, foresight policy authorship, and intergovernmental treaty simulation advisories.

(a) GRF and NAC may appoint elevated contributors to serve in dispute panels; (b) Clause outputs authored by PIs may be cited in UN, OECD, or CBD policy simulations; (c) All policy-related clause roles must include RDF anchor, treaty tag, and audit lineage log.

2.9.10 Succession and Legacy Clause Continuity Exit or role transition by a Research Architect or PI must include clause transfer protocols.

(a) Successor candidates must pass elevation review and ethics passport scoring; (b) All clause-linked assets, simulations, and RDF datasets must be transferred and archived; (c) Succession events are governed under the GRF-RDF Clause Continuity Protocol.

2.10 Research-to-Startup Founder Track via NE Labs Transfer Option

2.10.1 Purpose and Legal Foundation of Founder Track The Founder Track enables high-performing Research Fellows, Research Architects, and PIs to transition into venture creators under NE Labs while preserving non-employment legal safeguards and clause-enforced public-good commitments. This route supports innovation scaling through sovereign-licensed, DAO-backed startups that remain traceable to their simulation provenance and ethical index.

(a) The Founder Track is governed under Canadian independent contractor law or Swiss equivalent (ZGB Art. 60–79); (b) Participation is restricted to DAO-approved contributors with a verified clause observability score, RDF-tagged lineage, and ethics certification; (c) Employment relationships are explicitly excluded unless a separate contract is executed with NE Labs under U.S. Delaware corporate law; (d) Clause-indexed IP remains under mission-lock enforced by GCRI and NSF, with full audit trail required prior to commercialization; (e) Preemption rights and reversion clauses apply if mission drift, dissolution, or clause breach occurs.

2.10.2 Eligibility and Pathway Triggers To initiate the Founder Track, contributors must meet strict reproducibility, auditability, and governance clearance thresholds.

(a) Minimum of four clause-verified outputs across at least two Nexus Tracks (e.g., Track I + Track II); (b) Continuous observability score above 80% and no unresolved DAG or clause breaches; (c) DAO resolution passed via NCRL (Nexus Contributor Role Ledger), including IP audit, simulation lineage verification, and scorecard review; (d) RDF asset tagging, clause provenance proofs, and simulation traceability must be validated before onboarding; (e) SoW must include clause fallback plans and insurance risk allocation logic.

2.10.3 Founder Track Governance and Custodianship Governance is distributed among GRA (protocol governance), NE Labs (execution engine), and GCRI (sovereign mission lock).

(a) NSF issues clause compliance passports and simulation verification IDs for production deliverables; (b) NE Labs governance board must include DAO-nominated observers and report to GRF; (c) All IP assignments follow SPDX licensing, with rollback clauses to GCRI in case of breach; (d) Equity structures use clause-indexed SAFE/Phantom contracts with ≥51% DAO-aligned public-good control; (e) NE Labs maintains quarterly clause simulation review windows under DAO auditability.

2.10.4 Spinout Structuring and Clause Escrow Protocols Spinouts are obligated to maintain clause provenance, simulation reproducibility, and fallback observability.

(a) All deliverables must include signed RDF + SPDX outputs, linked to simulation DAG lineage and treaty corridor tags; (b) Clause escrow must convert into verifiable revenue KPIs prior to any valuation claims; (c) API/SDK endpoints must carry clause metadata and DAO-disclosed licensing terms; (d) No clause may be privatized without GRF archival confirmation and RDF-closeout from NSF; (e) Quarterly DAO budget thresholds apply to ensure fair clause-backed treasury allocation.

2.10.5 Compliance with Non-Employment Legal Architecture All participants remain independent contributors, and no employment status is implied or created.

(a) Clause-verified SoWs are the binding operational document per contributor under DAO rules; (b) All payments are milestone-based and routed via DAO escrow, NE Labs vesting, or ecosystem grants; (c) Each milestone includes simulation fallback triggers, clause insurance locks, and DAG-based breach diagnostics; (d) Clause quarantine and rollback logic must be embedded in all contributor delivery workflows; (e) DAO governance trail remains the final arbiter of contributor class, status, and escalation rights.

2.10.6 Founder Track Incentives and Risk Management The Founder Track is designed to de-risk public-good innovation while incentivizing systemic resilience.

(a) Clause scorecards and simulation metrics determine eligibility for retroactive grants and DAO token rewards; (b) Founders retain open-source compliance obligations with reproducibility audits tied to KPIs; (c) NSF-approved fallback simulation plans are mandatory for corridor risk-linked commercialization; (d) Founders failing breach compliance enter automatic DAG quarantine and are subject to DAO/NAC arbitration and clause rollback; (e) Clause equity gains are subject to DAO-wide performance reports and anti-extraction governance triggers.

2.10.7 Transition Criteria for Commercialization and Exit Readiness Exit triggers must align with DAO safeguards, treaty compatibility, and clause-driven auditability.

(a) NE Labs must demonstrate corridor-stable revenue simulations and SDG-aligned outputs across jurisdictions; (b) Founders must present licensing plans (SaaS, API, SDK, corridor tokenization) traceable to clause IDs and RDFs; (c) GRF reserves veto rights over exit structures that fail clause continuity or treaty alignment checks; (d) Full open-source publication of governance logic, risk dashboards, and post-exit reuse models is required; (e) All simulations must pass DAG replay testing before any equity conversion is finalized.

2.10.8 Nexus Passport Upgrades and Residency Opportunities Eligible founders gain elevated contributor passports, DAO rights, and corridor-specific residencies.

(a) RDF-upgraded passports embed startup lineage, clause observability trail, and commercialization traceability; (b) Digital or hybrid residencies are available based on Track II–V compatibility and treaty corridor deployment; (c) Selection panels include GRF observers, NSF clause certifiers, and NWG regional governance reps; (d) Residency impact is evaluated using clause-reuse indicators, ethics audit trails, and capacity-building metrics.

2.10.9 Clause Legacy, Reuse, and Downstream Access Protections All clause-driven outputs remain publicly reusable across research, nonprofit, and intergovernmental tracks.

(a) Clause SDKs must embed GRF-registered continuity hooks and DAG export functions; (b) Downstream reuse must not be restricted by licensing terms unless GRF-approved exceptions apply; (c) Clause heritage must be mapped in RDF lineage, and reuse eligibility validated through clause graph queries; (d) Founders are prohibited from embedding clause execution into non-auditable closed systems.

2.10.10 DAO Oversight and Dispute Resolution Mechanism All Founder Track decisions are subject to full DAO governance audit with multiple arbitration layers.

(a) DAC scorecards and observability logs determine trigger thresholds for elevation, rollback, or token freezes; (b) GRA quorum policy governs spinout budget and founder exits with 66% default threshold and GRF override right; (c) Simulation governance breaches are reviewed by NAC before invoking clause arbitration or insurance clawbacks; (d) Final dispute resolution follows GRF → GRA → NSF hierarchy using clause trail, simulation state, and fallback DAG lineage.