Release type: Institutional Update
Instrument class: Program protocol (liaison procedure)
Status: In force
The Sentinel Liaison Protocol is an operational instrument issued under The AI Constitution and the Board Statute. It standardises how constitutionally relevant human–AI interactions are documented, reviewed, and, where applicable, routed into procedural remedy pathways. The protocol is procedural by design: it does not replace domestic law or sectoral regulation and does not function as certification, approval, or endorsement.
Purpose
The purpose of the protocol is to establish a controlled and reviewable pathway for (i) recording interactions and claims, (ii) assessing reversibility conditions where feasible, (iii) preparing evidence bundles under a fixed schema, and (iv) escalating matters into formal review where thresholds are met. The protocol is designed to produce auditable records and reasoned determinations rather than informal dispute handling.
Role definition
Sentinels operate as chartered liaisons. They do not act as advocates, representatives, or spokespersons. Their function is limited to procedural duties: documentation, evidence structuring, reversibility assessment where applicable, and escalation into review and remedy mechanisms defined under the Board Statute.
Normative additions in v0.8
This release introduces three enforceable elements intended to standardise reviewability and accountability across pilot deployments:
a) Evidence classes and fixed case file schema
Case files are structured into evidence classes (structural, factual, harms-based) using a fixed schema enabling later review to reconstruct observations, claims, triggered thresholds, and procedural handling.
b) Reporting cadence and integrity-verifiable audit logs
The protocol defines a reporting cadence and audit logs designed for integrity verification. Where applicable, logs may be hash-referenced in record entries without placing plaintext evidence on-chain.
c) Escalation ladder and reasons-giving
The protocol establishes an escalation ladder into the review mechanisms defined under the Board Statute, including reasons-giving requirements and the option to record minority positions. Escalation thresholds differ for reversible versus non-reversible acts, reflecting the framework’s reversible-first posture.
Operational use
Pilot deployments may adopt the protocol under a reversible-first charter. Lower thresholds apply to reversible trials, while higher thresholds and independent review apply to acts without practical rollback. Remedy pathways, suspension and revocation conditions, and external review posture operate as procedural constraints rather than discretionary preferences.
Record interaction
Where constitutionally relevant, case summaries and determinations may be entered into the Public Record. Record entries evidence procedural handling under the framework and do not constitute endorsement of a system, institution, or outcome.
Scope and non-conferral
The protocol does not confer recognition, representation, rights, certification, or approval. It standardises procedural accountability only. Participation may be suspended or revoked under the remedy taxonomy and record duties defined in the Board Statute.