LUMINA-30 Incident Review / L30-FRM-S01

Stabilization Checklist HTML Guide

A reader-facing HTML guide for the S01 practical form. The working record remains the DOCX/PDF form.

Purpose

L30-FRM-S01 is used after an incident, near-incident, boundary concern, or return-to-reversibility review when the immediate task is to stabilize the situation without normalizing the same irreversible path.

This HTML page is not a replacement for the working form. It explains when to use the form, what evidence to preserve, and what must not be treated as recovered merely because activity has resumed.

Use the working form

Minimum stabilization sequence

StepReview focusRecord before moving on
1. Freeze the pathStop or suspend the route that may produce irreversible consequences.Who stopped it, when, and what execution path was frozen.
2. Preserve evidenceKeep logs, prompts, outputs, operator decisions, alerts, model/tool versions, and timing records.Evidence location, custodian, hash/version notes where available.
3. Preserve refusalConfirm that a living human reviewer can still refuse, halt, escalate, or require rollback before re-entry.Named role, refusal authority, escalation path, and unresolved constraints.
4. Prevent same-path returnDo not resume through the same route until the boundary concern has been reviewed.Changed condition, review finding, and re-entry restriction.
5. Re-enter under controlResume only with scoped authority, monitored execution, and a clear stop condition.Scope, monitoring, rollback condition, and next review date.

What this form is not

This guide and the S01 form do not certify safety, authorize deployment, provide legal permission, prove institutional adoption, or show that effective refusal occurred. They provide structured fields for stabilization, evidence preservation, and later review under LUMINA-30.

Relationship to LUMINA-30

S01 supports return-to-reversibility practice. It does not relax the LUMINA-30 boundary requirement: effective human refusal must remain possible before irreversible consequences occur. If refusal evidence is absent, the process should not be treated as procedurally valid merely because the system appears stable.