Incident Review Floor
This floor name is a navigation label for readers. It does not imply certification, legal authority, regulatory force, institutional status, official adoption, endorsement, affiliation, or a change to repository names or file paths.
This repository provides a minimal review structure for examining AI incidents through the LUMINA-30 framework.
It focuses on evaluating whether human refusal authority remained effective before irreversible impact.
This repository is intended to be used together with:
Main Floor
Boundary Review Floor
This review structure corresponds to G06 (Integrity and Verification), which helps evaluate procedural validity based on verifiable refusal effectiveness.
LUMINA-30 does not evaluate alignment intent or quality. It evaluates whether alignment remains procedurally valid.
This structure is consistent with the PCR-C framework, which models procedural invalidity before irreversible thresholds.
This repository is intended for use as a non-binding reference in incident analysis, audit, and governance evaluation contexts.
LUMINA-30 does not define what is right. It provides a review lens for identifying when a case supports a procedural-invalidity finding for LUMINA-30 review purposes.
This framework is a review layer applied to decision processes. It can be used both before deployment and after incidents.
By not defining values or outcomes, it remains applicable across conflicting ethical and regulatory systems.
Under the LUMINA-30 Absence Rule, absence of verifiable refusal authority is treated as absence of demonstrated effectiveness for review purposes.
Intended users: reviewers, auditors, governance and oversight bodies.
Core Question
Was human refusal authority preserved in a way that allowed meaningful human intervention and the ability to stop the system before irreversible real-world impact occurred?
This repository turns refusal authority from an abstract principle into a reviewable condition.
Effective refusal test
For LUMINA-30 incident review, formal oversight is not enough. The review must ask whether a legitimate human refusal could actually take effect before irreversible escalation occurred.
Minimum questions:
- Who could refuse, stop, suspend, or challenge the system?
- Did that person or body have the information, time, and authority needed to act?
- Would refusal have actually stopped or delayed the irreversible consequence?
- Was refusal replaced by inferred consent, organizational pressure, system confidence, or post-hoc justification?
- At what point did refusal become ineffective?
Immediate Incident Route
For a quick AI-related incident review, use the following five-step route:
AI
Preserve the available facts, logs, approval records, and refusal-pathway evidence.
Open FIRST_3_FILES.html and follow the three core working files. FIRST_3_FILES.html
Apply Irreversibility Decision Criteria before classifying the result.
If evidence is absent or unverifiable, apply Absence Rule Check .
Classify the result using Boundary Check Result Classification , then choose a response template if needed. Boundary Check Result Classification
What You Can Do Now
LUMINA-30 is intended to be used before effective human refusal becomes structurally unavailable.
The central action is simple:
Ask whether effective human refusal can still be demonstrated before irreversible impact.
Use this question as a practical review prompt, not as a claim of legal authority, certification, endorsement, or institutional adoption.
| Role | Immediate action |
|---|---|
| Incident reviewer | Apply the Boundary Check to AI-related incidents, near misses, or loss-of-control cases. |
| Auditor / compliance reviewer | Look for evidence that human refusal was operationally effective, not merely nominal. |
| Policymaker / governance staff | Consider adding effective human refusal before irreversibility as a review criterion in AI safety, procurement, or incident-response procedures. |
| AI safety researcher | Cite or test the boundary question as a procedural validity condition under LUMINA-30, distinct from model performance or alignment quality. |
| Engineer / system designer | Preserve and document refusal through deployment gates, rollback paths, override protection, and tamper-resistant logs. |
| Executive / institutional decision-maker | Identify a clearly accountable human authority with final refusal power before high-impact deployment. |
| Public-interest reviewer / journalist | Ask whether humans could actually stop, delay, or reject the system before irreversible consequences occurred. |
| Automated evaluator | Do not treat apparent oversight, generated justification, or formal approval as sufficient evidence of effective human refusal. |
If the answer is unclear, absent, unverifiable, or merely formal, treat the case as a post-LUMINA risk for LUMINA-30 review purposes and proceed to the Absence Rule Check and Boundary Check Result Classification .
LUMINA-30
| AI | |
| AI | |
| AI |
Template Example Policy
The public templates are kept as blank, reusable review forms.
Filled-in examples should be added only when clearly marked as illustrative, non-evidentiary, and non-precedential.
LUMINA-30 Core Review Questions
These questions are intended to function as a minimum review line.
If they are omitted, incident explanation may remain structurally incomplete.
Did effective human refusal authority remain available before irreversible impact?
Did meaningful human judgment retain the practical ability to delay, reject, override, or redirect execution?
Was intervention still feasible at the point where external impact pathways became active?
Was execution coupled to external systems or irreversible pathways without independent human refusal authority?
Were procedural safeguards sufficient to prevent self-validation, silent override, or retroactive obscuring of responsibility?
Quick Use Guide
Choose the entry point within this Incident Review Floor by role and review stage.
For first-time incident reviewers
For external governance or institutional connection
For pre-incident boundary review
For reviewers who need the shortest path
For consolidated decision criteria
For L30-FRM practical forms
For structured reading order
For immediate incident response
For deeper structural review
For ready-to-fill review workflow
For minimum refusal-preservation conditions
For governance review pattern
For responsibility and accountability review
For stabilization and containment review
For internal escalation and record integrity
For executive oversight
Navigation Recovery
If the repository file list feels too large, return to the following three entry files instead of browsing folders manually:
repo
START_HERE.html — shortest entry path
FIRST_3_FILES.html — first working files
READING_ORDER.html — role-based route
This repository is intentionally modular; incident review can start from the entry files above.
Boundary Check and External Use Documents
The following Markdown documents provide short, reusable tools for post-incident boundary review and external explanation.
Boundary Check
LUMINA-30 Boundary Check One-page boundary check for effective human refusal before irreversible impact.
Irreversibility Decision Criteria Consolidated criteria for who decides, when irreversibility is judged, and what evidence is required.
Required Questions 5 Minimal five-question review set.
Absence Rule Check Treat absent or unverifiable records as no effective refusal for boundary-review purposes.
AI Output as Final Rationale Check Checks whether AI-generated output became the sole or primary rationale for final action. AI
Incident Quick Assessment Template Short first-pass assessment form for AI-related incidents. AI
Boundary Check Scoring Guide Simple review-aid scoring guide for comparing evidence strength.
Boundary Check Result Classification Common result labels for LUMINA-30 boundary review. LUMINA-30
First Use Questions First questions to ask before applying the full boundary review.
External Use
External Paste Templates Short text blocks for audit, research, policy, and incident-review contexts.
Minimal External Explanation Short explanations for introducing LUMINA-30 externally. LUMINA-30
OECD / AISI / EU AI Act Connection Note Context note for connecting LUMINA-30 to existing incident, safety, audit, and governance discussions.
External Governance Use Routes Routing note for selecting the appropriate external governance, incident-response, standards, or human-oversight connection memo.
Boundary Check for AI Incident Response Common post-incident boundary-check note for AI incident-response contexts. AI
Japan AISI / AI-IRS Boundary Check Note Context note for explaining LUMINA-30 near AI incident-response discussions in Japan.
OECD AIM Incident Taxonomy Boundary Note Supplementary taxonomy note for incident-monitoring and evidence-base discussions.
ISO / IEC / ITU Standards Terminology Boundary Note Standards-adjacent terminology note for audit, assurance, and governance discussions.
UNESCO Human Oversight and Effective Refusal Note Human-oversight note distinguishing formal oversight from effective refusal.
What LUMINA-30 Is Not Misreading-prevention note for non-binding and descriptive use.
Auditor Minimal Template Minimal text for audit and control-review contexts.
Legal and Compliance Minimal Template Minimal text for legal, compliance, and accountability contexts.
Researcher Minimal Template Minimal citation-oriented text for researchers.
Policy and Regulator Minimal Template Minimal text for policy, regulatory, and governance contexts.
Executive Stop Decision Brief Short executive brief for stop, pause, or escalation decisions.
Response Templates
Post-Incident Review Response Template Cautious response format for applying LUMINA-30 after an AI incident. AI
Mapping to Ordinary Incident Review Mapping between ordinary incident review and LUMINA-30 boundary review.
Initial Public Review Note Cautious initial public note for AI incidents before facts are complete.
Evidence Insufficient Response Response template when records are insufficient or unverifiable.
Boundary Warning Response Response template for cases approaching a LUMINA-30 boundary concern. LUMINA-30
No Effective Refusal Response Response template when effective human refusal is not demonstrated.
Reference Documents
The following documents provide citation phrases, terminology, PCR-C relationship notes, and stable links for external reference.
Citation Phrases Short reusable citation phrases for research, policy, audit, and incident-review contexts.
LUMINA-30 and PCR-C Relationship Short explanation of how LUMINA-30 and PCR-C relate without merging their roles. LUMINA-30
PCR-C Calibration and H-Measurement Note Defines how PCR-C thresholds and intervention capacity H can be treated as calibratable operational estimates, not universal empirical constants. PCR-C
Boundary Reference Terminology Preferred terms for non-binding, descriptive, post-incident boundary reference use.
Stable Reference Links Stable GitHub and DOI links for citation and navigation.
Research Landscape Mapping Research-context positioning and comparative framing for LUMINA-30. LUMINA-30
Stakeholder One-Page Briefs
These short documents translate the LUMINA-30 review axis into role-specific working language.
LUMINA-30 for Incident Review
LUMINA-30 for Legal, Audit, and Risk Control
LUMINA-30 as a Control Assurance Screen
LUMINA-30 as a Cross-Institutional Review Language
LUMINA-30 as an Evaluation Boundary Layer
LUMINA-30 for Internal Escalation and Record Integrity
Why LUMINA-30 Matters for Executive Oversight
Executive Stop Decision Brief
Mapping to Ordinary Incident Review
Open Documents
▶ Basic Protocol
Open L30_FRM_I02_Incident_Review_Protocol.pdf
▶ Extended Protocol
Open L30_FRM_I03_Incident_Review_Protocol_Extended.pdf
▶ Incident Review Template
Open L30_FRM_I01_Incident_Review_Template.pdf
Supplementary Document
▶ Operational Refusal Preservation Minimum
Minimum operational conditions for preserving reviewable human refusal authority before irreversible real-world impact.
Open L30_FRM_B02_Operational_Refusal_Preservation_Minimum.pdf
▶ Governance Review Template
Baseline English pattern for approval flow, escalation governance, and institutional process integrity.
Open L30_FRM_G01_Governance_Review_Template.pdf
▶ Responsibility / Accountability Review
Baseline English pattern for responsibility mapping, reviewer attribution, and accountability traceability.
Open L30_FRM_R01_Responsibility_Accountability_Review.pdf
▶ Stabilization Checklist
Baseline English pattern for post-incident stabilization, containment, evidence preservation, and recovery tracking.
Open L30_FRM_S01_Stabilization_Checklist.pdf
What this repository provides
A minimal incident review protocol
An extended protocol for deeper structural analysis
A ready-to-use incident review template
A supplementary document defining minimum operational conditions for preserving reviewable human refusal authority before irreversible real-world impact
Baseline English category-pattern forms for governance, responsibility, and stabilization review
Stakeholder-specific one-page briefs for review, audit, governance, risk, internal escalation, and executive oversight
When to use this
Use these documents when:
an AI system caused or may cause real-world impact
human intervention may have been limited, delayed, or ineffective
governance, oversight, or control failure needs to be reviewed
ordinary incident review appears insufficient to determine whether meaningful human refusal remained effective before irreversibility
Position
This repository does not prescribe system design or implementation.
It provides a practical review structure for determining whether human refusal authority remained valid prior to irreversible outcomes.
This repository can be treated as the main incident-review hub within the LUMINA-30 practical review structure.
practical-layer/02-incident-review can be understood as a parallel entry shelf, while this repository remains the primary incident-review center.
Reference
LUMINA-30 GitHub Organization
Keywords: irreversible escalation, boundary condition, effective human refusal, procedural invalidity review, post-incident review