The Ethical Priority Map: 736 Formal Rules for AI Agent Architecture in Collective Decision-Making

Every governance system has its verification layer, execution layer, and decision layer. This post provides the full formal specification of what happens inside BeTrueCore’s AI agent layer — the layer that observes collective judgment.

Most AI ethics frameworks answer one question: what properties should a system exhibit? TDSH answers a prior and distinct question: at what point does the collective decision-making process begin to lose integrity?

This distinction — between system properties and process degradation thresholds — defines TDSH’s position in the landscape of AI governance methodology.

What has been formally specified:

23 Asilomar AI Principles × 32 TDSH parameters = 736 intersection points. Each point is not merely a label — it is a priority assignment (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / SUPERPOSITION) and a logical rule by which the Harmony Agent computes the ethical verdict.

Priority distribution:

  • CRITICAL: 169 cells (23%)

  • HIGH: 515 cells (70%)

  • MEDIUM: 47 cells (6%)

  • SUPERPOSITION: 5 cells (1%)

Core principle:

Nine AI agents at L5 (Analyst, Strategist, Sentinel — three of each) operate in strict read-only mode. Through observation they record and measure — but never decide.

Observation without a formal standard is not observation — it is impression. The 23×32 matrix transforms impression into notarial witness. The result of that witness is a traffic light signal (GREEN / YELLOW / RED): the only verdict the Harmony Agent is authorised to issue. The mirror does not know the arbiter from the executor — it reflects the entire space. The notary does not choose sides. The matrix measures both.

Full specification: 10.5281/zenodo.21225420

The mirror reflects. The notary bears witness. The matrix measures.

This is off-topic for the zk-s[nt]arks tag, move it to Governance or something more appropriate.