Annex O — Global Accountability Framework (GAF)

Annex 15 of 17 · ≈ 32 min read · 295 paragraphs · section 37 of 40 · search the book

This annex reproduces the Global Accountability Framework in full — the second of the three instruments of the Humanity Compact (see Table 14 and §6.2). Where the Carthage Charter (Annex N) sets out the principles, the GAF draws from it the enforceable operational obligations: positive and negative mandates, interfaces, procedures of the two loops. The text is reproduced as it stands, with no binding force of its own within the present work.¶ 1

Operational framework for the Global Accountability Chain and for the cross-cutting prevention and alert loop¶ 2

Consolidated draft framework agreement, pilot protocol and reference standard¶ 3

Consolidated draft V2 — aligned with the Carthage Charter V2 (17 articles) and the Call of Carthage V2: United Nations anchoring, cross-reference of definitions, experimental status of the preventive loop, four channels of the Call and register of subordinate protocols.¶ 4

“A responsible interface never transmits a mere result: it transmits the evidence, the uncertainty, the reasons and the possibility of revisiting the decision.”¶ 5

Note on status and forms of adoption

The Global Accountability Framework (GAF) is the operational instrument of the Humanity Compact. It describes who exercises each function, under what mandate, with what data, what interfaces, what controls, what funding and what avenues of correction. It does not, of itself, create an authority, a tax, a border adjustment, a funding obligation or a jurisdiction.¶ 6

In order to avoid confusing proposal, pilot and binding law, the same core is set out in three legally distinct forms. Articles marked “optional module” enter into force only if the instrument of adoption expressly designates them.¶ 7

Three coordinated forms of the GAF

Operational summary

The GAF turns the theory of the three completenesses into an infrastructure of case file, responsibility and control.¶ 8

Functional completeness is secured by a matrix setting out the applicable functions, their duty-holder and the conditions of activation. Relational completeness is secured by the identification of a duty-holder and a forum for each act. Procedural completeness is secured by a common case-file passport and by interface contracts preserving provenance, assumptions, uncertainty, objections, version, signature and redress.¶ 9

The GAF does not require every case file to pass through seven functions. After measurement and qualification, a case file may be closed, kept under watch, routed towards a capacity measure, prevention, consented solidarity, an efficiency correction or a legal remedy. The determination of a consequence and its enforcement are conditional branches.¶ 10

The preventive loop organises cascade risks before they materialise: foresight, detection, alert level, notification, reasoned response, anticipatory action and learning. It gives no veto power to the producer of the alert and creates no automatic liability.¶ 11

Artificial intelligence may assist the functions, but no official alert, final qualification, consequence, mandatory disbursement, certification or redress decision may be triggered without an identifiable human authority. Operation without AI is a resilience requirement.¶ 12

The GAF is modular. Where guarantees are equivalent, an existing institution, a federated network or a merged architecture is to be preferred to a new organisation. Any adoption begins with a capacity diagnosis, a register of legal bases and a pre-registered pilot.¶ 13

Architecture of the present instrument

DRAFT INSTRUMENT¶ 14

Preamble

The parties to this Framework,¶ 15

Acting in compliance with the Carthage Charter, with applicable law, with their mandates and with their constitutional procedures;¶ 16

Recognising that global accountability requires the coverage of the necessary functions, the identification of duty-holders and forums, and the preservation of evidence and uncertainty at the interfaces;¶ 17

Considering that the prevention of cascade risks must inform the decision without transferring competence to the forecaster;¶ 18

Determined to test gradual, reversible and comparable architectures, and to prefer the lightest solution that protects rights, independence, the quality of evidence and redress;¶ 19

Recalling that the Humanity Compact as a whole is placed under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, obligations under the Charter of the United Nations prevailing in the event of conflict, as provided by Article 16 of the Carthage Charter;¶ 20

Have agreed as follows.¶ 21

Part I — General provisions

Article 1 — Purpose¶ 22

1. This Framework organises the mandates, interfaces, data, procedures, funding, audits, alerts, correction mechanisms and avenues of redress necessary for the consented implementation of the Global Accountability Chain and of the Preventive Accountability Loop.¶ 23

2. It establishes common minimum requirements and optional modules. The instrument of adoption designates the applicable functions, sectors, territories, parties, acts and annexes.¶ 24

3. The GAF is not an institution, holds no original power, has no budget of its own and produces no act outside the authorities designated by the parties.¶ 25

Article 2 — Essential definitions¶ 26

1. “Act” means any measurement, qualification, alert, consequence, allocation, certification, redress decision or other formalised output under the GAF.¶ 27

2. “Case file” means the versioned set of data, assumptions, methods, uncertainties, objections, acts, responses and redress relating to a matter.¶ 28

3. “Duty-holder” means the authority or person required to explain and justify an act before an identified forum.¶ 29

4. “Forum” means the body empowered to receive information, to question, to assess, to require a correction or to attach a consequence in accordance with applicable law.¶ 30

5. “Interface” means the transformation and transmission of a case file between two functions or between a function and a forum.¶ 31

6. “Admissible consequence” means a response authorised by the evidence, the law, the Charter and the applicable module; it may be nil, non-financial, preventive, solidarity-based, corrective or legal.¶ 32

7. “Alert” means a contestable prospective act describing a risk, without prejudging the decision or liability.¶ 33

8. “Equivalence” means the recognition of an external system producing substantially comparable guarantees and results without imposing duplication.¶ 34

9. The definitions in Article 2 of the Carthage Charter apply in addition to the present ones. In the event of divergence, the definition most protective of affected parties prevails; the present Article specifies their operational use.¶ 35

Article 3 — Hierarchy and applicable law¶ 36

1. The Carthage Charter prevails within the internal order of the Humanity Compact. This Framework is interpreted in accordance with its rights, guarantees, negative mandates and stopping rules.¶ 37

2. The Call of Carthage may feed the agenda, participation and the adversarial process; it modifies no competence of the GAF without express incorporation.¶ 38

3. The GAF prevails neither over the Charter of the United Nations, nor over constitutions, nor over applicable treaties, laws, immunities or judicial decisions. Obligations under the Charter of the United Nations prevail in the event of conflict, in accordance with its Article 103 and with Article 16 of the Carthage Charter. Any incompatibility is identified and dealt with in accordance with Article 44.¶ 39

4. Binding modules take effect only after valid consent and incorporation.¶ 40

Article 4 — Scope and declaration of participation¶ 41

1. Each party deposits a declaration specifying: the GAF-R, GAF-P or GAF-C form; the sectors and territories covered; the functions activated; the host institutions; the acts recognised; the data accessible; the competent forums; and any reservations or exclusions.¶ 42

2. No competence is inferred from silence, from participation in a meeting, from the provision of data or from signature of the Call of Carthage.¶ 43

3. Third parties are subject to no act of the GAF without an independent legal basis. Their rights to information, to participation and to redress are nonetheless protected where they are materially affected.¶ 44

4. The register of declarations is public, versioned and accompanied by a map of legal maturity.¶ 45

Article 5 — Modularity, subsidiarity and lightest architecture¶ 46

1. The parties activate only those functions necessary to the case file and to the level of risk. A function may be exercised by an existing institution, an accredited network, a panel, a technical secretariat or a specialised body.¶ 47

2. An institutional separation is adopted only if it reduces a conflict of interest, protects independence, improves the quality of evidence, strengthens redress or confines an error to a proportionate cost.¶ 48

3. Where guarantees are equivalent, the existing process or the lightest architecture prevails.¶ 49

4. Any new institution is created for a limited initial period, with evaluation, a sunset clause and an option of transfer to an existing body.¶ 50

Article 6 — Principles of interpretation¶ 51

1. This Framework is interpreted in accordance with dignity, non-discrimination, consent, subsidiarity, proportionality, sustainability, participation, the statement of reasons, reversibility and redress.¶ 52

2. Legally protected rights, procedural guarantees, decision principles and normative objectives are distinguished; their collision is reasoned.¶ 53

3. No provision is interpreted as authorising the full automation of a high-impact decision, pricing without evidence or recognition without control.¶ 54

4. Doubt as to competence limits the act; scientific doubt widens the uncertainty or blocks the consequence; doubt as to hosting favours the lightest architecture.¶ 55

Article 6 bis — Source of obligations and non-presumption of constraint¶ 56

1. No provision of the present instrument, no result produced by a function of the chain and no algorithmic or institutional qualification creates, of itself, an obligation upon a State, an organisation, an undertaking or a person not legally bound by it. Any binding effect expressly states its legal vehicle, its addressee, its scope, its date of applicability, the forum of control and the regime of enforcement.¶ 57

2. Participation in a reference standard, in a consultation, in a public register, in a simulation or in a pilot in shadow mode amounts neither to an acknowledgement of liability, nor to consent to a jurisdiction, nor to acceptance of a tax, a compensation or a border adjustment. Binding effects arise only from consent, from incorporation or from competence validly established under applicable law.¶ 58

3. The qualification of an act as binding prejudges neither its justiciability nor its enforceability. These two properties are identified separately in the legal passport of the case file.¶ 59

Part II — Governance of functions and interfaces

Article 7 — Matrix of functions and host institutions¶ 60

1. Before any deployment, the parties adopt a matrix setting out, for each function: the duty-holder, the positive mandate, the negative mandate, the input data, the possible outputs, the forum, the conflicts of interest, the resources, the applicable law and the stopping rule.¶ 61

2. The candidate functions cover measurement, qualification, determination of the admissible consequence, enforcement, funding, digital certification and redress. Prevention cuts across these functions.¶ 62

3. A function may be inactive, experimental, advisory or binding. Its status appears on each act.¶ 63

4. The matrix is revised after any change of hosting, of law or of risk.¶ 64

Article 8 — Negative mandates¶ 65

1. The measurement authority does not qualify normatively and does not determine a consequence.¶ 66

2. The qualification authority does not modify measurement data or models and sets no financial amount.¶ 67

3. The consequence authority does not produce its own base and does not collect for its own budget.¶ 68

4. The enforcement authority does not alone elaborate the doctrine it enforces, and verifies the legal basis of each measure.¶ 69

5. The funder controls neither the measurement nor the threshold that determines its allocations.¶ 70

6. The digital certifier does not decide substantive policy and does not certify its own system without external audit.¶ 71

7. The redress forum does not replace the expertise or the decision-maker beyond its competence.¶ 72

8. Any derogation is limited, reasoned, audited and accompanied by a functional firewall.¶ 73

Article 9 — Duty-holders, forums and personal responsibility¶ 74

1. Each act designates an institutional duty-holder and a human signatory bearing responsibility. Automated acts without an identifiable responsible person are void within the internal order of the GAF.¶ 75

2. Each duty-holder answers before a forum whose powers, time limits and remedies are published.¶ 76

3. The forum receives the complete case file necessary for control, including uncertainties and dissenting opinions, subject to controlled confidentiality guarantees.¶ 77

4. Institutions publish their charts of responsibility, their incompatibilities, their recusal procedures and their whistleblower protection mechanisms.¶ 78

Article 10 — Common case-file passport¶ 79

1. Every case file receives a unique identifier, an opening date, a data freeze date, a legal and evidentiary status, a list of parties, a scope, a version history and a timetable.¶ 80

2. The passport states the functions activated, the decisions that are possible and prohibited, the conditions of passage, the stopping rules, the addressees, the confidentiality regime and the avenues of redress.¶ 81

3. Earlier versions are not deleted. Every correction is appended with its author, its date and its ground.¶ 82

4. The minimal template of the passport is set out in Annex O-A.¶ 83

Article 11 — Interface contracts¶ 84

1. Each passage between functions is governed by an interface contract specifying the object of the transformation, the sending authority, the receiving authority, the data and metadata, the uncertainty, the exclusions, the time limit, the conditions of return and the signature.¶ 85

2. The recipient may not present the input as more certain or more complete than the sender declared it to be.¶ 86

3. Any aggregation, normalisation, currency conversion, rating, weighting or suppression of a dimension is documented and, where possible, reversible.¶ 87

4. A circuit breaker blocks transmission if provenance, competence, confidentiality or minimum quality are insufficient.¶ 88

5. The minimal template is set out in Annex O-B.¶ 89

Article 12 — Recognition of equivalence and non-duplication¶ 90

1. A party recognises an external system where that system offers substantially equivalent guarantees of evidence, independence, reasoning, data, redress and audit.¶ 91

2. Equivalence may be full, partial, conditional or temporary. It is reviewed according to the risk and to changes of law or of method.¶ 92

3. A refusal of equivalence is reasoned and open to review. A party may not use equivalence to impose its own architecture where a comparable result is demonstrated.¶ 93

4. The recognition of a particular act remains subject to competence, to purpose, to the adversarial process, to public policy and to applicable law.¶ 94

Part III — Procedure of the Global Accountability Chain

Article 13 — Opening, reporting and admissibility¶ 95

1. A case file may be opened by a participating authority, an affected party, a qualified report, a petition transmitted by the Call of Carthage or an alert that has matured.¶ 96

2. Reporting is open and protected; it triggers an examination, not an obligation to act. Formal referral presupposes standing, competence and the conditions of the applicable module. The authors of a report made in good faith benefit from confidentiality and from protection against reprisals, to the extent permitted by applicable law.¶ 97

3. The admissibility decision specifies the scope, the parties, the data required, the functions liable to be activated and the risks of conflict of interest.¶ 98

4. Case files manifestly outside competence, non-material, redundant or impossible to investigate are closed by reasoned decision, without erasing the report.¶ 99

Article 14 — Measurement and evidence of impact¶ 100

1. The measurement authority defines the unit of analysis, the spatial and temporal boundaries, the counterfactual, the mechanisms, the agents, the price base, the currency, the data, the scenarios and the uncertainties.¶ 101

2. Exposures liable to be used for attribution are fixed before the shock is observed or justified as predetermined.¶ 102

3. Flows, stocks, valuations, transfers and welfare measures are kept in separate registers. Offsets and beneficiaries are identified.¶ 103

4. Where the data or the identification do not permit a point estimate, the authority publishes bounds or suspends the conclusion.¶ 104

5. The measurement is accompanied by a proportionate reproducibility package: sources, dictionary, code, log, sensitivity tests and limitations.¶ 105

Article 15 — Qualification and rating¶ 106

1. The qualification authority examines the materiality, severity, duration, reversibility, distribution, vulnerability, confidence and normative scope of the effect, without modifying the measurement.¶ 107

2. Qualification preserves several dimensions and reduces them to a single rating only if the use, the weightings, the loss of information and the right to contest are explicit.¶ 108

3. The rating is never a price and carries no presumption of fault or of competence.¶ 109

4. The parties are afforded an adversarial process on the qualification method and on the factual data, without being able to negotiate the rating through influence or funding.¶ 110

Article 16 — Routing of consequences and classes S0-S6¶ 111

1. After measurement and qualification, the case file is routed according to the nature of the effect and to the burden of proof. The S0-S6 classes distinguish in particular pecuniary transfer, recipient-side friction, domestic externality under constrained instruments, non-internalised global loss, terms of trade, inequitable incidence without demonstrated net loss, and breach of an applicable obligation.¶ 112

2. Classification is a routing and not a moral hierarchy. It may lead to closure, a recommendation, a capacity measure, prevention, consented solidarity, an efficiency correction or a legal remedy.¶ 113

3. Reclassification is possible on new evidence; it produces no automatic retroactive effect.¶ 114

4. The determination of the consequence is separated from the proof of harm and from enforcement.¶ 115

Article 17 — Determination of the admissible consequence¶ 116

1. The competent authority verifies in turn the class, the level of evidence, competence, purpose, the alternatives, proportionality, distribution, institutional cost and the avenues of redress.¶ 117

2. Efficiency correction, solidarity and legal remedy fall within distinct normative windows and rest on different bases. They are neither substitutable nor cumulative without justification.¶ 118

3. The financial consequence, where it is authorised, is expressed as a range or as a formula where uncertainty does not permit a single amount.¶ 119

4. The decision may conclude in favour of no consequence, of a non-financial measure or of a notional experiment.¶ 120

5. Non-compensable goods, rights and prohibitions are excluded from pricing.¶ 121

Article 18 — Enforcement, adjustments and recognition¶ 122

1. Any enforcement measure, in particular a border, fiscal, regulatory or access measure, requires a legal basis of its own, public criteria, non-discrimination, proportionality, a treatment of equivalence and an avenue of redress.¶ 123

2. The enforcement authority verifies that the upstream act is final, or states its provisional character and the associated guarantees.¶ 124

3. No measure is intended to circumvent an applicable trade, tax, constitutional or competition obligation.¶ 125

4. Revenues, where they exist, are traced separately from the decision and allocated according to rules adopted upstream.¶ 126

Article 19 — Funding of prevention, transition and solidarity¶ 127

1. Funding answers to an identified purpose and does not, of itself, constitute an acknowledgement of fault or of liability.¶ 128

2. Every allocation includes a beneficiary, a plan, capacity conditions, indicators, a duration, an exit clause and an audit.¶ 129

3. The fund or the funder does not modify the data, the rating or the threshold that determine its intervention.¶ 130

4. Allocations distinguish prevention, transition, reparation, technical assistance and solidarity. Useful flows, time limits, fees and final beneficiaries are published.¶ 131

Article 20 — Certification of digital systems¶ 132

1. High-impact digital systems used in the chain are inventoried, classified by risk and subject to a proportionate certification bearing on data, models, security, bias, explainability, contestability, suppliers, dependencies and degraded operation.¶ 133

2. Certification concerns the system and its declared use; it does not approve the policy or the result that it produces.¶ 134

3. A substantial change of data, of model, of supplier or of context triggers a reassessment.¶ 135

4. The hosting of certification may be parliamentary, regulatory, technical or federated; the legitimacy of the objective, the technical audit and redress remain separate.¶ 136

Article 21 — Review and redress¶ 137

1. Acts state the applicable avenues, time limits, suspensive effects and standards of review.¶ 138

2. Internal review is distinct from independent redress. It corrects errors rapidly without depriving a party of access to the forum.¶ 139

3. The forum may annul, suspend, remit, require reasons, order a fresh measurement, limit dissemination or grant a remedy provided by law.¶ 140

4. Redress does not transform an advisory function into a jurisdictional competence and creates no effect upon a non-consenting party.¶ 141

5. Decisions and dissenting opinions are published subject to the necessary protections.¶ 142

Part IV — Preventive Accountability Loop

Article 22 — Purpose and triggering threshold¶ 143

1. The preventive loop seeks to bring a cascade risk into the decision before it fully materialises, without displacing the mandate of the decision-maker.¶ 144

2. It is activated where four conditions are reasonably satisfied: a plausible cross-border or intergenerational link; identifiable mechanisms; potential materiality in the light of pre-registered thresholds; and a window for action still open.¶ 145

3. Where the conditions are insufficient, the signal remains under watch. The absence of an alert is not a certification of the absence of risk.¶ 146

4. Alerts are assessed as acts of knowledge and of procedure, not as substantive decisions.¶ 147

5. The preventive loop is deployed first under the GAF-R and GAF-P forms — alerts in shadow mode, pre-registered thresholds, independent evaluation. Its move to the GAF-C form is conditional on the results of the comparative pilot provided for in Article 36 and in Annex O-E.¶ 148

Article 23 — Prospective case file and alert levels¶ 149

1. The prospective case file comprises the impulse, the mechanisms, the exposures, vulnerabilities, scenarios, horizons, thresholds, uncertainties, competing models, distributive effects, options and addressees.¶ 150

2. The levels are: V0 watch; V1 vigilance; V2 coordinated alert; V3 systemic alert. Their definition, dissemination, duration and obligations are set out in Annex O-D.¶ 151

3. The measurement authority produces the prospective evidence; the qualification authority confirms, supplements, downgrades or rejects the level without modifying the data.¶ 152

4. Every alert expires or is reviewed on a determined date.¶ 153

Article 24 — Notification, consultation and reasoned response¶ 154

1. The alert is transmitted to the competent authorities and, according to the dissemination regime, to potentially affected parties and to preparedness institutions.¶ 155

2. The recipient acknowledges receipt and responds within the prescribed time limit, stating the elements accepted or contested, the options examined, the measures adopted or set aside, the mandate constraints and the date of review.¶ 156

3. The obligation bears on examination and on the statement of reasons, not on the adoption of a proposed option.¶ 157

4. A confidential alert is subject to control, an access log, a duration and a declassification rule. Confidentiality may not indefinitely conceal a material risk.¶ 158

Article 25 — Anticipatory action and pre-arranged funding¶ 159

1. The options may include communication, sequencing, assistance, protection of essential spending, liquidity, capacity, phasing, macroprudential measures or transition funding, according to the law and the sector.¶ 160

2. No option is automatic. It is tested against necessity, proportionality, displaced effects, reversibility and the exit plan.¶ 161

3. Pre-arranged facilities use triggers defined before the episode, an independent qualification, a beneficiary, a plan and an expiry.¶ 162

4. Anticipatory action is not an acknowledgement of liability on the part of the actor whose decision contributed to the risk.¶ 163

Article 26 — Ex post evaluation of alerts¶ 164

1. An independent evaluator compares the frozen case file with the observed outcomes and measures timing, mechanisms correctly identified, false positives, false negatives, actionability, distributive effects, communication effects and cost.¶ 165

2. The initial scenarios are not rewritten. Corrections appear as new versions.¶ 166

3. The aggregate performance of the alert authority is published, including unconfirmed alerts and missed events.¶ 167

4. The loop is simplified, suspended or abandoned if it does not improve preparedness or if it produces disproportionate reflexive effects.¶ 168

Part V — Data, artificial intelligence and security

Article 27 — Data contract and provenance¶ 169

1. Each pipeline is governed by a data contract specifying purpose, responsible person, sources, quality, rights, minimisation, access, sharing, retention, security, localisation, transfer, correction, deletion and audit.¶ 170

2. Provenance links each result to the data, transformations, code, model version and responsible person. Synthetic or imputed data are identified.¶ 171

3. Data are frozen for decisions or comparative analyses; any update is dated and does not silently replace the decision version.¶ 172

4. Low-capacity parties receive support to produce and to contest data without transferring their informational sovereignty.¶ 173

Article 28 — Human authority matrix and use of AI¶ 174

1. For each system, the matrix distinguishes: automatable tasks; recommendations; human validations; acts reserved to an authority; and prohibited acts.¶ 175

2. No AI may on its own issue an official alert, a final qualification, a consequence, a mandatory disbursement, a certification or a redress decision.¶ 176

3. Human validation is not a formal signature: the responsible person has comprehensible information, time, the power to refuse and the responsibility to give reasons.¶ 177

4. The rates of disagreement, of modification, of reversal and of error are measured. Relevant minority opinions are preserved.¶ 178

Article 29 — Algorithmic assurance, plurality and supplier dependence¶ 179

1. Systems are tested before deployment and periodically for accuracy, robustness, regime change, bias, security, explainability, contestability and distributive effects.¶ 180

2. For significant decisions, several models are used, or a justification of the single model. Divergences are not erased by an unreasoned average.¶ 181

3. Contracts with suppliers secure access to logs, portability, continuity, audit, incident notification and an exit plan.¶ 182

4. Critical dependence on a supplier, on a model or on an infrastructure is treated as an institutional risk to be reduced.¶ 183

Article 30 — Cybersecurity, confidentiality and incident¶ 184

1. Data and systems are classified according to their sensitivity and protected by proportionate technical, organisational and human controls.¶ 185

2. Any incident liable to impair the evidence, the confidentiality, the availability or the integrity is notified, contained, documented and submitted to independent analysis.¶ 186

3. An incident suspends dependent acts where integrity cannot be demonstrated. Affected parties are informed according to the law and the risk.¶ 187

4. Backups, logs, recovery plans and crisis exercises are tested regularly.¶ 188

Part VI — Funding, independence and cooperation

Article 31 — Budget and funding of the functions¶ 189

1. Each function has a transparent budget, multiannual where necessary, distinct from the revenues or decisions that it influences.¶ 190

2. The sources, amounts, conditions, beneficiaries, fees and conflicts of interest are published. Earmarked contributions buy neither method, nor rating, nor case-file priority.¶ 191

3. Measurement and independent counter-assessment are funded through mutualised mechanisms or independent firewalls; the principle is to finance the measurement — but the rated never pays the rater.¶ 192

4. The accounts are audited against recognised standards and accompanied by a report on effective independence.¶ 193

Article 32 — Rules of non-circularity and independence¶ 194

1. The body that produces a measurement, a rating or a consequence is not financially dependent on its activation, on the amount set or on the revenues collected.¶ 195

2. The funder does not choose the beneficiaries on the basis of a measurement that it can modify, and the beneficiary does not choose the evaluator on whom its allocation depends.¶ 196

3. Remuneration, promotions and contracts are not linked to the number of case files, alerts, sanctions or amounts.¶ 197

4. Any exception is temporary, published, audited and accompanied by an exit solution.¶ 198

Article 33 — Cooperation clause and mutual assistance¶ 199

1. The parties cooperate on the exchange of data, technical assistance, alerts, notification, audits, the enforcement of their own acts and the protection of affected persons.¶ 200

2. Cooperation does not amount to automatic recognition of an act. Any recognition requires competence, purpose, procedure, proportionality, a clearly indicated final or provisional character, equivalence and redress.¶ 201

3. A party may refuse or limit cooperation incompatible with its law, its fundamental constitutional principles, security or the rights of third parties; it gives reasons for the refusal and seeks a less restrictive alternative.¶ 202

4. Cooperation mechanisms may not be used to create a regulatory cartel, arbitrary discrimination or an abuse of market power.¶ 203

Article 34 — Optional module of coordinated recognition¶ 204

1. The parties may adopt a module exhaustively listing the categories of acts capable of coordinated recognition and their conditions.¶ 205

2. Mutual recognition distinguishes final, provisional, advisory and experimental acts. GAF-R or GAF-P acts do not become binding through mere political recognition.¶ 206

3. Equivalent regimes are recognised without double burden. A public policy exception is interpreted strictly and is open to redress.¶ 207

4. This module authorises no conditioning of market access contrary to trade, tax, constitutional or competition law.¶ 208

Part VII — Crisis, pilots, capacities and evaluation

Article 35 — Fast-track modes in crisis situations¶ 209

1. Fast-track modes are pre-authorised in the mandate of each function and activated by public or reviewable thresholds. They accelerate the procedure without extending substantive power.¶ 210

2. They preserve at a minimum the duty-holder, the provenance, the reasons, the duration, the expiry, the log and an adapted avenue of redress.¶ 211

3. Acts taken in fast-track mode are reviewed after the crisis and cease on expiry unless a new basis is established.¶ 212

4. The preventive loop prepares the shift to fast-track mode, but does not on its own trigger it.¶ 213

Article 36 — Minimum viable pilot and comparison of architectures¶ 214

1. Every pilot is pre-registered and specifies the question, the case files, the parties, the data, the functions, the architectures compared, the indicators, the stopping rules, the budget, the conflicts and publication.¶ 215

2. The reference design compares at a minimum: A, the existing process; B, a light protocol or federated network; C, the proposed integrated architecture. The same frozen data and horizons are used.¶ 216

3. The first pilots use, absent a specific basis, notional consequences, shadow alerts and no sanction. Affected parties nonetheless have information, counter-assessment and procedural redress.¶ 217

4. The pilot concludes in favour of maintaining, simplifying, merging or rejecting. It may not be declared successful on internal coherence alone.¶ 218

Article 37 — Differentiated capacity and equitable access¶ 219

1. Requirements are graduated according to materiality, function and capacity without lowering the floors of rights and of redress.¶ 220

2. Low-capacity parties benefit from assistance, open tools, funding for data, translation, training and independent counter-assessment.¶ 221

3. A missing datum does not automatically become an absence of impact; it is handled by uncertainty, bounds, assistance or stopping.¶ 222

4. Compliance costs are monitored so that the architecture does not exclude the actors it claims to protect.¶ 223

Article 38 — Participation and articulation with the Call of Carthage¶ 224

1. Reports, transmissions, qualified petitions and deliberative opinions arising from the four channels of the Call of Carthage are received, registered and processed according to published thresholds and time limits, specified by the citizen participation guide adopted as a subordinate protocol.¶ 225

2. A petition requires a reasoned response, not a decision. Referral and standing remain governed by the law and by the applicable module.¶ 226

3. Panels or consultations receive expertise, counter-assessment, information on uncertainties and publication of conflicts of interest.¶ 227

4. Institutions publish the manner in which the contribution was taken into account, or why it was set aside.¶ 228

Article 39 — Audit, red team and transparency¶ 229

1. Audits cover the science, the data, the law, governance, cybersecurity, finances, conflicts, interfaces and results.¶ 230

2. An independent red team actively seeks out errors, circumventions, capture strategies, biases, adverse scenarios and simpler architectures.¶ 231

3. Reports, responses, correction plans and disagreements are published, subject to strictly necessary protections.¶ 232

4. The auditor does not depend on the audited entity for selection, renewal or remuneration without an independent mechanism.¶ 233

Article 40 — Indicators, annual report and learning¶ 234

1. The indicators distinguish process, output, impact and unintended effects. They include cost, delay, quality of evidence, errors, revised decisions, access to redress, compliance burden, distribution, resilience and performance without AI.¶ 235

2. An annual report publishes the case files, alerts, activations, closures, redress proceedings, errors, costs, audits, changes of method and negative results.¶ 236

3. No institution assesses its own success alone. Affected parties and independent evaluators contribute to the report.¶ 237

4. The indicators are revised without erasing the historical series.¶ 238

Part VIII — Correction, conflicts and final provisions

Article 41 — Correction, suspension and non-propagation¶ 239

1. Any material error, unmanaged conflict, incident, loss of integrity or excess of competence triggers a correction procedure and, where necessary, a targeted suspension.¶ 240

2. The failure of one function does not automatically suspend the others. Interfaces are designed to prevent the propagation of an error, of a capture or of an incident.¶ 241

3. Acts dependent on invalidated data or on an invalidated system are identified, reviewed and, where appropriate, withdrawn or corrected.¶ 242

4. Suspension is proportionate, reasoned, temporary and open to redress.¶ 243

Article 42 — Settlement of disputes¶ 244

1. Disputes are first submitted to consultation and to technical or legal mediation. This stage does not suspend urgent measures necessary for the protection of rights.¶ 245

2. Failing that, the parties use the forum designated in their declaration: independent committee, arbitration, existing court or specialised mechanism.¶ 246

3. No party is subject to a jurisdiction without valid consent. The rights of third parties and the individual avenues of redress provided by law are not removed by an inter-institutional clause.¶ 247

4. Decisions on the interpretation of the GAF are published and entered in the register of internal precedents, without creating any external primacy.¶ 248

Article 43 — Amendment, version and experimentation¶ 249

1. Every amendment is accompanied by its purpose, its evidentiary basis, its impact on rights, functions, costs, data and redress, together with the alternatives examined.¶ 250

2. Amendments extending a power, reducing a guarantee, modifying a critical threshold or creating a mandatory consequence follow a reinforced procedure of consultation, legal opinion and approval.¶ 251

3. Experiments are identified, limited in time, reversible and separated from the stable rules. They expire in the absence of confirmation.¶ 252

4. Each version retains a concordance table and a public log of modifications.¶ 253

Article 43 bis — Revision of parameters and of technical annexes¶ 254

1. Mandates, competences, negative mandates, procedural guarantees and recognised rights are modified only by amendment, in accordance with Article 43.¶ 255

2. Quantitative parameters and technical annexes — scales, thresholds, coefficients, taxonomies, case-file formats and data dictionaries — are revised by qualified decision of the competent body, with automatic effect for all parties, without a new accession procedure.¶ 256

3. Every revision of a parameter is published, justified by its evidentiary basis, and accompanied by an objection period and by an assessment of its distributive effect. A party that refuses it may withdraw from the module concerned in accordance with Article 45, without that withdrawal affecting the other modules.¶ 257

4. The distinction between structure and parameter is set out in an annex; it is modified only by amendment.¶ 258

Article 44 — Conflicts of norms and public policy¶ 259

1. In the event of conflict, the act is suspended to the extent necessary and an analysis identifies the applicable norm, the competence, the rights at stake, the compliance solutions and the effects on third parties.¶ 260

2. The Carthage Charter guides the internal order; applicable law prevails in the external legal order.¶ 261

3. The public policy exception is reasoned, targeted and open to review. It does not serve to escape, for reasons of convenience, an obligation validly consented to.¶ 262

4. The parties seek the least restrictive solution: consistent interpretation, adaptation, equivalence, reservation, withdrawal from the module or cessation of the act.¶ 263

Article 45 — Accession, reservations and changes of participation¶ 264

1. Any authorised entity may accede by a declaration conforming to Article 4. Admission may be made conditional on a capacity diagnosis and on a compliance plan.¶ 265

2. Reservations may not deprive the rights, the statement of reasons, human responsibility, the integrity of the case file or redress of their substance within the activated scope.¶ 266

3. A party may add or withdraw modules with notice, impact analysis, treatment of pending case files and updating of the register.¶ 267

4. Accessions, reservations, objections, modifications and suspensions are published.¶ 268

Article 46 — Withdrawal and surviving obligations¶ 269

1. A party may withdraw in accordance with the notice period and the procedure of its instrument of adoption. Withdrawal does not transform advisory acts into obligations, nor obligations into perpetual rights.¶ 270

2. Pending case files are closed, transferred or continued by a reasoned decision respecting the rights of the parties and applicable law.¶ 271

3. Obligations of confidentiality, data protection, preservation of evidence, integrity of versions, audit of funds and enforcement of a final remedy may survive to the extent provided by law.¶ 272

4. Withdrawal is assessed in order to identify its effects on continuity, on capacity and on third parties.¶ 273

Article 47 — Entry into force and final clauses¶ 274

1. The GAF-R comes into use on the date of publication of its adopted version. The GAF-P enters into force in accordance with the pilot agreement. The GAF-C enters into force in accordance with the conditions of consent and incorporation for which it provides.¶ 275

2. The authentic languages, the depositary, the notifications, the signatures, the mandatory annexes and the certification procedure are specified in the instrument of adoption.¶ 276

3. Technical annexes may be updated under a simplified procedure where they modify neither competence, nor right, nor consequence; any substantial modification falls under Article 43.¶ 277

4. The present draft remains open to consultation, adversarial challenge and revision before any adoption.¶ 278

ADOPTION BLOCK¶ 279

Operational annexes

Annex O-A — Minimal case-file passport

Annex O-B — Minimal interface contract

Annex O-C — Epistemic statuses and authorised consequences

Annex O-D — Alert levels of the Preventive Accountability Loop

Annex O-E — Minimal design of the three-arm pilot

Annex O-F — Summary matrix of functions

Annex O-G — Minimal data contract

Annex O-H — Scale of legal and operational maturity

Annex O-I — Operational glossary

Annex O-J — Register of subordinate protocols

Subordinate protocols specify the application of the GAF without being able to extend a competence, to reduce a guarantee of the Charter or to create a new consequence. They are versioned, published and amended in accordance with Article 43. Initial register:¶ 280

Design note and points for external validation

1 Principal design decisions

The GAF is an instrument and not an eighth institution.¶ 281

The Charter sets the rights and the limits; the GAF organises the procedures; the Call opens participation.¶ 282

The 7+3 remains a candidate architecture. The GAF also allows a federated or merged model, or one hosted within existing institutions.¶ 283

The financial consequence is a conditional branch, never the default path.¶ 284

Prevention is a cross-cutting loop and a procedural duty, not a veto power.¶ 285

Coordinated recognition is an optional module subject to the law, to equivalence and to redress.¶ 286

Pilots must compare the status quo, a light architecture and the integrated architecture.¶ 287

2 Points to be validated by specialists

The exact qualification of the GAF-P and of the GAF-C according to the participants and the jurisdictions.¶ 288

The legal bases and immunities applicable to each act of consequence, of enforcement and of redress.¶ 289

Mutual recognition and the conditions of market access in the light of trade, tax and competition law.¶ 290

The standards of evidence and of suspensive effect for provisional acts, alerts and emergency measures.¶ 291

Data protection, localisation, transfers, erasure and evidentiary retention.¶ 292

The clauses on survival after withdrawal, on reservations, on public policy and on the settlement of disputes.¶ 293

The governance of appointments, budgets, audits, AI suppliers and recusal mechanisms.¶ 294

The articulation with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations and with the binding decisions of the Security Council, for each of the GAF-R, GAF-P and GAF-C forms.¶ 295

3 Documentary portfolio to be produced after consultation

@incollection{yaiche_hc_annexe_o,
  author    = {Yaïche, Nizar},
  title     = {Annex O — Global Accountability Framework (GAF)},
  booktitle = {The Humanity Compact},
  year      = {2026},
  version   = {2.3},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.22746533},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  url       = {https://humanitycompact.org/ouvrage/annexe-o/}
}

A book by Nizar Yaïche, former Minister of Finance of the Republic of Tunisia. Who is the author?