{ "version": "0.1.0", "name": "PAICE.work PBC work areas", "description": "Four ways into the portfolio. Membership describes complementary contributions, not a combined product or an automatic integration. Shared infrastructure can appear in more than one area.", "areas": [ { "id": "human-collaboration", "name": "Human collaboration", "headline": "Make our part in AI collaboration observable.", "summary": "Start with how a person works with AI, then use that evidence to inform learning and better collaboration.", "intro": "AI collaboration depends on what people do: how we set intent, question an answer, recognize a problem, and decide what to trust. PAICE.work is the assessment product that produces the PAICE Score, a snapshot of collaboration skill on the human end.", "why": "An independent measure can give learners and teachers a shared starting point. AI Posture contributes a broader mental model for discussing aggregated intelligence; its direct applications remain to be developed.", "map": [ { "title": "Observe collaboration skill", "text": "A human-side assessment and the PAICE Score.", "components": [ "paice-work" ] }, { "title": "Explain the wider idea", "text": "A supporting framework for understanding aggregated intelligence.", "components": [ "ai-posture" ] } ], "connection": "The assessment supplies a snapshot. The framework supplies conceptual context. AI Posture isn't a validated roll-up of the PAICE Score or the wider portfolio.", "members": [ { "id": "paice-work", "role": "Assessment" }, { "id": "ai-posture", "role": "Supporting framework" } ], "evidence": "A score needs a stated scope and evidence behind its interpretation. It doesn't establish every aspect of a person's work with AI or prove a portfolio-wide compounding effect.", "contribution": "Help investigate what useful measurement should reveal, how learners and teachers use it, and what evidence would show improvement.", "related": [ "inspectable-collaboration", "agentic-web" ], "papers": [ "closing-the-collaboration-gap", "governance-without-surveillance", "verifiable-human-ai-collaboration" ] }, { "id": "agentic-web", "name": "The agentic web", "headline": "Make the agentic web a scoreable event.", "summary": "One website at a time, make it possible to examine whether agents can use the web on our behalf.", "intro": "A website can be easy for a person to read and difficult for an agent to use. Siteline makes that difference something we can examine. Understandable boundaries and legible knowledge help make the web usable by both.", "why": "The shared question is practical: can an agent understand the information, recognize the limits, and take a useful next step? These projects address different parts of that question.", "map": [ { "title": "Measure usability", "text": "Examine a website through the tasks agents need to perform.", "components": [ "siteline" ] }, { "title": "Explain the limits", "text": "Make boundaries, refusals and next steps understandable.", "components": [ "graceful-boundaries" ] }, { "title": "Make knowledge legible", "text": "Structure knowledge for people and machines.", "components": [ "knowledge-as-code" ] } ], "connection": "Graceful Boundaries enables the operational-boundary work in Siteline. Knowledge-as-Code supplies a complementary approach to human and machine legibility.", "members": [ { "id": "siteline", "role": "Measurement" }, { "id": "graceful-boundaries", "role": "Enabling standard" }, { "id": "knowledge-as-code", "role": "Supporting infrastructure" } ], "evidence": "A website score is evidence about the tested scope at the time of the scan. Inspect the report and method before treating it as evidence about a particular task.", "contribution": "Bring a website and a real task an agent should be able to complete. Help define success, examine the result, and identify what makes the next attempt better.", "related": [ "inspectable-collaboration", "human-collaboration" ], "papers": [ "aggregated-intelligence" ] }, { "id": "legal-graph", "name": "Legal Graph", "headline": "Connect the claim to its source.", "summary": "A connected body of legal information where obligations, interpretations and public matters retain their source context.", "intro": "The Legal Graph brings together several kinds of evidence. EveryAILaw addresses laws and obligations, PubLedge records fact-specific interpretations and administrative issuances, and AI Incident Law describes public legal and regulatory matters. Obligation First supplies shared vocabulary and a validation contract.", "why": "Law offers a useful arena for examining AI-assisted work because claims can be checked against identifiable sources. Keeping the kinds of evidence distinct helps people inspect the work and understand what a record actually supports.", "map": [ { "title": "Laws and obligations", "text": "Structured references to requirements and their sources.", "components": [ "every-ai-law" ] }, { "title": "Interpretations and issuances", "text": "Records tied to their facts, issuer and scope.", "components": [ "publedge" ] }, { "title": "Public matters and outcomes", "text": "Source-linked accounts that distinguish allegations from outcomes.", "components": [ "ai-incident-law" ] } ], "foundation": { "id": "obligation-first", "title": "Shared vocabulary and validation", "text": "Connect the records while preserving each source's meaning." }, "connection": "Each project keeps responsibility for its sources and judgments. The graph makes their relationships inspectable; one project's record doesn't certify the completeness or correctness of the others.", "members": [ { "id": "every-ai-law", "role": "Laws and obligations" }, { "id": "publedge", "role": "Interpretations and issuances" }, { "id": "ai-incident-law", "role": "Public legal matters" }, { "id": "obligation-first", "role": "Shared schema" } ], "evidence": "A valid record isn't the same as a current corpus, a legally correct interpretation, or a determination that a rule applies. Source dates, scope and review remain part of the evidence.", "contribution": "Help connect an existing source or standard, review a bounded set of records, or bring a research workflow whose result can be checked against evidence.", "related": [ "inspectable-collaboration", "human-collaboration" ], "papers": [ "aggregated-intelligence-tenets" ] }, { "id": "inspectable-collaboration", "name": "Inspectable collaboration", "headline": "Make trust something we can inspect.", "summary": "Keep decisions, delegated actions and the knowledge behind them legible to the people responsible for the work.", "intro": "AIDR and Turnfile make positions, disagreement and human decisions visible. GuideCheck and Skill Provenance help people inspect what an agent is being asked to use. Graceful Boundaries and Knowledge-as-Code make limits and structured knowledge easier to understand.", "why": "Together, these projects address the record around collaborative work: what was proposed, what was trusted, what limits applied, and who decided. They can be adopted separately and contributed to existing efforts.", "map": [ { "title": "Record the decision", "text": "Preserve positions, objections and human resolution across a decision or a session.", "components": [ "aidr", "turnfile" ] }, { "title": "Inspect delegated work", "text": "Review installation instructions and the identity and history of agent skills.", "components": [ "guidecheck", "skill-provenance" ] }, { "title": "Make context understandable", "text": "Expose operational limits and structure the knowledge people and agents rely on.", "components": [ "graceful-boundaries", "knowledge-as-code" ] } ], "connection": "These are complementary practices and artifacts. Adoption into a wider standard can be more valuable than maintaining a separate project.", "members": [ { "id": "aidr", "role": "One decision" }, { "id": "turnfile", "role": "Session coordination" }, { "id": "guidecheck", "role": "Inspectable installation" }, { "id": "skill-provenance", "role": "Skill identity and history" }, { "id": "graceful-boundaries", "role": "Understandable limits" }, { "id": "knowledge-as-code", "role": "Legible knowledge" } ], "example": { "title": "Inspect a real decision record", "url": "https://github.com/snapsynapse/aidr/blob/main/decisions/AIDR-0002-ratify-spec-v0.1.0.md", "text": "AIDR's specification ratification preserves reviewers' positions, disclosures and Sam's arbitration." }, "evidence": "A decision trail doesn't prove better outcomes. Provenance doesn't establish that a skill is safe, and GuideCheck conformance doesn't eliminate prompt injection. The work makes evidence and authority easier to inspect.", "contribution": "Bring a standard this work could join, review a trust boundary, or help test the practices in a real collaboration.", "related": [ "legal-graph", "agentic-web" ], "papers": [ "aggregated-intelligence-tenets", "aggregated-intelligence" ] } ] }