Framework Architecture (Primordial Calculus — Canonical)
H + I → Fidelity (F)
Honesty + Integrity → document accuracy, factual alignment, no fabrication or omission
R + I → Cohesion (C)
Respect + Integrity → cross-source consistency, dignity preservation, rights integrity
F + C → Resonance (Rn)
Overall due-process integrity signal. OAM pressure load subtracts from net Rn.
How to use this instrument: For each document type, rate its HIR dimensions (H, I, R) on a 0–1 scale using the diagnostic questions as guides. Then flag any present OAM pressure conditions. The instrument computes Fidelity (F), Cohesion (C), and Resonance (Rn) per document and overall, weights them against OAM degradation load, and surfaces specific human-review flags. This is a coherence-check, not a verdict. A low score means "review warranted" — not guilt, not liability, not legal finding.
Document Integrity Assessment — HIR Scoring
Warrant
Probable cause documentation · Judicial authorization · Scope integrity
F = — | C = —
H Honesty
Does the warrant accurately describe probable cause using verifiable, specific facts — no fabricated, embellished, or copy-pasted assertions?
0.70
H
I Integrity
Is the warrant procedurally complete — signed by authorized judge, properly dated, specific in scope, not overbroad or rubber-stamped?
0.70
I
R Respect
Does the warrant properly limit intrusion on the person's rights, dignity, and property — scoped to need, not used as pretext for broad search?
0.70
R
Warrant integrity note: In the HIR model, a degraded warrant is a Fidelity (H+I) failure — the state is asserting facts it cannot honestly or procedurally sustain. Low Respect (R) here maps to OAM variable M (coercive enforcement) — warrant as instrument of pressure rather than truthful authorization.
Police Report
Narrative accuracy · Internal consistency · Dignity of account
F = — | C = —
H Honesty
Is the narrative consistent with available corroborating evidence — no selective omissions, fabricated details, or reframing that distorts sequence of events?
0.70
H
I Integrity
Is the officer account internally consistent across timeline, physical description, and sequence — and consistent with the bodycam and other documentation?
0.70
I
R Respect
Is the subject described without dehumanizing, racializing, or prejudicial language — framed as a person with rights, not pre-convicted by the narrative?
0.70
R
Report integrity note: A degraded police report is a Fidelity failure when H is low (dishonest narrative) and a Cohesion failure when I is low (internal contradictions). Low R here activates OAM variable R_sat (dogmatic/presumptive guilt saturation) — the report function has become a conviction instrument rather than a factual record.
Bodycam / Recording
Footage integrity · Protocol compliance · Cross-document alignment
F = — | C = —
H Honesty
Does the footage content align with the written narrative in the police report — no material discrepancies in sequence, words used, or actions taken?
0.70
H
I Integrity
Was recording activated per protocol — no unexplained gaps, late activation, or missing footage for critical encounter windows?
0.70
I
R Respect
Does the footage show dignified, rights-respecting treatment of the subject — no unrecorded coercion, threats, or procedural violations in visible conduct?
0.70
R
Bodycam integrity note: Bodycam discrepancies are a direct Cohesion failure — the cross-source structure (C = f(R,I)) breaks when footage and report diverge. Low I here (protocol violation, gaps) is a high-severity flag because it introduces an unfillable epistemic void that forecloses honest review.
Evidence Chain
Completeness · Chain of custody · Rights compliance
F = — | C = —
H Honesty
Is all materially relevant evidence documented — including exculpatory evidence — with no selective presentation or suppression of contradicting items?
0.70
H
I Integrity
Is the chain of custody intact and fully documented — no unaccounted handling, contamination risk, or procedural custody gaps?
0.70
I
R Respect
Was evidence gathered in a manner that respected the person's rights and boundaries — no warrantless seizure, coerced consent, or constitutional overreach?
0.70
R
Evidence integrity note: Brady violations (suppressed exculpatory evidence) are a compound H + I failure and the most direct activation of OAM variable N (agency loss) — the accused person's ability to mount a defense is structurally amputated by documentation choices.
OAM Pressure Scan — Degradation Load Assessment
Outsourced Agency Model — Institutional Fault Detection
Flag any conditions currently present in this case's institutional context. OAM variables measure the outsourced-agency and coercive-degradation pressure acting against HIR integrity. Each flagged condition reduces the net Resonance (Rn) and elevates the human-review urgency. This is not a finding — it is a pressure map.
M — Coercive Enforcement Pressure
There is institutional or supervisory pressure to make an arrest, file charges, or proceed — regardless of documentation quality or evidence completeness.
K — Compliance Rigidity
The institution resists correcting documentation errors, acknowledging gaps, or revisiting officer accounts — treating the record as fixed rather than reviewable.
Ii — Institutional Penetration
Enforcement culture norms have penetrated the oversight or review function — reviewers are unable or unwilling to act independently of the filing institution.
N — Agency Loss (Subject)
The person affected cannot access, review, or contest their own documentation record — their agency in the process has been structurally removed or suppressed.
D — Accumulated Degradation
Multiple compounding discrepancies, gaps, or inconsistencies exist across documents — each individually explainable but collectively forming a pattern of degradation.
R_sat — Dogmatic / Presumptive-Guilt Saturation
The documentation or institutional framing operates from presumptive guilt — the record is constructed backward from a conclusion rather than built forward from facts.
Computed Integrity Scores — HIR Derivation
Fidelity (F = H + I) per document
Warrant
0.70
Police Report
0.70
Bodycam
0.70
Evidence
0.70
Cohesion (C = R + I) per document
Warrant
0.70
Police Report
0.70
Bodycam
0.70
Evidence
0.70
Net Due-Process Resonance (Rn) — after OAM pressure load
0.70
REVIEW RECOMMENDED
Human-Review Flags — Integrity Triggers
Active Flags
0 flags
Adjust the HIR sliders and OAM pressure flags above. Integrity triggers will appear here when conditions warrant human review.
Bounded Integrity Statement — For Human Review
Generated Integrity Assessment — Not a Legal Finding
Adjust the instrument above to generate a bounded integrity assessment for human review.
Framework provenance: This instrument derives from Primordial Calculus v1.0 (OSF Canonical Package), created and developed by Collin D. Weber. Core architecture: HIR (Honesty · Integrity · Respect) as regenerative bedrock triad producing Fidelity (F = H+I), Cohesion (C = R+I), and Resonance (Rn = F+C), recursively reinforced. OAM (Outsourced Agency Model) is the zero-tolerance hard-fault degradation model built after HIR. Variables M (coercive enforcement), K (compliance rigidity), Ii (institutional penetration), N (agency loss), D (accumulated degradation), and R_sat (dogmatic saturation) are drawn directly from the canonical OAM variable set. Application to pre-carceral due-process context is a derived use of the framework.