Propose: Cart & Order

On-behalf-of: Ben Stull <ben.stull>

rfcs/agencyantimanipulation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: agencyantimanipulation
+title: Agency & Anti-Manipulation
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- ethics
+---
+
+A Human's Agency is only real if the platform refrains from manipulating the choices it presents. This RFC draws the line between legitimate persuasion and manipulation — no dark patterns, no drip pricing, no manufactured urgency, no lock-in disguised as a reward — as a first-class commitment derived from RFC-0001's Agency. It is the most direct expression of building for humans rather than for extraction.
+

rfcs/cart-order.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: cart-order
+title: Cart & Order
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+An order is commonly modeled as the end of a conversion funnel; in OHM it is a mutual commitment between a buyer and a seller. This RFC defines Cart and Order as that commitment — what each party is promising the other — rather than as a metric to be maximized. It serves Relationality and grounds fulfillment, refunds, and disputes.
+

rfcs/commercial-relationship.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: commercial-relationship
+title: Commercial Relationship
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+Commerce in OHM begins not with a transaction but with a relationship between two Humans exchanging value, with the platform standing between them as a steward rather than a party that extracts. This RFC defines that relationship as the root commerce concept, so that Orders, Listings, and Payments are understood as moments within a human relationship rather than as isolated conversions. It serves Relationality and frames the platform's core duty as stewardship of the people on both sides of the exchange.
+

rfcs/dignitycommerce.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: dignitycommerce
+title: Dignity in Commerce
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- ethics
+---
+
+Buyers and merchants alike can be treated by a platform as means rather than as people — in collections, in disputes, in fees, in failure states. This RFC establishes the floor of Dignity below which no commerce mechanic may push any Human. It is the baseline that the other ethical concepts refine and that every mechanic must clear.
+

rfcs/dutyofcare.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: dutyofcare
+title: Duty of Care & Vulnerability
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- ethics
+---
+
+Some Humans are vulnerable — in financial distress, elderly, or minors — and the platform's money mechanics (stored value, breakage, balance-parking discounts) are exactly the ones that can prey on them. This RFC defines a duty of care toward vulnerability as a first-class commitment, so the sharpest edges of the credit model are watched rather than ignored. It serves Dignity and care, building on Agency and Dignity in Commerce.
+

rfcs/epistemicauthority.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: epistemicauthority
+title: Epistemic Authority
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- governance
+---
+
+When the system and a Human disagree about reality — did the payment settle, was the item as described, who is right in a dispute — whose account counts? This RFC applies OHM's commitment to the Human as the authority on their own life to commerce, including the deliberate, argued exceptions where a human claim is demoted (for example, 'shown is not settled' demotes a buyer's claim to have paid). Those exceptions must be principled and narrow, not a general license to override the person.
+

rfcs/flourishing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: flourishing
+title: Human Flourishing (The Optimization Target)
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- ethics
+---
+
+Every platform optimizes for something; when that target is left implicit it silently becomes engagement, GMV, or time-on-site, and the mechanics follow it into harm. This RFC makes the optimization target explicit and contestable: what does this platform actually steer toward for the Humans in it? It is the affirmative answer the other ethical concepts are in service of, and every ranking, default, and notification cadence should be traceable back to it.
+

rfcs/human.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ slug: human
 title: Human
 state: active
 id: RFC-0001
-repo: wiggleverse/rfc-0001-human
+repo: null
 proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 proposed_at: '2026-05-26'
 graduated_at: '2026-05-26'
@@ -14,3 +14,252 @@ arbiters:
 - ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 tags: []
 ---
+
+# RFC-0001: Human
+
+**Status:** Draft  
+**Author:** Ben Stull  
+**Created:** 2026-05-25  
+**Repository:** ohm-rfc
+
+---
+
+*Dedicated to Aaron Swartz (1986–2013) — who believed knowledge belongs to everyone, and paid dearly for it.*
+
+---
+
+## Abstract
+
+This RFC defines the `Human` — the foundational entity of the Open Human Model (OHM). OHM is the collection of RFCs in this repository, and every subsequent RFC builds, directly or indirectly, on the definition established here.
+
+The purpose of this RFC is not to enumerate every attribute a Human might have. It is to establish what a Human *is*, what properties any valid representation of a Human must account for, and the philosophical commitments that shape how subsequent RFCs may model human beings. It is the floor, not the ceiling.
+
+A Human, in OHM, is not a record, a profile, a user, or an account. A Human is a conscious, embodied agent with an interior life that exists in relationship and unfolds over time. The model must hold that complexity without flattening it.
+
+---
+
+## Motivation
+
+Most digital systems represent people poorly. A person becomes a row in a table — a username, an email address, a handful of preference flags — and the system proceeds as if that row is the person. It is not. The gap between the representation and the actual human being shapes how systems behave toward people, often badly.
+
+This is not only a technical problem. It is a problem of imagination. When we lack a richer model of what a Human is, we build systems that treat people as something less than they are. The systems then teach us, in turn, to treat each other that way.
+
+OHM proposes a different starting point. Before specifying how a Human's identity is encoded, or how their preferences are tracked, or how their consent is captured, we first need to be clear about what a Human is. That is what this RFC does.
+
+The definition is deliberately ambitious. It will be incomplete. It will be revised. But it sets a floor: any RFC that builds on this one must take seriously that a Human is more than a data structure.
+
+---
+
+## Definition: Human
+
+A **Human** is a conscious, embodied agent characterized by five foundational properties:
+
+- **Identity** — a persistent sense of self that exists across time and context
+- **Interiority** — an inner life including thoughts, emotions, values, and beliefs that are not fully externally observable
+- **Agency** — the capacity to make choices and take action in the world
+- **Relationality** — existence in relationship to other humans, systems, and environments
+- **Temporality** — a life that unfolds over time, with a past, present, and future
+
+These five properties are foundational. A valid `Human` in OHM must be understood to possess all five, even where specific attributes within those dimensions are unknown, unspecified, or unrepresented. Absence of data is not absence of the property.
+
+A Human is also, by definition, the foremost expert on their own life from the inside. No outside observer — human or system — stands closer to a Human's inner reality than the Human themselves. This self-expertise is constitutive of what a Human is, and it spans (at least):
+
+- **Experience** — what is happening to them and what it is like to live through
+- **Feelings** — what they feel, when, toward whom or what
+- **Body** — what it needs, what it can do, what hurts, what restores it
+- **Needs** — what is required for them to live, function, and be well
+- **Wants** — what they desire, prefer, are drawn toward, or hope for
+- **Values** — what matters to them and why
+- **Intentions** — what they are trying to do
+- **Meaning** — what their experiences, relationships, and life signify to them
+
+This list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The general claim is that the Human is the primary authority on their own life from within, and any outside account — human or systemic — speaks from a more distant vantage. This is not a claim of infallibility. Humans misremember, deceive themselves, and revise their self-understanding over time. The asymmetry is one of *proximity*, not perfection. The design implications of this self-expertise are developed in the cross-cutting commitment of *Epistemic Authority* below.
+
+The sections that follow expand on each property in turn, and then describe four cross-cutting commitments — Embodiment, Epistemic Authority, Whole-Brain Representation, and Dignity — that condition how the five properties may be modeled. The RFC then addresses Personhood: the question of when a Human comes into standing within OHM.
+
+### Identity
+
+Identity is the persistent sense of self that holds a Human together across time and context. It is what makes the person who answers an email this morning the same person who fell asleep last night, and the same person who, decades from now, will look back on both.
+
+In OHM, Identity is not reducible to identifiers. A legal name, a username, a government ID, a biometric signature — these are *attached* to identity, but they are not identity. They are how identity is referenced by particular systems. Identity itself is something the Human carries.
+
+Several properties of Identity are foundational to the model:
+
+Identity has both an internal and an external face. The internal face is the Human's own sense of who they are. The external face is the recognition (or misrecognition) of that identity by others — by other Humans, by institutions, by systems. The two are related but not identical, and the relationship between them is itself part of what the model must hold.
+
+Identity is **plural**. A single Human moves through many contexts — family, work, friendship, public life, private life — and may present differently in each without becoming a different person. The model must not collapse this plurality into a single canonical profile, nor treat contextual variation as inconsistency.
+
+Identity is **claimed and ascribed**. Some aspects of who a Human is are chosen and asserted by the Human themselves; other aspects are assigned to them by the world. The model must distinguish between the two, and must treat self-claimed identity as carrying distinctive weight (see *Epistemic Authority* below).
+
+Identity is **continuous through change**. A Human grows, learns, changes their mind, transforms. They are still themselves throughout. The model must accommodate change without treating it as identity loss.
+
+### Interiority
+
+Interiority is the inner life of a Human — the thoughts, emotions, values, beliefs, memories, intuitions, imaginings, and felt experiences that are not fully accessible from outside. It is the part of a Human that no observation can fully resolve.
+
+OHM treats Interiority as constitutive of what a Human is, not as an optional add-on. A model that captures only behavior, only stated preference, or only outwardly observable state is, by definition, an incomplete model of a Human.
+
+Several commitments follow.
+
+Interiority is **opaque by default**. The Human's inner life is theirs. It becomes available to others only to the extent the Human chooses to express it. The model must treat what is unsaid as legitimately unsaid, not as a gap to be filled by inference.
+
+Interiority is **mixed in kind**. A Human's inner life is not just a set of beliefs or a list of preferences. It includes emotion, intuition, ambivalence, contradiction, things that have no words yet, and things that may never be put into words. Future RFCs will need to model this diversity, not flatten it.
+
+Interiority is **partial even to the Human**. Humans are not fully transparent to themselves. They have unconscious motivations, unrecognized feelings, and shifting self-understanding. The model must accommodate self-uncertainty without treating it as data quality failure.
+
+Interiority is **the home of the felt**. Much of what matters most to a Human — love, grief, wonder, dread, joy — lives here, and resists clean structured representation. The model's job is not to flatten these into categories, but to make space for them.
+
+### Agency
+
+Agency is the capacity to make choices and take action in the world. It is what makes a Human something other than a thing the world happens to.
+
+In OHM, Agency is foundational but always **bounded**. No Human acts in a vacuum. Every choice happens within constraints — physical, social, economic, cognitive, circumstantial. Modeling Agency without modeling the constraints around it produces a false picture of freedom; modeling only the constraints erases the Human. The model must hold both.
+
+Several properties of Agency matter:
+
+Agency includes **refusal**. The capacity to say *no*, to decline, to withhold participation, is as much a form of agency as the capacity to act. A model that treats only positive action as agency will systematically underweight a Human's autonomy.
+
+Agency is **distributed across timescales**. Some choices are momentary; others unfold over years. A Human's stated long-term commitments, their in-the-moment behavior, and their unfolding patterns may not align. The model must be able to hold all three without privileging one as the "real" expression of will.
+
+Agency is **fallible**. Humans act on incomplete information, mixed motives, and changing values. They make choices they later regret. The model must accommodate this without invalidating either the original choice or the later reassessment.
+
+Agency requires **conditions**. A choice made under coercion, deception, or severe constraint is a different kind of choice than one made freely. The model must be able to represent the conditions under which a choice was made, not only the choice itself.
+
+### Relationality
+
+A Human is not an isolated atom. Humans exist in webs of relationship — to other Humans, to communities, to institutions, to cultures, to the non-human world, and to the systems that mediate all of these. Relationality is foundational because there is no Human that exists outside of relationship.
+
+In OHM, Relationality has several commitments:
+
+A Human is **shaped by relationship**. Identity, Interiority, and Agency all develop in relational context. The model must not pretend that any of these properties is purely intrinsic — they are formed in interaction.
+
+Relationships are **of many kinds**. Kinship, friendship, professional, civic, romantic, antagonistic, transient, lifelong — the model must not assume a single canonical relationship type, and must accommodate relationships that resist neat categorization.
+
+Relationships are **asymmetric**. Two parties may experience the same relationship very differently. The model must not collapse a relationship into a single shared object — each Human's experience of it is theirs.
+
+Relationality extends **beyond the human**. Humans are in relationship with animals, with places, with ecosystems, with works, with practices, with the dead, and with the systems they use. A model that recognizes only human-to-human relationships misses much of what shapes a life.
+
+Relationality is **the medium of consent**. Most of what a Human consents to, they consent to in relationship — to a person, to a community, to a system. The model must support this rather than treating consent as a purely individual act.
+
+### Temporality
+
+A Human's life unfolds in time. They have a past that informs who they are, a present in which they act, and a future they orient toward. They remember, anticipate, plan, regret, hope. Temporality is not a wrapper around the model; it runs through every other property.
+
+Several commitments follow:
+
+Temporality includes **memory and anticipation**. A Human is shaped not only by what is happening now, but by what they recall and what they expect. The model must allow these to be represented without conflating them with present state.
+
+Temporality is **multi-scaled**. A moment, a day, a season, a decade, a life — these are all timescales a Human lives across simultaneously. A representation that captures only one scale (most often the very recent) will misrepresent the Human.
+
+Temporality is **non-linear in experience**. Humans return to the past in memory, project forward in imagination, and re-narrate their own lives. The phenomenology of time is not the same as clock time, and the model must accommodate this.
+
+Temporality includes **finitude**. Every Human life ends. Mortality is constitutive of human experience, not a fact to be ignored or smoothed over. How OHM handles a Human's relationship to their own ending — and how it handles the Human's representation after their death — are open questions worth taking seriously.
+
+Temporality is **the medium of change**. A Human at thirty is recognizably the same Human they were at fifteen, and yet they have grown, learned, suffered, and changed. The model must allow representation to evolve with the Human without losing continuity.
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Cutting Commitments
+
+The five foundational properties do not stand alone. Four cross-cutting commitments condition how all five may be modeled.
+
+### Embodiment
+
+A Human is not a disembodied mind. The body is constitutive of human experience, not incidental to it. Sensation, hunger, pain, pleasure, energy, fatigue, illness, and the simple fact of taking up physical space — all of these shape Identity, Interiority, Agency, Relationality, and Temporality.
+
+OHM treats Embodiment as a precondition for Humanness, not as a property to be added later. This has design consequences: a model that represents only the cognitive and social dimensions of a Human, while treating the body as out of scope, is incomplete.
+
+Embodiment is also the seat of much that resists structured representation — the felt sense of being tired, the gut intuition that something is wrong, the somatic knowledge a Human carries about their own condition. The model must make room for these even where they cannot be cleanly encoded.
+
+### Epistemic Authority
+
+The Definition above establishes that a Human is the foremost expert on their own life from within. Epistemic Authority is the design commitment that follows from this fact.
+
+Self-reported information about a Human carries a distinct epistemic weight that externally observed or inferred information does not. The model must represent this distinction. Where a Human speaks to their own experience, feelings, body, needs, wants, values, intentions, meaning — or to their own Identity, Interiority, Agency, Relationality, or Temporality — that account is treated as primary. External inference is secondary, and must be marked as such.
+
+The asymmetry is one of *proximity*, not perfection. Humans are fallible about themselves; the model honors the proximity without overclaiming the certainty. A system built on OHM that overrides a Human's account of their own life on the basis of external inference must, at minimum, make that override visible to the Human and provide a path to contest it.
+
+### Whole-Brain Representation
+
+A Human is not only a rational agent, nor only an emotional one. A model that captures only behavior or cognition is incomplete; a model that captures only affect or felt sense is equally incomplete. OHM is committed to representing both the analytical/logical and the intuitive/felt dimensions of human experience.
+
+This commitment runs through every property. Identity has both an articulated narrative and a felt sense of self. Interiority has both stated beliefs and unspeakable feeling. Agency has both deliberated choices and intuitive moves. Relationality has both explicit ties and embodied resonance. Temporality has both clock-time memory and the felt weight of the past.
+
+Future RFCs will need to specify how these dimensions are represented, how they are balanced, and how they are kept from being collapsed into each other.
+
+### Dignity
+
+Every Human possesses intrinsic worth that does not depend on their capacities, their contributions, their representation in any system, or anyone's recognition of it. Dignity is not earned; it is constitutive.
+
+This commitment has design force. OHM systems must not treat a Human as more or less worthy of full Human standing based on how much data is available about them, how well they fit a schema, how productively they engage, or how legible their inner life is to the system. A Human represented with sparse data is no less a Human. A Human whose Interiority resists modeling is no less a Human. A Human whose Agency is constrained by circumstance is no less a Human.
+
+Dignity is the reason for the Design Principle of *respect over reduction*. It is what the model is in service of.
+
+---
+
+## Personhood
+
+In OHM, personhood — the status of being a `Human` entity with full standing in the model — begins at **birth**.
+
+This is a deliberate, values-based design decision grounded in the model's own definition. The five foundational properties are not all present prior to birth. Identity in the relational, claimed-and-ascribed sense begins to take shape only as the Human enters the world. Agency, in any meaningful sense, requires a separate being capable of action. Relationality in the model's sense — relationship to other Humans, systems, and environments — begins at birth, when the Human enters that web as a distinct participant. Interiority and Temporality, in the forms OHM cares about, follow.
+
+This definition has direct implications. Systems built on OHM must not model a fetus as a `Human` entity, and must not apply Human-level standing, rights, or norms to pre-birth entities. Decisions made about a pregnancy are decisions made by the Human(s) involved — not on behalf of a separate Human within the model.
+
+This is a definitional choice, not a moral pronouncement about the meaning or significance of pregnancy. OHM defines what counts as a `Human` entity for the purposes of the model. People may hold a range of values about pregnancy that are not, and need not be, expressed inside the model's schema.
+
+---
+
+## Design Principles
+
+The following principles guide OHM design decisions and should be applied when interpreting or extending this RFC:
+
+1. **Respect over reduction.** The model must never flatten a Human into a data point. Every representation is an approximation.
+2. **Incompleteness is valid.** A Human representation with unknown or unspecified fields is still a valid Human. Absence of data is not absence of the thing.
+3. **Self-knowledge is authoritative.** Where a Human speaks to their own experience, that account is treated as primary. External inference is secondary, and must be marked as such.
+4. **Plurality is the norm.** There is no canonical Human. The model must accommodate variation across culture, ability, neurotype, identity, and lived circumstance without treating any as deviation.
+5. **Change is constitutive.** Humans grow, learn, and transform. Representations must evolve with them without breaking continuity.
+6. **Dignity is unconditional.** A Human's standing in the model does not depend on the richness of their representation, the legibility of their inner life, or the productivity of their engagement.
+7. **Body and mind together.** Embodied, felt, somatic, and intuitive dimensions of a Human are not optional — they are part of what is being modeled.
+8. **Ego reduction.** The model exists to serve Humans, not to amplify status, ego, or self-promotion. Systems built on OHM should actively work against dynamics that feed ego at the expense of genuine connection or understanding.
+
+---
+
+## Open Questions
+
+- What is the minimum viable representation of a Human for a given interaction context, and how should it gracefully degrade when less information is available?
+- How should uncertainty, unknowns, and not-yet-articulated content be represented in the model?
+- How should the model represent the same Human across different contexts (work, family, civic) without flattening them into a single canonical profile?
+- How does OHM handle a Human's change over time — growth, learning, transformation — while preserving continuity of Identity?
+- What is the relationship between a Human and their digital representations, avatars, or proxies? Are those representations entities in their own right, or attributes of the Human?
+- How should the model represent a Human after their death? What persists, what changes, and who has standing over it?
+- How should the somatic and felt dimensions of Embodiment and Interiority be represented without forcing them into structures that distort them?
+- How should the model represent the conditions under which an act of Agency took place (free choice, constrained choice, coerced choice)?
+- How should the asymmetry between self-reported and externally inferred data be encoded in practice?
+
+---
+
+## Future RFCs
+
+This RFC defines the Human. Subsequent RFCs are expected to specify particular properties, cross-cutting commitments, and the ethical frameworks that govern how Humans are interacted with through OHM-based systems. Candidate areas include, but are not limited to:
+
+- Identity — claimed, ascribed, contextual, and continuous
+- Interiority — emotion, values, beliefs, intuition, the felt sense
+- Agency — choice, refusal, constraint, and the conditions of action
+- Relationality — kinship, community, institutional, and non-human relationships
+- Temporality — memory, anticipation, finitude, and change over time
+- Embodiment — the body in the model
+- Epistemic Authority — self-report, external observation, and inference
+- Whole-Brain Representation — analytical and intuitive dimensions in balance
+- Dignity — its implications for system design and behavior
+- Personhood — edge cases, end-of-life, and the boundaries of standing
+- Wise Speech — a normative framework for human-to-human and human-to-system interaction
+- Informed Consent — an ongoing, legible, revisable, and proportional framework for representation and engagement
+
+The order, scope, and authorship of these RFCs are open. Contributors are encouraged to propose them.
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- *Wiggling Through the World: A Manifesto for Learning Together* — foundational project values: https://git.wiggleverse.org/ben/benstull/src/branch/main/docs/how-i-wiggle-through-the-world.md
+

rfcs/informed-consent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+slug: informed-consent
+title: Informed Consent
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-05-29'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners: []
+arbiters: []
+tags: []
+---
+
+RFC-0001 (Human) names Informed Consent as one of the entities that every subsequent RFC depends on, and grounds it directly: a Human holds epistemic authority over their experience, body, needs, and intentions, and is the inherent expert on their own meaning. Informed Consent is what turns that authority into a usable constraint. If a Human is the authority on themselves, then any system that models, stores, acts on, or speaks about a Human must have a defensible account of when it is permitted to do so — and that account is consent. This RFC establishes that account as a first-class entity in OHM rather than leaving each downstream RFC to reinvent it.
+
+The need is concrete. Identity asks what may be recorded about a Human; Relationality asks what may be shared between Humans; Agency asks what may be done on a Human's behalf; Wise Speech asks what may be said about or to a Human. Each of these is, underneath, a consent question — and without a shared definition each RFC would answer it differently, leaving the framework with no coherent position on the single question that most determines whether OHM treats Humans as subjects or as data. Consent is also the entity most likely to be flattened into a checkbox if it is not defined carefully, so it deserves the same substantial treatment RFC-0001 gave to the definition of Human.
+
+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.

rfcs/non-human-entities.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: non-human-entities
+title: Non-Human Entities in OHM
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- foundations
+---
+
+OHM is the Open *Human* Model, yet any real platform must also model things that are not humans — commerce nouns, instruments, systems. This RFC establishes how OHM may define a non-human entity at all: always in relation to the Human it serves, never as a free-standing abstraction. It is the conscious hinge on which the model broadens to hold commerce vocabulary without losing its human center, and it gives every later commerce concept a rule to be defined against.
+

rfcs/nonextraction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: nonextraction
+title: Non-Extraction
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+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/participants.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: participants
+title: 'Participants: Customer, Merchant, Operator'
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+Every commerce interaction involves Humans in distinct roles — the Customer, the Merchant, and the Operator who runs the platform — and the power between them is unequal. This RFC defines these roles as Humans-in-role (a legal entity such as an LLC is not a Human but is controlled by one), and names the power asymmetry plainly: the Operator holds deploy, data, and float power over everyone else. Naming that asymmetry is what lets later RFCs constrain it; the concept serves Agency and Dignity.
+

rfcs/platform-sustainability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: platform-sustainability
+title: Platform Sustainability
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- governance
+---
+
+Non-Extraction is only credible if there is a concrete, legitimate way for the platform to stay alive. This RFC names those sources — avoided card fees, yield on safeguarded float, and breakage — and explicitly rules out referral fees, ad markups, and payment surcharges. It is the enforcement partner of Non-Extraction: how the platform funds itself without betraying the people it serves.
+

rfcs/price.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: price
+title: Price
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+Price is where a platform most easily deceives — through hidden fees, drip pricing, and surprise charges at the end. This RFC defines Price as honest and all-in: the number a Human sees is the number that governs the exchange. It serves Agency and Wise Speech, and underpins the load and checkout mechanics.
+

rfcs/privacydataminimization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: privacydataminimization
+title: Privacy & Data Minimization
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- ethics
+---
+
+A Human has an interior life and the standing to keep most of it private; a platform that hoovers up data treats the person as a resource to be mined. This RFC commits the platform to knowing only what the exchange genuinely requires and no more — surveillance is not the business model. It serves Interiority and Dignity, and sets the default against which every data-collecting mechanic must justify itself.
+

rfcs/product-listing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: product-listing
+title: Product & Listing
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- commerce
+---
+
+A product listing is the platform's representation of a real good to a real buyer, and it can either inform or mislead. This RFC defines Product and Listing in terms of what they honestly offer the buyer rather than by their conversion potential. It builds on Wise Speech and the Commercial Relationship to keep the catalog truthful.
+

rfcs/stored-value.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+slug: stored-value
+title: Stored Value / Credit
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- payments
+---
+
+Stored Value is the root money concept the ecommerce platform's credit model hangs on: value a Human has loaded and now holds on the platform, deliberately constrained — not cashable, not transferable out, and explicitly not a stablecoin. The constraint is not incidental; it *is* the definition, and it must be defined in relation to the Human whose money it is. Removing cash-out closes the redemption-fraud vector and the money-transmission trigger — but it also removes an exit the Human would otherwise have, so the concept must hold that tension in the open rather than hide it behind 'store credit.'
+
+Establishing Stored Value as a first-class OHM entity lets every downstream mechanic — Load, Settlement, Discount, Breakage, Float — cite one contestable definition of 'what the balance is' instead of each re-deriving it. It serves Agency (the Human's own money, with its exit deliberately removed) and Temporality (a balance persists, and a person's relationship to it changes over time). It is also where OHM broadens to hold a commerce noun, defined in service of the Human rather than the ledger.
+

rfcs/wisespeechcommerce.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: wisespeechcommerce
+title: Wise Speech in Commerce
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+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.
+