Add Identity and Relationality RFC super-drafts

Expand RFC-0001 §Identity and §Relationality into proposed super-drafts. Identity: persona, linkability/selective disclosure, plural-presentation but singular-standing. Relationality: the flow, contextual integrity, per-edge asymmetric consent. Both depend on Informed Consent; neither graduated.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

rfcs/addressability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+slug: addressability
+title: Durable Addressability
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-03'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+An address is the public path a Human reaches a thing at — a product's URL — and once it has been shared, linked, or indexed it becomes a durable promise rather than a disposable string. This RFC defines Durable Addressability so that changing the address of a published thing preserves the old path by redirect, rather than silently breaking every inbound link, bookmark, and citation that trusted it. It applies No Retroactive Harm to the namespace and supports Exit & Portability, treating reachability as something owed to the people on the other end of a link, not a convenience the platform may revoke.

rfcs/identity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+slug: identity
+title: Identity
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-12'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+arbiters: []
+tags: []
+---
+
+RFC-0001 (Human) establishes Identity as one of the five foundational properties of a Human and names it among the words still to be defined. It also leaves three of its hardest questions open: how to represent the same Human across different contexts without flattening them into a single canonical profile, what the relationship is between a Human and their digital representations or proxies, and how self-claimed identity is weighted against the identity the world ascribes. This RFC takes up Identity as that specification. It does not reopen what RFC-0001 already settled — that a Human carries a persistent sense of self that is internal and external, plural, claimed-and-ascribed, and continuous through change — it specifies how a system may *represent and reference* that self without betraying it. Where the sibling RFC, Relationality, governs what may be shared *between* Humans, Identity governs what may be recorded *about* one.
+
+The central move is to separate three things that systems routinely conflate: the Human's identity, the identifiers that reference it, and the personas through which it is presented. RFC-0001 already holds that a legal name, a username, or a government ID is *attached to* identity but is not identity — these are how particular systems point at a Human. This RFC adds the layer between identifier and identity: the **persona**, a curated, partial, context-and-audience-specific presentation of the one identity. A single Human has a single identity and may wear many personas — the maker and the buyer, the public voice and the private correspondent, the professional and the kin — without thereby being many Humans and without holding many identities. RFC-0001's commitment that "the model must not collapse this plurality into a single canonical profile, nor treat contextual variation as inconsistency" is the floor; the persona is the construct that honors it. A persona is a presentation *of* the one plural identity, not a fragment that competes with it.
+
+If identity is plural and presented through many personas, the question that decides whether the model protects a Human or exposes them is **linkability**: whether two personas can be recognized as belonging to the same Human. This RFC takes the position that linkability is not a system default but a disclosure the Human holds authority over — Epistemic Authority and Informed Consent applied to identity itself. The default, inherited from Privacy & Data Minimization, runs toward *un*linkability: a system should not silently correlate a Human's personas, and should record only the identifiers an interaction genuinely requires. Linking two personas — letting an audience that knows a Human in one context recognize them in another — is a specific, purpose-bound, revocable act of consent, never a convenience the platform may assume. This is what lets a single Human be private in one relationship and recognized in another without contradiction, and it is the property on which every downstream claim of cross-context privacy or sovereignty ultimately rests.
+
+The plurality of personas must not, however, become a route to multiplying a Human's standing. A persona is a face, not a separate source of authority. A Human cannot use plural presentation to fabricate independent endorsement of themselves, to escape under a second persona the accountability earned under a first, or to count once-per-Human trust more than once. This RFC therefore distinguishes what attaches to a *persona* — presentation, context-specific reputation, audience-specific visibility — from what attaches to the *Human* beneath it: singular standing, accountability across personas, and the limit that trust extended to "a Human" cannot be inflated by spawning more personas. How that limit is enforced in a given deployment — verification, staking, Sybil-resistance — is downstream (Reputation, Trust & Safety). What this RFC fixes is that the limit exists and where it binds: presentation is plural; standing is singular.
+
+Identity is both self-claimed and world-ascribed, and the two do not carry equal weight. Where a Human asserts who they are — their name, their pronouns, which personas are theirs, how they wish to be addressed — that self-claim carries the distinctive epistemic weight RFC-0001 assigns to self-knowledge, and the model treats it as primary. Identity the world *ascribes* — categories assigned by institutions, inferences drawn by systems, the recognition or misrecognition of others — is secondary, must be marked as such, and must be contestable: a Human needs a path to challenge an ascription a system has attached to them. This is the internal and external face of RFC-0001's Identity, given a rule of precedence: the internal face leads, and the model owes visibility and recourse wherever an external ascription overrides it.
+
+This RFC builds directly on RFC-0001 (Human) and is the sibling of Relationality. It depends on Informed Consent (the permission account for what is recorded and for any linkage across personas), Privacy & Data Minimization (the default toward minimal identifiers and unlinkability), and Epistemic Authority (the primacy of self-claim). It conditions Participants (a role — Customer, Merchant, Operator — is one kind of context a persona is worn in), Reputation (which attaches per-persona but can never exceed the Human beneath it), Durable Addressability (the stable path a persona is reached at, preserved across change), and Exit & Portability (a Human's standing to take their identity and personas with them when they leave). It does not settle the identity of non-human entities, which their own RFC addresses, though it must eventually say how a Human's proxies and agents present on the Human's behalf.
+
+Identity, in OHM, is therefore not the set of identifiers a system holds, not an account, not a single canonical profile, and not a license to treat a Human's several personas as several Humans. Open questions this RFC will have to resolve as it graduates: how much linkage across personas is the Human's to control versus legitimately ascribed by others (a creditor, a court, or a safety system may have standing to link where the Human would not consent); how per-persona reputation composes when personas are later, consensually, linked; how a persona is handled after the Human's death, or when a proxy presents for a Human who cannot consent for themselves (conditioned by RFC-0001's Personhood position); how identifiers may rotate while preserving continuity of identity (in concert with Durable Addressability); and what the minimum viable identity is for a given interaction, degrading gracefully when less is known — RFC-0001's open question, inherited here and made sharper by the persona.

rfcs/non-extraction.md

@@ -1,19 +1,21 @@
 ---
 slug: non-extraction
 title: Non-Extraction
-state: super-draft
-id: null
+state: active
+id: RFC-0005
 repo: null
 proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
-graduated_at: null
-graduated_by: null
+graduated_at: '2026-06-04'
+graduated_by: ben.stull
 owners:
 - ben.stull
-arbiters: []
+arbiters:
+- ben.stull
 tags:
 - ethics
 ---
 
 A platform may need to capture value to survive, but the moment it sustains itself by extracting from the very Humans it serves, it has betrayed them. This RFC defines Non-Extraction as the structural commitment that separates this platform from the Shopify-style model of referral fees, payment markups, and sponsored placement. It is the load-bearing claim behind 'better for owners and customers,' and it makes that claim checkable rather than rhetorical.
 
+

rfcs/reference-pricing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+slug: reference-pricing
+title: Reference Pricing
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-03'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+A reference price is any comparison a listing shows against its current selling price — a struck-through "was" price, a "compare at", an implied discount — and it is a factual claim about the past, not a persuasion device. This RFC defines Reference Pricing so that a displayed former or comparison price must reflect a genuine prior selling price for that good, never a fabricated anchor invented to manufacture the appearance of a discount. It refines Price and applies Wise Speech in Commerce and Agency & Anti-Manipulation to one specific deception — inventing the "before" in order to sell the "after" — and so protects a Human's ability to judge a deal on true information.

rfcs/relationality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+slug: relationality
+title: Relationality
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-12'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+arbiters: []
+tags: []
+---
+
+RFC-0001 (Human) establishes Relationality as one of the five foundational properties of a Human — there is no Human that exists outside of relationship — and names it among the words still to be defined. It fixes four commitments this RFC must build on: that a Human is shaped by relationship; that relationships are of many kinds and resist a single canonical type; that relationships are asymmetric, so that two parties experience the same relationship differently and the model must not collapse it into a single shared object; and that Relationality is the medium of consent, since most of what a Human consents to, they consent to in relationship. Where the sibling RFC, Identity, governs what may be recorded *about* a Human, Relationality governs what may be shared *between* Humans — and between Humans and the systems and agents that act within those relationships.
+
+The unit Relationality governs is the **flow**: a movement of information, recognition, or presentation from one party to another across a specific relationship. This RFC's central position is that a flow is governed by the norms of the relationship it occurs in, not by a global permission. Information a Human shares appropriately in one relationship — a purchase history with a merchant they chose, a confidence with a friend, a medical fact with a clinician — is not thereby available to flow into another; carrying it across contexts is a distinct act that the receiving context's norms must independently justify. A system that models consent as a single share / do-not-share switch, rather than as a property of each flow in its context, has already discarded the thing Relationality exists to protect. Appropriateness is contextual: the same disclosure that is ordinary in one relationship is a violation in another, and the difference is the relationship, not the data.
+
+Because a relationship is not a single shared object, a flow is directional and per-edge. What A discloses to B is consented and scoped from A's side, for A's purpose, within A's relationship to B; B's reciprocal view, and anything B would carry onward, are their own flows under their own consent. The model must not represent a relationship as one mutual record both parties equally own, because that erases whose disclosure it was and whose authority governs it. This matters most where a relationship *produces* data — a transaction, a conversation, a shared history — over which each party holds a real but partial claim; the model must keep those claims distinct rather than dissolving them into common property that either party may treat as wholly theirs.
+
+The question Identity calls linkability appears here as **recognition across relationships**: whether a Human known in one relationship is recognized as the same Human in another. Seen from the relational side, recognition is itself a flow — it carries a Human's presence from one context into a second — and is therefore governed by the same contextual norms and the same purpose-bound, revocable consent as any other flow. A Human may be recognized across two relationships they consent to bridge and remain unrecognized across two they do not, without inconsistency. The cross-context recognition that produces belonging, continuity, and earned trust between Humans is valuable precisely because it is consented; the identical mechanism, unconsented, is surveillance. The model must make the two distinguishable, and must put the choice between them with the Human.
+
+RFC-0001 holds that Relationality is the medium of consent, and this RFC makes the dependency explicit: consent to a flow inherits Informed Consent's conditions — specific to a purpose, time-bound rather than perpetual, and revocable as a property of the Human rather than a favor of the system. Revocation raises the hardest relational question, which this RFC must answer rather than dodge: what is owed when a Human withdraws consent to a flow after information has already moved and been acted upon, including where it has propagated transitively — A shared to B, B relied on it, C now depends on B's reliance. The model owes at least that revocation reach forward to halt further flow, and that data already propagated be addressed rather than treated as permanently surrendered the instant it was first shared. What more is owed — recall, deletion, correction, or only cessation — is the question graduation must settle.
+
+Relationality extends beyond the human. RFC-0001 holds that Humans are in relationship not only with other Humans but with communities, institutions, the non-human world, and the systems that mediate all of these. An agent acting on a Human's behalf is a relational participant, not a neutral pipe: what it may carry between Humans, and what it may be told about a Human in order to act, are relational flows governed here — in concert with Agency, which governs what may be done on a Human's behalf, and with the RFC on non-human entities. A relationship mediated by a machine does not shed its norms because a machine stands in the middle; the machine inherits them.
+
+This RFC builds on RFC-0001 (Human), is the sibling of Identity, and depends on Informed Consent and Privacy & Data Minimization for the permission and the default-minimization each flow is judged against, and on Epistemic Authority for whose account of a relationship leads where the parties disagree. It conditions Participants (Customer, Merchant, and Operator are relational positions carrying built-in asymmetries of power), Reputation (vouching and endorsement are relational flows, and reputation moves across relationships), Trust & Safety, and Recourse & Dispute (a contested flow needs a path to remedy). Relationality is not a single shared object the platform owns, not a global consent flag, and not a license to move what was shared in one context into another. Open questions it will have to resolve as it graduates: how a flow's scope and purpose are represented so that a machine can honor them; how a contextual-integrity violation is detected and adjudicated; how joint data with competing claims is governed; how far revocation can reach over data already propagated; and how transitive flows are bounded, so that consent granted in one relationship does not silently authorize a chain of others.

rfcs/trust-safety.md

@@ -1,19 +1,21 @@
 ---
 slug: trust-safety
 title: Trust & Safety / Harm Prevention
-state: super-draft
-id: null
+state: active
+id: RFC-0004
 repo: null
 proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
-graduated_at: null
-graduated_by: null
+graduated_at: '2026-06-04'
+graduated_by: ben.stull
 owners:
 - ben.stull
-arbiters: []
+arbiters:
+- ben.stull
 tags:
 - commerce
 ---
 
 A marketplace that admits any seller and any good is not neutral; it is negligent toward the Humans it exposes to fraud and danger. This RFC defines who may sell and what may be sold — prohibited, dangerous, and counterfeit goods, and scam prevention — as a duty of harm prevention distinct from after-the-fact recourse. It protects buyers and honest merchants alike.
 
+

rfcs/wise-speech-commerce.md

@@ -1,19 +1,21 @@
 ---
 slug: wise-speech-commerce
 title: Wise Speech in Commerce
-state: super-draft
-id: null
+state: active
+id: RFC-0006
 repo: null
 proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
-graduated_at: null
-graduated_by: null
+graduated_at: '2026-06-04'
+graduated_by: ben.stull
 owners:
 - ben.stull
-arbiters: []
+arbiters:
+- ben.stull
 tags:
 - ethics
 ---
 
 Listings, prices, and reviews are speech the platform either keeps honest or lets deceive. This RFC applies OHM's foundational Wise Speech value to commerce: descriptions that are truthful, prices that do not mislead, and a platform that does not amplify deceptive speech for its own gain. It protects a Human's ability to choose on the basis of true information.
 
+