docs(leader): full Cultural DNA revision for target audience alignment
**Major Changes:** 1. **Header Subtitle Revised** (inst_088 awakening) - Before: "Designed for organisations deploying large language models at scale" - After: "If your deployment is low-risk, architectural enforcement is likely unnecessary" - Self-selection mechanism: tire-kickers recognize non-relevance 2. **Added Target Audience Disclaimer Section** - Blue box after header warning: high-consequence deployments only - Lists specific regulations: EU AI Act Article 14, GDPR Article 22, SOC 2 CC6.1 - Explicit: "If AI governance failure is low-consequence...policy-based may be more appropriate" 3. **Added Governance Assessment Framework Section** (inst_088 awakening) - Theatre vs Enforcement diagnostic - Core question: "What structurally prevents your AI from executing values decisions?" - Answer guide: "policies/training" = theatre, "architectural blocking" = enforcement - Links to business case template (assessment, not sales) 4. **Fixed inst_017 Violation** - Line 409: "Tractatus ensures decisions..." → "Tractatus provides architecture for decisions..." - Removed absolute assurance language 5. **Fixed inst_085 Violation** - "A comprehensive AI safety solution" → "An AI safety solution for all contexts" - "Proven effective" → "Validated across" - Removed abstract governance language 6. **Replaced Footer: "Further Information" → "Assessment Resources"** - Removed recruitment language: "pilot partnerships, validation studies, technical consultation" - Added assessment focus: Business Case Template, Leadership Questions (FAQ), Research Foundations - New framing: "If your regulatory context...these resources support self-evaluation" - Evaluation process description (not sales pitch) - Contact note: neutral project information link **Cultural DNA Compliance:** - ✅ inst_085: Grounded operational language - ✅ inst_086: Honest uncertainty disclosure (already present) - ✅ inst_087: One approach framing (already present) - ✅ inst_088: Awakening over recruiting (major focus of revision) - ✅ inst_089: Architectural emphasis (already present) **Translations:** - All new content translated to German and French via DeepL - Updated en/leader.json, de/leader.json, fr/leader.json - 24 new i18n keys added/revised **Target Audience Outcome:** Sophisticated leaders with genuine regulatory obligations recognize relevance through assessment frameworks. Leaders with low-risk deployments recognize non-relevance upfront. No recruitment tactics—pure self-selection. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
TheFlow
parent
e8040e8d15
commit
9cafc992c3
4 changed files with 168 additions and 53 deletions
|
|
@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
|
|||
Tractatus: Architectural Governance for LLM Systems
|
||||
</h1>
|
||||
<p class="text-lg text-gray-600 leading-relaxed" data-i18n="header.subtitle">
|
||||
A governance framework addressing structural gaps in AI safety through external architectural controls. Designed for organisations deploying large language models at scale where conventional oversight mechanisms prove insufficient.
|
||||
Architectural governance for organizations where AI governance failure triggers regulatory consequences. If your deployment is low-risk, architectural enforcement is likely unnecessary.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
|
@ -94,6 +94,55 @@
|
|||
<!-- Main Content -->
|
||||
<div id="main-content" class="max-w-4xl mx-auto px-4 sm:px-6 lg:px-8 py-16">
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Target Audience Disclaimer -->
|
||||
<section class="mb-16">
|
||||
<div class="bg-blue-50 border-l-4 border-blue-600 p-6 rounded-r-lg">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-lg font-bold text-blue-900 mb-3" data-i18n="sections.target_audience.heading">Target Audience</h2>
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-blue-800 mb-3" data-i18n="sections.target_audience.primary">
|
||||
Organizations with high-consequence AI deployments facing regulatory obligations: EU AI Act Article 14 (human oversight), GDPR Article 22 (automated decision-making), SOC 2 CC6.1 (logical access controls), sector-specific regulations.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-blue-800" data-i18n="sections.target_audience.disclaimer">
|
||||
<strong>If AI governance failure in your context is low-consequence and easily reversible</strong>, architectural enforcement adds complexity without commensurate benefit. Policy-based governance may be more appropriate.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Governance Assessment Framework -->
|
||||
<section class="mb-16">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-2xl font-bold text-gray-900 mb-6" data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.heading">Governance Theatre vs. Enforcement</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="bg-gray-50 border border-gray-200 rounded-lg p-6 mb-6">
|
||||
<p class="text-gray-700 mb-4" data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.intro">
|
||||
Many organizations have AI governance but lack enforcement. The diagnostic question:
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="bg-white border-l-4 border-amber-500 p-5 mb-4">
|
||||
<p class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-2" data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.question">
|
||||
"What structurally prevents your AI from executing values decisions without human approval?"
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<ul class="space-y-2 text-sm text-gray-700 mt-3">
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.answer_theatre"><strong class="text-red-700">If your answer is "policies" or "training" or "review processes":</strong> You have governance theatre (voluntary compliance)</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.answer_enforcement"><strong class="text-green-700">If your answer is "architectural blocking mechanism with audit trail":</strong> You have enforcement (Tractatus is one implementation)</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-gray-600 mb-4" data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.consequence">
|
||||
Theatre may be acceptable if governance failures are low-consequence. Enforcement becomes relevant when failures trigger regulatory exposure, safety incidents, or existential business risk.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="border-t border-gray-300 pt-4 mt-4">
|
||||
<a href="/downloads/business-case-tractatus-framework.pdf"
|
||||
target="_blank"
|
||||
class="inline-flex items-center text-amber-800 hover:text-amber-900 font-medium underline">
|
||||
<span data-i18n="sections.governance_assessment.template_link">Assessment Framework: Business Case Template (PDF)</span>
|
||||
<svg class="w-4 h-4 ml-1" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" viewBox="0 0 24 24">
|
||||
<path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M10 6H6a2 2 0 00-2 2v10a2 2 0 002 2h10a2 2 0 002-2v-4M14 4h6m0 0v6m0-6L10 14"/>
|
||||
</svg>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Problem Statement -->
|
||||
<section class="mb-16">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-2xl font-bold text-gray-900 mb-6" data-i18n="sections.governance_gap.heading">The Governance Gap</h2>
|
||||
|
|
@ -406,7 +455,7 @@
|
|||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="text-xs text-gray-600 pt-3 border-t border-gray-200" data-i18n="sections.governance_capabilities.key_principle">
|
||||
<strong>Key Principle:</strong> When legitimate values conflict, no algorithm can determine the "correct" answer. Tractatus ensures decisions are made through inclusive deliberation with full documentation of trade-offs, rather than AI imposing single values framework or decision-maker dismissing stakeholder concerns.
|
||||
<strong>Key Principle:</strong> When legitimate values conflict, no algorithm can determine the "correct" answer. Tractatus provides architecture for decisions to be made through inclusive deliberation with full documentation of trade-offs, rather than AI imposing single values framework or decision-maker dismissing stakeholder concerns.
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
|
@ -550,10 +599,10 @@
|
|||
<div>
|
||||
<strong class="text-gray-900" data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_title">Tractatus is not:</strong>
|
||||
<ul class="list-disc pl-6 mt-2 space-y-1 text-gray-600">
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_1">A comprehensive AI safety solution</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_1">An AI safety solution for all contexts</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_2">Independently validated or security-audited</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_3">Tested against adversarial attacks</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_4">Proven effective across multiple organisations</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_4">Validated across multiple organizations</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_5">A substitute for legal compliance review</li>
|
||||
<li data-i18n="sections.scope_limitations.not_6">A commercial product (research framework, Apache 2.0 licence)</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
|
@ -572,31 +621,39 @@
|
|||
</div>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Call to Action -->
|
||||
<!-- Assessment Resources -->
|
||||
<section class="border-t border-gray-200 pt-12">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold text-gray-900 mb-4" data-i18n="footer.further_info">Further Information</h2>
|
||||
<div class="grid grid-cols-1 md:grid-cols-2 gap-4">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold text-gray-900 mb-4" data-i18n="footer.assessment_resources">Assessment Resources</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-gray-600 mb-6" data-i18n="footer.intro">
|
||||
If your regulatory context or risk profile suggests architectural governance may be relevant, these resources support self-evaluation:
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="grid grid-cols-1 md:grid-cols-2 gap-4 mb-8">
|
||||
<a href="/downloads/business-case-tractatus-framework.pdf" target="_blank" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.business_case">Business Case Template</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.business_case_desc">Assessment framework for evaluating whether architectural governance addresses your regulatory obligations</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
<a href="/faq.html" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.leadership_questions">Common Leadership Questions</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.leadership_questions_desc">Governance theatre vs enforcement, investment justification, risk assessment frameworks</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
<a href="/docs.html" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.technical_docs">Technical Documentation</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.technical_docs_desc">Complete architecture specifications, implementation patterns, API reference</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
<a href="/architecture.html" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.system_architecture">System Architecture</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.system_architecture_desc">Runtime-agnostic governance layer design and integration approach</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.technical_docs_desc">Architecture specifications, implementation patterns, integration approach</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
<a href="/researcher.html" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.research_case_studies">Research & Case Studies</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.research_case_studies_desc">Academic foundations, failure mode analysis, governance research</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
<a href="/implementer.html" class="block border border-gray-300 rounded-lg p-5 hover-lift hover:border-amber-500">
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.implementation_guide">Implementation Guide</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.implementation_guide_desc">Integration patterns, deployment considerations, code examples</div>
|
||||
<div class="font-semibold text-gray-900 mb-1" data-i18n="footer.research_foundations">Research Foundations</div>
|
||||
<div class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.research_foundations_desc">Organizational theory basis, empirical observations, validation studies</div>
|
||||
</a>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="mt-8 pt-8 border-t border-gray-200">
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-gray-600">
|
||||
<strong class="text-gray-900" data-i18n="footer.contact">Contact:</strong> <span data-i18n="footer.contact_text">For pilot partnerships, validation studies, or technical consultation, contact via</span> <a href="/about.html" class="text-amber-800 hover:text-amber-900 underline">project information page</a>.
|
||||
<div class="bg-gray-50 border border-gray-200 rounded-lg p-6">
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-gray-700 mb-3" data-i18n="footer.evaluation_note">
|
||||
<strong class="text-gray-900">Evaluation Process:</strong> Organizations assessing Tractatus typically follow: (1) Technical review of architectural patterns, (2) Pilot deployment in development environment, (3) Context-specific validation with legal counsel, (4) Decision whether patterns address specific regulatory/risk requirements.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<p class="text-sm text-gray-600" data-i18n="footer.contact_note">
|
||||
Project information and contact details: <a href="/about.html" class="text-amber-800 hover:text-amber-900 underline">About page</a>
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
|
|||
"header": {
|
||||
"badge": "Forschungs-Framework • Frühe Entwicklung",
|
||||
"title": "Tractatus: Architektonische Governance für LLM-Systeme",
|
||||
"subtitle": "Ein Governance-Framework zur Behebung struktureller Lücken in der KI-Sicherheit durch externe architektonische Kontrollen. Entwickelt für Organisationen, die große Sprachmodelle im großen Maßstab einsetzen, wo konventionelle Aufsichtsmechanismen unzureichend sind."
|
||||
"subtitle": "Architektur-Governance für Unternehmen, bei denen ein Versagen der KI-Governance zu regulatorischen Konsequenzen führt. Wenn Ihr Einsatz ein geringes Risiko birgt, ist die Durchsetzung der Architektur wahrscheinlich unnötig."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"sections": {
|
||||
"governance_gap": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
|
|||
"precedent_title": "Präzedenzfall (nicht bindend)",
|
||||
"precedent_text": "Die Entscheidung wird zu einem informativen Präzedenzfall für ähnliche Konflikte. Aber Unterschiede im Kontext bedeuten, dass Präzedenzfälle leiten, nicht diktieren.",
|
||||
"record_heading": "Struktur des Deliberationsprotokolls",
|
||||
"key_principle": "Hauptgrundsatz: Wenn legitime Werte miteinander in Konflikt stehen, kann kein Algorithmus die richtige Antwort bestimmen. Der Tractatus stellt sicher, dass Entscheidungen durch umfassende Überlegungen mit vollständiger Dokumentation der Kompromisse getroffen werden, anstatt dass die KI einen einzigen Werterahmen vorgibt oder der Entscheidungsträger die Bedenken der Interessengruppen abweist."
|
||||
"key_principle": "Schlüsselprinzip: Wenn legitime Werte im Konflikt stehen, kann kein Algorithmus die \"richtige\" Antwort bestimmen. Der Tractatus bietet eine Architektur für Entscheidungen, die durch umfassende Überlegungen mit vollständiger Dokumentation der Kompromisse getroffen werden, anstatt dass die KI einen einzigen Werterahmen vorgibt oder der Entscheidungsträger die Bedenken der Interessengruppen zurückweist."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"development_status": {
|
||||
"heading": "Entwicklungsstatus",
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,29 +126,44 @@
|
|||
"title": "Was dies nicht ist • Was es bietet",
|
||||
"not_title": "Tractatus ist nicht:",
|
||||
"offers_title": "Was es bietet:",
|
||||
"not_1": "Eine umfassende AI-Sicherheitslösung",
|
||||
"not_1": "Eine KI-Sicherheitslösung für alle Kontexte",
|
||||
"not_2": "Unabhängig validiert oder sicherheitsüberprüft",
|
||||
"not_3": "Getestet gegen gegnerische Angriffe",
|
||||
"not_4": "Bewährte Wirksamkeit in verschiedenen Organisationen",
|
||||
"not_4": "Von mehreren Organisationen validiert",
|
||||
"not_5": "Ein Ersatz für die Überprüfung der Einhaltung von Rechtsvorschriften",
|
||||
"not_6": "Ein kommerzielles Produkt (Forschungsrahmen, Apache 2.0 Lizenz)",
|
||||
"offers_1": "Architektonische Muster für externe Governance-Kontrollen",
|
||||
"offers_2": "Referenzimplementierung zum Nachweis der Machbarkeit",
|
||||
"offers_3": "Grundlage für Organisationspiloten und Validierungsstudien",
|
||||
"offers_4": "Beweise dafür, dass strukturelle Ansätze für die KI-Sicherheit eine Untersuchung verdienen"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"target_audience": {
|
||||
"heading": "Zielpublikum",
|
||||
"primary": "Organisationen mit KI-Einsätzen von hoher Tragweite, die mit regulatorischen Verpflichtungen konfrontiert sind: EU-KI-Gesetz Artikel 14 (menschliche Aufsicht), GDPR Artikel 22 (automatisierte Entscheidungsfindung), SOC 2 CC6.1 (logische Zugriffskontrollen), branchenspezifische Vorschriften.",
|
||||
"disclaimer": "Wenn ein Versagen der KI-Governance in Ihrem Kontext nur geringe Folgen hat und leicht rückgängig gemacht werden kann, erhöht die Durchsetzung der Architektur die Komplexität ohne entsprechenden Nutzen. Eine richtlinienbasierte Governance ist möglicherweise besser geeignet."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"governance_assessment": {
|
||||
"heading": "Governance-Theater vs. Vollstreckung",
|
||||
"intro": "Viele Unternehmen verfügen über eine KI-Governance, die jedoch nicht durchgesetzt wird. Die diagnostische Frage:",
|
||||
"question": "\"Was hindert Ihre KI strukturell daran, Wertentscheidungen ohne menschliche Zustimmung auszuführen?\"",
|
||||
"answer_theatre": "Wenn Ihre Antwort \"Richtlinien\" oder \"Schulung\" oder \"Überprüfungsverfahren\" lautet: Sie haben ein Governance-Theater (freiwillige Einhaltung)",
|
||||
"answer_enforcement": "Wenn Ihre Antwort \"architektonischer Sperrmechanismus mit Prüfpfad\" lautet: Sie haben eine Durchsetzung (Tractatus ist eine Implementierung)",
|
||||
"consequence": "Ein Theater kann akzeptabel sein, wenn das Versagen der Unternehmensführung nur geringe Folgen hat. Die Durchsetzung wird relevant, wenn Versäumnisse zu regulatorischen Risiken, Sicherheitsvorfällen oder existenziellen Geschäftsrisiken führen.",
|
||||
"template_link": "Bewertungsrahmen: Business Case-Vorlage (PDF)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"footer": {
|
||||
"further_info": "Weitere Informationen",
|
||||
"assessment_resources": "Ressourcen für die Bewertung",
|
||||
"intro": "Wenn Ihr regulatorischer Kontext oder Ihr Risikoprofil darauf schließen lässt, dass architektonische Governance von Bedeutung sein könnte, helfen diese Ressourcen bei der Selbstevaluierung:",
|
||||
"business_case": "Business Case-Vorlage",
|
||||
"business_case_desc": "Bewertungsrahmen für die Beurteilung, ob die Architektur-Governance Ihren regulatorischen Verpflichtungen entspricht",
|
||||
"leadership_questions": "Allgemeine Fragen zur Führung",
|
||||
"leadership_questions_desc": "Governance-Theater vs. Durchsetzung, Rechtfertigung von Investitionen, Risikobewertungsrahmen",
|
||||
"technical_docs": "Technische Dokumentation",
|
||||
"technical_docs_desc": "Vollständige Architekturspezifikationen, Implementierungsmuster, API-Referenz",
|
||||
"system_architecture": "Systemarchitektur",
|
||||
"system_architecture_desc": "Laufzeitunabhängiges Governance-Schicht-Design und Integrationsansatz",
|
||||
"research_case_studies": "Forschung & Fallstudien",
|
||||
"research_case_studies_desc": "Akademische Grundlagen, Fehlermodus-Analyse, Governance-Forschung",
|
||||
"implementation_guide": "Implementierungsleitfaden",
|
||||
"implementation_guide_desc": "Integrationsmuster, Bereitstellungsüberlegungen, Code-Beispiele",
|
||||
"contact": "Kontakt:",
|
||||
"contact_text": "Für Pilotpartnerschaften, Validierungsstudien oder technische Beratung kontaktieren Sie uns über"
|
||||
"technical_docs_desc": "Organisationstheoretische Grundlagen, empirische Beobachtungen, Validierungsstudien",
|
||||
"research_foundations": "Grundlagen der Forschung",
|
||||
"research_foundations_desc": "Organisationstheoretische Grundlagen, empirische Beobachtungen, Validierungsstudien",
|
||||
"evaluation_note": "Bewertungsprozess: Organisationen, die Tractatus bewerten, folgen in der Regel folgenden Schritten: (1) Technische Überprüfung von Architekturmustern, (2) Piloteinsatz in der Entwicklungsumgebung, (3) Kontextspezifische Validierung mit Rechtsberatern, (4) Entscheidung, ob die Muster bestimmte regulatorische/Risikoanforderungen erfüllen.",
|
||||
"contact_note": "Projektinformationen und Kontaktangaben: Über Seite"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
|
|||
"header": {
|
||||
"badge": "Research Framework • Early Development",
|
||||
"title": "Tractatus: Architectural Governance for LLM Systems",
|
||||
"subtitle": "A governance framework addressing structural gaps in AI safety through external architectural controls. Designed for organisations deploying large language models at scale where conventional oversight mechanisms prove insufficient."
|
||||
"subtitle": "Architectural governance for organizations where AI governance failure triggers regulatory consequences. If your deployment is low-risk, architectural enforcement is likely unnecessary."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"sections": {
|
||||
"governance_gap": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
|
|||
"precedent_title": "Precedent (Not Binding)",
|
||||
"precedent_text": "Decision becomes informative precedent for similar conflicts. But context differences mean precedents guide, not dictate.",
|
||||
"record_heading": "Deliberation Record Structure",
|
||||
"key_principle": "Key Principle: When legitimate values conflict, no algorithm can determine the correct answer. Tractatus ensures decisions are made through inclusive deliberation with full documentation of trade-offs, rather than AI imposing single values framework or decision-maker dismissing stakeholder concerns."
|
||||
"key_principle": "Key Principle: When legitimate values conflict, no algorithm can determine the \"correct\" answer. Tractatus provides architecture for decisions to be made through inclusive deliberation with full documentation of trade-offs, rather than AI imposing single values framework or decision-maker dismissing stakeholder concerns."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"development_status": {
|
||||
"heading": "Development Status",
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,16 +126,44 @@
|
|||
"title": "What This Is Not • What It Offers",
|
||||
"not_title": "Tractatus is not:",
|
||||
"offers_title": "What it offers:",
|
||||
"not_1": "A comprehensive AI safety solution",
|
||||
"not_1": "An AI safety solution for all contexts",
|
||||
"not_2": "Independently validated or security-audited",
|
||||
"not_3": "Tested against adversarial attacks",
|
||||
"not_4": "Proven effective across multiple organisations",
|
||||
"not_4": "Validated across multiple organizations",
|
||||
"not_5": "A substitute for legal compliance review",
|
||||
"not_6": "A commercial product (research framework, Apache 2.0 licence)",
|
||||
"offers_1": "Architectural patterns for external governance controls",
|
||||
"offers_2": "Reference implementation demonstrating feasibility",
|
||||
"offers_3": "Foundation for organisational pilots and validation studies",
|
||||
"offers_4": "Evidence that structural approaches to AI safety merit investigation"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"target_audience": {
|
||||
"heading": "Target Audience",
|
||||
"primary": "Organizations with high-consequence AI deployments facing regulatory obligations: EU AI Act Article 14 (human oversight), GDPR Article 22 (automated decision-making), SOC 2 CC6.1 (logical access controls), sector-specific regulations.",
|
||||
"disclaimer": "If AI governance failure in your context is low-consequence and easily reversible, architectural enforcement adds complexity without commensurate benefit. Policy-based governance may be more appropriate."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"governance_assessment": {
|
||||
"heading": "Governance Theatre vs. Enforcement",
|
||||
"intro": "Many organizations have AI governance but lack enforcement. The diagnostic question:",
|
||||
"question": "\"What structurally prevents your AI from executing values decisions without human approval?\"",
|
||||
"answer_theatre": "If your answer is \"policies\" or \"training\" or \"review processes\": You have governance theatre (voluntary compliance)",
|
||||
"answer_enforcement": "If your answer is \"architectural blocking mechanism with audit trail\": You have enforcement (Tractatus is one implementation)",
|
||||
"consequence": "Theatre may be acceptable if governance failures are low-consequence. Enforcement becomes relevant when failures trigger regulatory exposure, safety incidents, or existential business risk.",
|
||||
"template_link": "Assessment Framework: Business Case Template (PDF)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"footer": {
|
||||
"assessment_resources": "Assessment Resources",
|
||||
"intro": "If your regulatory context or risk profile suggests architectural governance may be relevant, these resources support self-evaluation:",
|
||||
"business_case": "Business Case Template",
|
||||
"business_case_desc": "Assessment framework for evaluating whether architectural governance addresses your regulatory obligations",
|
||||
"leadership_questions": "Common Leadership Questions",
|
||||
"leadership_questions_desc": "Governance theatre vs enforcement, investment justification, risk assessment frameworks",
|
||||
"technical_docs": null,
|
||||
"technical_docs_desc": "Organizational theory basis, empirical observations, validation studies",
|
||||
"research_foundations": "Research Foundations",
|
||||
"research_foundations_desc": "Organizational theory basis, empirical observations, validation studies",
|
||||
"evaluation_note": "Evaluation Process: Organizations assessing Tractatus typically follow: (1) Technical review of architectural patterns, (2) Pilot deployment in development environment, (3) Context-specific validation with legal counsel, (4) Decision whether patterns address specific regulatory/risk requirements.",
|
||||
"contact_note": "Project information and contact details: About page"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
|
|||
"header": {
|
||||
"badge": "Cadre de Recherche • Développement Précoce",
|
||||
"title": "Tractatus : Gouvernance Architecturale pour les Systèmes LLM",
|
||||
"subtitle": "Un cadre de gouvernance abordant les lacunes structurelles en matière de sécurité de l'IA par des contrôles architecturaux externes. Conçu pour les organisations déployant de grands modèles de langage à grande échelle où les mécanismes de surveillance conventionnels s'avèrent insuffisants."
|
||||
"subtitle": "Gouvernance architecturale pour les organisations où l'échec de la gouvernance de l'IA entraîne des conséquences réglementaires. Si votre déploiement présente peu de risques, l'application de l'architecture n'est probablement pas nécessaire."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"sections": {
|
||||
"governance_gap": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
|
|||
"precedent_title": "Précédent (non contraignant)",
|
||||
"precedent_text": "La décision devient un précédent informatif pour des conflits similaires. Mais les différences de contexte font que les précédents guident, et non dictent.",
|
||||
"record_heading": "Structure du procès-verbal de délibération",
|
||||
"key_principle": "Principe clé : en cas de conflit de valeurs légitimes, aucun algorithme ne peut déterminer la bonne réponse. Le Tractatus garantit que les décisions sont prises à l'issue de délibérations inclusives avec une documentation complète des compromis, plutôt que l'IA impose un cadre de valeurs unique ou que le décideur rejette les préoccupations des parties prenantes."
|
||||
"key_principle": "Principe clé : en cas de conflit de valeurs légitimes, aucun algorithme ne peut déterminer la \"bonne\" réponse. Le Tractatus fournit une architecture pour les décisions à prendre par le biais d'une délibération inclusive avec une documentation complète des compromis, plutôt que l'IA impose un cadre de valeurs unique ou que le décideur rejette les préoccupations des parties prenantes."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"development_status": {
|
||||
"heading": "État du Développement",
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,29 +126,44 @@
|
|||
"title": "Ce que ce n'est pas • Ce qu'il offre",
|
||||
"not_title": "Tractatus n'est pas :",
|
||||
"offers_title": "Ce qu'il offre :",
|
||||
"not_1": "Une solution complète de sécurité de l'IA",
|
||||
"not_1": "Une solution de sécurité IA pour tous les contextes",
|
||||
"not_2": "Validation indépendante ou audit de sécurité",
|
||||
"not_3": "Testé contre les attaques adverses",
|
||||
"not_4": "Efficacité prouvée dans plusieurs organisations",
|
||||
"not_4": "Validé par plusieurs organisations",
|
||||
"not_5": "Un substitut à l'examen de la conformité juridique",
|
||||
"not_6": "Un produit commercial (cadre de recherche, licence Apache 2.0)",
|
||||
"offers_1": "Modèles architecturaux pour les contrôles de gouvernance externe",
|
||||
"offers_2": "Mise en œuvre de référence démontrant la faisabilité",
|
||||
"offers_3": "Base pour les pilotes organisationnels et les études de validation",
|
||||
"offers_4": "Preuve que les approches structurelles de la sécurité de l'IA méritent d'être étudiées"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"target_audience": {
|
||||
"heading": "Public cible",
|
||||
"primary": "Organisations avec des déploiements d'IA à haute conséquence faisant face à des obligations réglementaires : EU AI Act Article 14 (surveillance humaine), GDPR Article 22 (prise de décision automatisée), SOC 2 CC6.1 (contrôles d'accès logiques), réglementations sectorielles.",
|
||||
"disclaimer": "Si, dans votre contexte, l'échec de la gouvernance de l'IA a peu de conséquences et est facilement réversible, l'application architecturale ajoute de la complexité sans apporter d'avantages proportionnels. Une gouvernance basée sur des politiques peut être plus appropriée."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"governance_assessment": {
|
||||
"heading": "Gouvernance Théâtre vs. mise en œuvre",
|
||||
"intro": "De nombreuses organisations disposent d'une gouvernance de l'IA, mais ne la mettent pas en œuvre. La question du diagnostic :",
|
||||
"question": "\"Qu'est-ce qui empêche structurellement votre IA d'exécuter des décisions relatives aux valeurs sans l'approbation de l'homme ?\"",
|
||||
"answer_theatre": "Si votre réponse est \"politiques\" ou \"formation\" ou \"processus d'examen\" : Vous avez un théâtre de gouvernance (conformité volontaire)",
|
||||
"answer_enforcement": "Si votre réponse est \"mécanisme de blocage architectural avec piste d'audit\" : Vous avez l'application (Tractatus est une implémentation)",
|
||||
"consequence": "Le théâtre peut être acceptable si les défaillances de gouvernance ont peu de conséquences. La mise en œuvre devient pertinente lorsque les défaillances entraînent une exposition à la réglementation, des incidents de sécurité ou un risque existentiel pour l'entreprise.",
|
||||
"template_link": "Cadre d'évaluation : Modèle d'analyse de rentabilité (PDF)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"footer": {
|
||||
"further_info": "Informations Complémentaires",
|
||||
"assessment_resources": "Ressources d'évaluation",
|
||||
"intro": "Si votre contexte réglementaire ou votre profil de risque suggère que la gouvernance architecturale peut être pertinente, ces ressources soutiennent l'auto-évaluation :",
|
||||
"business_case": "Modèle d'analyse de rentabilité",
|
||||
"business_case_desc": "Cadre d'évaluation pour déterminer si la gouvernance architecturale répond à vos obligations réglementaires",
|
||||
"leadership_questions": "Questions courantes sur le leadership",
|
||||
"leadership_questions_desc": "Gouvernance : théâtre et application, justification des investissements, cadres d'évaluation des risques",
|
||||
"technical_docs": "Documentation Technique",
|
||||
"technical_docs_desc": "Spécifications d'architecture complètes, modèles d'implémentation, référence API",
|
||||
"system_architecture": "Architecture Système",
|
||||
"system_architecture_desc": "Conception de couche de gouvernance agnostique au runtime et approche d'intégration",
|
||||
"research_case_studies": "Recherche & Études de Cas",
|
||||
"research_case_studies_desc": "Fondements académiques, analyse des modes de défaillance, recherche en gouvernance",
|
||||
"implementation_guide": "Guide d'Implémentation",
|
||||
"implementation_guide_desc": "Modèles d'intégration, considérations de déploiement, exemples de code",
|
||||
"contact": "Contact :",
|
||||
"contact_text": "Pour des partenariats pilotes, des études de validation ou une consultation technique, contactez via"
|
||||
"technical_docs_desc": "Base de la théorie organisationnelle, observations empiriques, études de validation",
|
||||
"research_foundations": "Fondements de la recherche",
|
||||
"research_foundations_desc": "Base de la théorie organisationnelle, observations empiriques, études de validation",
|
||||
"evaluation_note": "Processus d'évaluation : Les organisations qui évaluent Tractatus suivent généralement les étapes suivantes : (1) Examen technique des modèles architecturaux, (2) Déploiement pilote dans un environnement de développement, (3) Validation spécifique au contexte avec un conseiller juridique, (4) Décision si les modèles répondent à des exigences spécifiques en matière de réglementation/risque.",
|
||||
"contact_note": "Informations sur le projet et coordonnées : Page d'accueil"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue