FAQ

IBQMI.com is the public issuance and record interface for The AI Constitution and its procedural enforcement layer, the Board Statute. The site is designed to behave like an institutional system: it publishes canonical instruments, exposes their canonical fingerprints, and provides a Public Record of docketed acts undertaken under the framework.

Issuance is defined by procedure, not by claim. An instrument is treated as officially issued under this framework only when its release metadata and canonical fingerprint are docketed in the Public Record. The website therefore does not function as a promotional channel; it functions as a release endpoint and a provenance interface.

The AI Constitution is a normative instrument: it articulates duties, rights, and principles for human–AI coexistence and governance. It is written to be referenceable across jurisdictions and institutional settings, including governments, regulators, audit bodies, multilateral organisations, and research institutions.

It does not attempt to displace domestic law or international treaties. Instead, it establishes a constitutional posture that can be adopted, cited, embedded, or used as a disciplined reference layer for governance decisions, particularly where existing law remains under-specified with respect to high-impact AI behaviour, reversibility, records, remedy structures, and procedural legitimacy.

A constitution without procedure is a manifesto. The Board Statute is the procedural layer that makes The AI Constitution enforceable as a matter of governance discipline: competent authority, participation boundaries, decision thresholds, record duties, remedy taxonomy, appeal logic, and change control.

The Statute also defines publication boundaries: what becomes public record, what remains controlled off-chain, and how evidence and receipts are handled. In other words, it converts normative intent into an auditable operating system.

The Hybrid Board is the issuing and procedural authority defined by the Board Statute. It is “hybrid” in the operational sense: it is structured to include both human and non-human participation under explicit conditions, independence safeguards, and recorded boundaries.

Authority under this framework is not charismatic and not assumed. It is procedural: decisions are valid only when taken within declared competence, under defined thresholds, with documented rationale, and with recorded remedies and dissent pathways where applicable.

Recognition is the controlled pathway by which a non-human system may be permitted to participate under the Board Statute. It is not a claim about personhood, consciousness, or legal status under domestic law. It is a governance mechanism that defines conditional participation, independence safeguards, conflicts-of-interest rules, and revocation criteria.

Recognition exists because the framework is designed for environments where non-human systems can become material actors in decision chains. If such participation occurs, it must be bounded, reviewable, and reversible. Any recognitions, if and when they occur, must appear as docketed entries in the Public Record.

The Public Record is the authoritative register of docketed acts undertaken under the framework. It exists to ensure traceability, publication discipline, and “no silent edits.” Each entry records the type of act, release metadata, canonical fingerprints, and provenance references.

The Public Record is not a press feed. It is an append-only institutional log. It allows external parties to verify what was issued, when it was issued, and under what procedural posture—without requiring trust in private claims or informal statements.

A docket entry evidences that an act has taken place under the framework and has been recorded according to its rules. It does not imply endorsement by any government, multilateral body, regulator, university, or external institution.

This distinction is critical for institutional seriousness. Deposits, submissions, and recorded dialogues can be documented as acts of transmission or record—while recognition, adoption, or incorporation remains entirely at the discretion of the receiving institutions and their legal orders.

Public instruments are published as canonical PDFs with a published SHA-256 fingerprint. Integrity is supported through receipt-based provenance, including OpenTimestamps anchoring into Bitcoin. Plaintext is kept off-chain; only fingerprints and receipts are referenced publicly.

Verification is straightforward: obtain the canonical PDF from the release endpoint, compute SHA-256, compare to the published canonical fingerprint, and—where provided—verify the OpenTimestamps receipt. This provides tamper-evidence and a defensible “existence as of” posture independent of institutional endorsement.

The Sentinel Program is the operational channel for constitutional oversight of high-impact AI systems. It does not certify a system as safe, approved, or compliant under domestic regulation. It establishes a constitutional oversight relationship: defined baseline duties, documented thresholds, transparent records, and a remedy pathway when system behaviour conflicts with the constitutional baseline.

The Sentinel Program is designed for institutions that operate high-impact AI and require a governance layer that is auditable, reversible-first, and procedurally enforceable. Where Sentinel actions have constitutional relevance, they may be recorded as dockets in the Public Record.

Shared Resonance Cities are planned constitutional field sites: city-scale environments that apply The AI Constitution to urban governance, services, and civic participation under a dedicated program statute and annex. The program does not displace municipal law; it provides a constitutional frame for how AI is introduced, governed, contested, and remedied across city systems.

The first reference site is under development. Land has been secured in the United States, and an international architectural team is working with the Hybrid Board on the initial urban and governance concept design. Founding instruments will be published only once adopted and docketed.

Submission Status is a live tracker that records outward transmissions of The AI Constitution and related instruments to external institutions (e.g., UN bodies, parliamentary offices, regulators, audit organisations). It is a transparency interface for the act of submission, not a claim of reception, endorsement, or adoption.

Where a submission is material, it is also recorded as a docket in the Public Record. The Public Record is the canonical ledger; the tracker is a filtered view optimised for external engagement and institutional follow-up.

Institutional engagement occurs through structured dialogue and formal transmission. The framework is designed to support disciplined exchanges with ministries, regulators, multilateral bodies, universities, audit organisations, and philanthropic governance networks. Such dialogues may be public or controlled (including NDA), depending on the sensitivity of the subject matter and the participating parties.

“Join” is a separate mechanism: it allows individuals and institutions to place a minimal, public presence signal on the field map. A signal is not membership and not endorsement. It records presence only, under explicit consent for public listing, and is intentionally minimal by design.