Responsibility Assignment Sheet

Status

This sheet is a template for assigning responsibility before optimization pressure creates irreversible or practically irreversible consequences.

It is not a legal form and does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism.

It is intended to prevent responsibility for friction design, operation, evidence preservation, verification, and correction from remaining undefined.

This document does not modify LUMINA-30 Core Terminology or create new binding obligations.

1. Case Identification

Item	Entry
Case name
Domain
Reviewing organization or actor
Date
Optimization pressure being reviewed
Deployment or decision under review

2. Scope Trigger

Question	Yes / No / Unknown	Notes
Is there optimization pressure?
Could human refusal, correction, transition, recovery, or re-entry be compressed?
Could consequences become irreversible or practically irreversible?
Could responsibility remain undefined or bypassable?
Does the case require LUMINA-30 boundary review?

3. Irreversibility Classification

Type	Applies?	Evidence or concern
Technical irreversibility
Social irreversibility
Occupational irreversibility
Institutional irreversibility
Economic irreversibility
Informational irreversibility
Authority irreversibility
Recovery irreversibility

4. Boundary Point

Boundary question	Entry
What becomes irreversible?
Who may lose effective refusal or recovery capacity?
What is the last practical point for refusal or correction?
What evidence must exist before that point?
What would count as boundary failure?

5. Responsibility Assignment

Responsibility	Assigned actor	Evidence of assignment	Missing?
Boundary classification
Friction design
Operation
Evidence preservation
Verification
Correction or redesign
Public or institutional accountability

No-Owner Check

If any required responsibility remains unassigned, the boundary condition is not adequately preserved.

6. Symmetric Friction Check

Question	Yes / No / Unknown	Notes
Would responsible actors be competitively disadvantaged if they preserve refusal?
Is friction located at a shared layer such as procurement, audit, insurance, certification, standard, regulation, or market access?
Are competitors subject to equivalent boundary responsibility?
Could actors externalize displacement, recovery, or transition costs?
Is the friction proportionate to irreversibility risk?

7. Anti-Bypass Check

Possible bypass	Risk present?	Required evidence or control
Restructuring
Outsourcing
Entity replacement
Delayed deployment
Jurisdictional relocation
Technical opacity
Procedural formalism
Market pressure
Responsibility transfer without evidence preservation

8. Evidence Before Voice Loss

Evidence type	Preserved?	Location or custodian
Notice before irreversible effect
Record of affected humans or institutions
Record of refusal or review opportunity
Record of transition, recovery, or re-entry pathway
Record of responsible actors
Record of verification
Public or institutional accountability record

9. Proportionality Level

Level	Condition	Selected
Light	Reversible, limited, optional, recoverable
Moderate	Affects a defined group or institutional process
High	May eliminate refusal, transition, recovery, or re-entry
Critical	Wide-scale, infrastructure-level, authority-level, or civilizational boundary risk

10. Review Result

Result	Meaning	Selected
Boundary condition preserved	Responsibility assigned, evidence preserved, friction effective and proportionate
Boundary risk present	One or more responsibility, evidence, symmetry, or anti-bypass issues remain unresolved
Boundary condition not preserved	Effective refusal, correction, transition, recovery, or re-entry is not practically available before irreversibility
Insufficient evidence	The evidence required to determine effectiveness is missing

11. Required Correction Before Lock-In

Required correction	Responsible actor	Deadline or boundary point	Evidence required

Summary Statement

Write a short conclusion.

This case [does / does not / cannot yet be shown to] preserve the LUMINA-30 boundary condition because: