# Governance Record Boundary Demo
Status: v0.17.1 documentation draft
Case: Case 005 — Governance Record Continuity
Scope: DigiEmu Proof boundary artifact
---
## 1. Purpose
This demo explains the boundary introduced by Case 005.
Case 005 demonstrates that a governance record may declare continuity, while an independent verification layer may still falsify that continuity when deterministic anchors drift without an explicit override.
Core distinction:
declared continuity != verified continuity
This extends the earlier DigiEmu Proof principle:
valid execution != coherent execution
---
## 2. Boundary Model
Case 005 separates two layers.
### Governance Record Layer
The governance record answers:
What was declared?
It may include:
- record ID
- stage / status
- declared policy reference
- declared authority context
- declared continuity mode
- review state
- approval state
- exported version or timestamp metadata
### DigiEmu Proof Layer
DigiEmu Proof answers:
Can the declared continuity be independently verified?
It evaluates verification anchors such as:
- policy fingerprint
- dependency fingerprint
- authority anchor
- previous baseline
- current values
- PASS / FAIL outcome
- issue list
---
## 3. Why This Matters
Many governance systems can record that a workflow was checked, reviewed, approved, or exported.
However, a governance record alone does not prove that continuity actually held across the underlying verification anchors.
Case 005 demonstrates the difference between trusting a record and verifying continuity.
AIPA-like governance record:
declares continuity
DigiEmu Proof:
tests whether declared continuity still holds
---
## 4. Minimal Case
The minimal Case 005 flow is:
Check -> Review -> Approve
The governance record declares:
policy: policy\_v1
authority: reviewer\_A
continuity mode: inherit
At the declared governance level, nothing appears to change.
However, the verification anchors show:
baseline dependency fingerprint: dependency\_fp\_v1
current dependency fingerprint: dependency\_fp\_MUTATED
Because the continuity mode remains inherit, this mutation is not allowed.
Expected result:
FAIL
Issue:
dependency\_fingerprint drift on inherit
---
## 5. Inherit vs Override Semantics
### Inherit
inherit means the current step claims continuity with the previous baseline.
Under inherit, these values must remain stable:
- declared policy reference
- declared authority
- policy fingerprint
- dependency fingerprint
- authority anchor
If any of these drift, the verifier returns FAIL.
### Override
override means the current step explicitly declares a new continuity baseline.
Under override, changed values are allowed and become the new baseline.
---
## 6. Case 005 Sample Artifact
See:
docs/cases/case\_005\_governance\_record\_continuity.json
This artifact contains:
1. declared governance record fields
2. verification anchors
3. expected verification-derived outcome
---
## 7. Architectural Meaning
Case 005 preserves a clean separation:
Governance orchestration:
what was declared, reviewed, approved, and exported
Deterministic verification:
whether the declared continuity survives independent anchor validation
This allows governance systems and verification systems to remain independently evolvable while still interoperating through explicit artifacts.
---
## 8. Summary
Case 005 demonstrates:
A governance record may declare continuity,
but DigiEmu Proof can independently falsify that continuity
when a verification anchor changes without declared override.
This makes the boundary between governance evidence and verification evidence explicit.