manual edit: 104 paragraphs

Change-Id: 1
On-behalf-of: Ben Stull <ben.stull>

rfcs/agencyantimanipulation.md

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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/fulfillment-inventory.md

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-slug: fulfillment-inventory
-title: Fulfillment & Inventory
-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
----
-
-Once an order is a mutual commitment, fulfillment is the keeping of that promise and inventory is its honest basis. This RFC defines Fulfillment and Inventory so that availability is real and shipping is represented truthfully, not optimistically. It protects the trust the Commercial Relationship depends on.
-

rfcs/human.md

@@ -1,17 +1,15 @@
 ---
 slug: human
 title: Human
-state: active
-id: RFC-0001
+state: super-draft
+id: null
 repo: null
 proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
 proposed_at: '2026-05-26'
-graduated_at: '2026-05-26'
-graduated_by: ben.stull
-owners:
-- ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
-arbiters:
-- ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners: []
+arbiters: []
 tags: []
 ---
 

rfcs/informed-consent.md

@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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/refund-reversal.md

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-slug: refund-reversal
-title: Refund, Reversal & Returns
-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
----
-
-If an order is a mutual commitment, there must be a defined way to unwind it — cancellations, returns, and refunds that make a Human whole, including restoring stored value. This RFC defines that reversal path so the unhappy case is treated with the same care as the happy one. It serves Dignity and connects to Recourse.
-

rfcs/stored-value.md

@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
----
-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/trust-safety.md

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-slug: trust-safety
-title: Trust & Safety / Harm Prevention
-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 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/wisespeechcommerce.md

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
----
-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.
-