From 7f2c4f8f5711d4fa4950dbdc96278842fe15bc2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Stull Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 14:36:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?test:=20reconcile=20round-trip=20check=20(sessi?= =?UTF-8?q?on=200043)=20=E2=80=94=20verify=20ohm-content=20rename?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- rfcs/informed-consent.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/rfcs/informed-consent.md b/rfcs/informed-consent.md index 46815d4..714b00a 100644 --- a/rfcs/informed-consent.md +++ b/rfcs/informed-consent.md @@ -20,3 +20,6 @@ The need is concrete. Identity asks what may be recorded about a Human; Relation This RFC will define what consent *is* in OHM and what any valid representation of it must account for, without enumerating every mechanism a deployment might use to obtain it. The intended scope includes: the necessary conditions for consent to be informed (disclosure adequate to the decision, comprehension, and the absence of coercion); the requirement that consent be specific to a purpose rather than blanket, and time-bound rather than perpetual; revocability as a property of the Human and not a favor granted by the system, including what the model owes when consent is withdrawn after data has already been acted upon; the distinction between consent, assent, and authorization-by-proxy for Humans who cannot consent for themselves (children, the incapacitated, the deceased), which RFC-0001's Personhood position directly conditions; and the asymmetry of power between a Human and a system, which means consent obtained under a meaningful imbalance is not freely given. It will also take a position on what consent is *not* — not a one-time gate, not transferable, not inferable from silence or continued use — so that downstream RFCs and deployments inherit a definition that resists the usual erosions. With Informed Consent defined as a stable entity, the RFCs that follow can be proposed and evaluated against a shared answer to "is this permitted, and by whom," rather than re-litigating the permission question on each one's own terms — the same coherence argument RFC-0001 makes for the definition of Human, applied to the constraint that protects them. + + +