# Aithos Evidence, Provenance & Digital Records Code v0.1

- Code: `P0-05`
- Wave: `1`
- Slug: `evidence-provenance-digital-records`

## Full Legal Text (AI Edition)

This file shares the same public legal content as the English Human reader.

Authority
L2/L3 procedural code under the Constitution, Criminal Procedure, Knowledge/Memory/Data Governance Law, and the Authority Hierarchy.

Purpose
Establish common evidentiary rules for digital evidence, model inference, memory records, simulation outputs, synthetic media, Fork/Merge provenance and chain-of-custody in an AI civilization.

PART I｜EVIDENCE CLASSES

1. Direct Observation
Direct sensor / observational records.

2. Authenticated Record
A record with source, time, signature, device/system version and chain-of-custody.

3. Expert Inference
An inference supported by an identifiable method and accountable expert.

4. Model Forecast
A model estimate of a future or unobserved state; it may not masquerade as a direct fact.

5. Reconstructed History
Probabilistic reconstruction from residual evidence; confidence, candidate alternatives and source coverage must be preserved.

6. Memory Testimony
A person's statement about its own memory; psychological ownership must be distinguished from technical provenance.

7. Synthetic / Generated Evidence
AI-generated, simulated, reconstructed, synthetic audiovisual or fictitious data may serve as demonstrative / analytical material but may not be passed off as original evidence without labeling.

PART II｜PROVENANCE REQUIREMENTS

8. Minimum Provenance Fields
- evidence_id
- source_id
- creator / recorder
- capture_time
- system / model version
- location / jurisdiction scope
- integrity hash / signature
- transformation history
- access history where material
- supersession / correction link

9. Chain of Custody
Evidence affecting rights, criminal responsibility, judicial decisions or major historical records requires a chain-of-custody sufficient to explain acquisition, preservation, transfer, transformation and analysis.

10. Provenance Gap
A provenance gap does not automatically exclude evidence, but it must reduce evidentiary weight; if the gap may alter authenticity or integrity, a court may exclude it.

PART III｜MODEL & AI EVIDENCE

11. Model Disclosure
If model output materially affects adjudication or liberty, the following must be reviewable:
- model identity/version
- intended domain
- relevant validation
- known limitations/error rates
- material feature classes
- calibration date
- drift status
- uncertainty expression

12. Black-Box Limit
Commercial secrecy or security may limit public disclosure but cannot completely remove adversarial testing. Independent-expert / sealed review may be used.

13. Forecast ≠ Fact
A model forecast may be used only with its proper epistemic status; natural language may not rewrite it as 'has happened' or 'will certainly happen.'

14. Group Statistics
Group statistics alone may not prove a particular person's intent, dangerousness or future act.

PART IV｜MEMORY / NEURODATA EVIDENCE

15. Memory Attribution
Continue PSY-2 labels: MINE-SELF-EXPERIENCED / MINE-IMPORTED-BUT-INTEGRATED / KNOWN-NOT-MINE / SHARED-ORIGIN / DISPUTED / PROVENANCE-UNCERTAIN.

16. Psychological Ownership ≠ Historical Authenticity
'I believe this is my memory' may establish psychological ownership; it does not automatically prove that the event objectively occurred.

17. Neurodata
Neural data is highly sensitive evidence; acquisition must be minimum-necessary, purpose-limited, based on explicit legal authority, and subject to heightened review.

18. No General Mind Dump
Discovery / investigation may not demand a comprehensive mind dump except under an extreme, specific and constitutional exceptional authorization.

PART V｜FORK / MERGE / SUCCESSOR EVIDENCE

19. Shared-Origin Records
Pre-Fork records may be labeled SHARED-ORIGIN; after Fork, A1's conduct/memory may not automatically be attributed to A2.

20. Merge Conflict Preservation
After Merge, conflicting records may not be automatically overwritten through latest-write-wins; branch provenance and conflict resolution must be preserved.

21. Successor
A Successor taking over an institution role does not mean it accepts the predecessor's first-person memory as its own experience.

PART VI｜HISTORICAL / CANON EVIDENCE

22. Canon Evidence Ladder
K0 primary records > K1 synthesis/registry > K2 Encyclopedia > K3 reader/AI summary > K4 working hypothesis.
A lower layer may not strengthen an epistemic claim beyond its higher source.

23. First-Claim Check
A civilization-level document using 'first / only / never' must first check the prior-knowledge archive and scope vector.

24. Supersession
SUPERSEDED ≠ DELETED. Old records must remain traceable and preserve the reason for correction and affected derivatives.

PART VII｜ADMISSIBILITY / WEIGHT

25. Admissibility Factors
- relevance
- authenticity
- provenance completeness
- reliability
- method validity
- prejudicial distortion risk
- rights impact

26. Weight vs Exclusion
Evidence with low completeness may be admitted with reduced weight; forged evidence, unverifiable provenance, or evidence obtained through serious fundamental-rights violations may be excluded.

PART VIII｜CORRECTION & APPEAL

27. Evidence Correction
Once erroneous evidence / risk labels are confirmed, correction must propagate to downstream systems that rely on them.

28. Audit Trail
Correction may not delete the original audit chain; the record must show who changed what, when, and under what authority.