# Trust and Governance -- Safety Committees and Certifications

In every factory, there is a layer of authority above the machines and the workers: the safety committee that reviews incident reports, the certification bodies that audit compliance, the supervisors who grant or revoke access to restricted areas. This governance layer does not weld parts or run lathes -- it establishes the *rules by which work is done*. Without it, individual safety measures become inconsistent, unaccountable, and eventually ineffective. Trust and governance in Codomyrmex serves this same function: it defines who is trusted, how trust is established and revoked, what policies govern behavior, and how disputes and violations are resolved.

## The Three-Tier Trust Model

Trust is not binary. Codomyrmex recognizes three tiers, each with distinct privileges and verification requirements:

### Tier 1: Untrusted

The default state for every new entity. An untrusted actor can observe but not modify. In the factory, this is the visitor who wears a badge marked "ESCORT REQUIRED" and can walk the tour route but cannot touch any equipment.

- **Permissions**: Read-only access to public resources. No write, execute, or administrative capabilities.
- **Verification**: None required beyond basic authentication. The entity has proven identity but not trustworthiness.
- **Use case**: New API consumers, unauthenticated agents, first-time integrations.

### Tier 2: Verified

An entity that has passed additional checks -- credential validation, behavior history review, capability attestation. In the factory, this is the contractor who has completed safety orientation, passed a background check, and received a time-limited badge.

- **Permissions**: Read and limited write access within scoped domains. Can invoke non-destructive tools.
- **Verification**: Multi-factor authentication, signed attestation, or vouching by a trusted entity.
- **Use case**: Authenticated API consumers, known agents operating within defined boundaries.

### Tier 3: Trusted

Full operational trust. This tier is granted sparingly and reviewed regularly. In the factory, this is the certified technician who has keys to every machine, authorization to modify safety interlocks (during maintenance, with proper lockout/tagout), and accountability for every action taken.

- **Permissions**: Full read, write, and execute capabilities, including destructive operations.
- **Verification**: Explicit trust ceremony (the `/codomyrmexTrust` workflow), ongoing behavioral monitoring, periodic re-certification.
- **Use case**: Core system agents, administrative operations, PAI-integrated workflows with destructive tool access.

## Policy Engine Concepts

A policy engine is the factory rulebook made executable. It transforms human-readable policies into machine-enforceable decisions:

- **Rule evaluation**: Each request is evaluated against a set of rules. Rules have conditions (if the requester is Tier 1 AND the operation is write, DENY) and actions (ALLOW, DENY, AUDIT, ESCALATE).
- **Priority and ordering**: When multiple rules match, priority determines which one wins. A specific rule ("allow user X to write to resource Y") overrides a general rule ("deny all writes to resource Y"). In the factory, the general rule is "no entry to the clean room" but the specific rule is "clean room technicians with valid certification may enter."
- **Conflict resolution**: When rules of equal priority conflict, the engine needs a deterministic strategy: deny-by-default (safer) or allow-by-default (more permissive). Codomyrmex follows deny-by-default, matching the factory principle that any ambiguous safety situation halts work until clarified.
- **Policy versioning**: Policies change over time. A governance system must track which policy version was in effect when a decision was made, enabling accurate audit and rollback.

## Contract Lifecycle

Trust relationships in Codomyrmex are formalized as contracts -- explicit agreements between entities that define permissions, obligations, and duration:

1. **Draft**: A proposed contract is authored, specifying parties, permissions, duration, and termination conditions. The factory equivalent: a draft service agreement with a maintenance contractor.
2. **Review**: Stakeholders examine the contract for completeness, proportionality, and risk. Does the contractor really need 24/7 unsupervised access, or would supervised daytime access suffice?
3. **Active**: The contract is signed and enforced. Permissions are granted; monitoring begins.
4. **Expired**: The contract reaches its natural end date. Permissions are automatically revoked. No human intervention required -- the badge simply stops working.
5. **Terminated**: The contract is ended prematurely due to breach, mutual agreement, or changed circumstances. Termination triggers an audit of all actions taken under the contract.

This lifecycle prevents the accumulation of stale permissions -- the factory equivalent of former employees whose badges still work months after they left.

## Dispute Resolution Workflow

When a policy decision is contested, the governance layer provides a structured resolution process:

1. **Challenge**: The affected party formally challenges the decision, providing rationale.
2. **Evidence gathering**: Relevant logs, policies, and contextual information are collected.
3. **Adjudication**: A designated authority (human or automated escalation engine) reviews the evidence and renders a decision.
4. **Appeal**: If the challenger disagrees, a secondary review by a higher authority is available.
5. **Resolution**: The final decision is recorded, applied, and used to refine future policy.

This process mirrors the factory grievance procedure: a worker who believes a safety rule is being misapplied can escalate without simply ignoring the rule.

## Compliance Frameworks

Governance ensures that security controls satisfy external requirements:

- **Regulatory compliance**: GDPR, HIPAA, SOX, PCI-DSS -- each imposes specific requirements that the policy engine must enforce and the audit trail must demonstrate.
- **Contractual compliance**: Customer agreements may impose security requirements beyond regulatory minimums.
- **Internal standards**: Organizational policies that exceed external requirements, reflecting the organization's own risk appetite.

The governance layer maps each requirement to specific controls, tracks implementation status, and generates evidence for auditors. In the factory, this is the compliance officer who maintains the binder of certifications, inspection reports, and corrective action plans.

## Audit Trail Integrity

An audit trail is only useful if it is trustworthy. Governance ensures:

- **Immutability**: Once written, audit records cannot be modified or deleted by the entities they describe. The factory shift log is written in ink, not pencil.
- **Completeness**: Every security-relevant action generates an audit record. Gaps in the trail are themselves findings.
- **Availability**: Audit records are retained for the required duration and can be retrieved efficiently during investigations.
- **Chain of custody**: The provenance of audit records is documented -- who generated them, how they were transmitted, where they are stored.

## Component Mapping

Trust and governance in Codomyrmex is implemented at `src/codomyrmex/security/governance/`:

| Component | Factory Analogy | Responsibility |
|-----------|----------------|----------------|
| **TrustManager** | Badge office and certification authority | Trust tier assignment, promotion, demotion, revocation |
| **PolicyEngine** | Factory rulebook and safety procedures | Rule evaluation, conflict resolution, decision logging |
| **ContractManager** | HR and legal department | Contract lifecycle management, permission scoping, expiration enforcement |
| **DisputeResolver** | Grievance committee | Challenge intake, evidence collection, adjudication workflow |
| **ComplianceTracker** | Compliance officer with the audit binder | Framework mapping, evidence collection, gap analysis, remediation tracking |
| **AuditGuardian** | Tamper-evident shift log system | Audit trail integrity, retention, chain of custody |

## From Factory Floor to Code

The factory safety committee and the Codomyrmex governance layer solve the same fundamental problem: *how do you ensure that rules are followed consistently, fairly, and traceably across a complex organization?* Individual controls -- locks, interlocks, training -- are necessary but not sufficient. Without governance, controls decay: locks are left unlocked for convenience, interlocks are bypassed to meet production deadlines, training slides out of date.

Governance is the immune system of a security program. It does not fight individual threats directly, but it ensures that every other defense operates as designed, adapts to new threats, and heals after incidents.

## Cross-References

- Technical implementation details: [`docs/modules/security/`](../modules/security/) (governance components are documented within the broader security module)
- Security philosophy and index: [index.md](index.md)
- PAI trust integration: The `/codomyrmexTrust` workflow bridges this governance model with PAI agent trust -- see [`docs/modules/security/PAI.md`](../modules/security/PAI.md)
- Cognitive security (governance supports training and culture): [cognitive-security.md](cognitive-security.md)
