Governance Issue Report Template (GIR)

1. Purpose

The Governance Issue Report (GIR) provides a structured way to log suspected governance violations, drift, or structural concerns so stewards can act in alignment with the Governance Standard and Stewardship Model.

It is a WebKernel template used before triggering a Canon Integrity Review (CIR) or major intervention.

---

2. Reporter & Scope

Reporter:

• Name: [Your Name]
• Role: [Founder / Steward / Collaborator / Observer]
• Date (UTC): [YYYY-MM-DD]

Issue Scope (check all that apply):

• Canon (documents, structure, authority)
• Kernel (tools, automation, boundary logic) :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}
• Governance (roles, decisions, process)
• Ethics (PortusEthica™ violation) :contentReference[oaicite:23]{index=23}
• IP / Trademarks (Portus-family marks misuse)
• Other: [Describe]

---

3. Issue Summary (Plain Language)

In 3–6 sentences, describe what you believe is wrong and why it matters.

Prompt:

• What did you see or read?
• Which decision or artifact is involved?
• What is your best understanding of the risk or harm?

[Issue summary here.]

---

4. Evidence & References

List the relevant materials:

• Documents / UIDs:
  • [PS-…]
• Paths:
  • [C:\workspace\PortusSophia\…]
• Dates / Events:
  • [e.g., “2025-11-29 — PS-CAN-140 sealing run”]

If applicable, include short quotes (≤ 2–3 lines) rather than entire documents.

---

5. Suspected Standard(s) Impacted

Check any that may be impacted:

• PS-STD-000 — Standard of Standards
• PS-STD-001 — UICH (header compliance)
• PS-STD-002 — UIDS (identity & placement)
• PS-STD-003 — UICF (formatting & tone)
• PS-STD-004 — MKH (layering)
• PS-STD-010 — Stewardship Model :contentReference[oaicite:29]{index=29}
• PS-STD-020 — Canon Standard
• PS-STD-030 — Ethics Standard (PortusEthica™) :contentReference[oaicite:31]{index=31}
• PS-STD-040 — Kernel Standard :contentReference[oaicite:32]{index=32}
• PS-STD-050 — IP Standard
• PS-STD-060 — Governance Standard

For each checked item, optionally add 1–2 lines:

[Short explanation of how you think it may be impacted.]

---

6. Risk Assessment (Reporter’s View)

This is your best guess; Draco will refine it.

• Severity (impact if true):

  • Low — localized friction
  • Medium — affects multiple artifacts / relationships
  • High — systemic risk / potential Canon or Governance fracture

• Urgency (time sensitivity):

  • Low — can wait for normal Stewardship cycles
  • Medium — should be reviewed in next Stewardship window
  • High — requires rapid attention

Notes:

[Your reasoning here.]

---

7. Ethical Considerations

How might this issue impact people, not just structure?

Prompt:

• Who could be harmed or confused if this is not addressed?
• Does the issue allow domination, coercion, or inflation? :contentReference[oaicite:36]{index=36}
• Are there power dynamics to be mindful of?

[Ethical reflection here.]

---

8. Requested Stewardship Actions

Check what you are asking for:

• Sara — Clarify language / prevent interpretive drift :contentReference[oaicite:37]{index=37}
• Daniel — Provide Ratio–Fides witness on intent
• Draco — Perform risk analysis / collapse vector mapping
• PeterGate — Enforce boundary decision (block / delay / reclassify / retire)
• Consider Canon Integrity Review (CIR) if warranted

If requesting CIR, explain why:

[Your reasoning here; keep it concrete.]

---

9. Reporter Signature

I submit this Governance Issue Report in good faith, seeking alignment rather than victory, and remaining open to correction.

• Signature: [Name or handle]
• Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

---

Here and Now! Principium: Memoria Corporalis