Skip to content
Planetary Integrity Foundation Contact
Version 0.1 Founding-phase governance design

Governance Model

Founding-phase governance design for the Planetary Integrity Foundation.

01

Purpose

The governance model defines how the Planetary Integrity Foundation intends to preserve independence, transparency, public-interest orientation and accountable human authority while developing the Planetary Decision Integrity Protocol, Kairo and the Decision Integrity Check.

The purpose is not to create a private authority over planetary decisions. The purpose is to design an institutional structure that makes consequence assessment more transparent, reviewable and accountable before material decisions become irreversible commitments.

02

Governance principles

The governance design is based on seven principles.

  1. 01

    1. Public-interest orientation

    The initiative exists to improve the quality, transparency and accountability of material decisions whose consequences exceed the field of view of any single institution.

  2. 02

    2. Independence

    The foundation must avoid becoming structurally dependent on interests that could distort the assessment of consequence, uncertainty, evidence or systemic risk.

  3. 03

    3. Human authority

    AI may support analysis, connection, retrieval, comparison and explanation. Human authority remains explicit. Institutional and legal responsibility cannot be delegated to an AI system.

  4. 04

    4. Evidence traceability

    Claims, assumptions, sources, uncertainties and model limits must remain visible and reviewable.

  5. 05

    5. Assumption review

    Material assumptions must be named, challenged, revised and preserved as part of the decision record.

  6. 06

    6. Conflict-of-interest control

    Financial, institutional or personal interests that may affect assessment independence must be disclosed, reviewed and managed.

  7. 07

    7. Controlled openness

    The protocol should be open enough to invite scrutiny and contribution, but governed enough to preserve coherence, quality and trust.

03

Governance domains

The governance model is organized around six domains.

  1. 01

    Protocol governance

    Defines how the Planetary Decision Integrity Protocol evolves, how changes are proposed, reviewed and accepted, and how versions remain traceable.

  2. 02

    Evidence governance

    Defines how sources, models, assumptions, uncertainties and limitations are recorded and reviewed.

  3. 03

    AI governance

    Defines the role and limits of Kairo as a planned Consequence Intelligence engine. Kairo supports assessment. It does not decide, authorize, certify or replace accountable institutions.

  4. 04

    Contributor governance

    Defines how advisors, researchers, technologists and institutional contributors may participate without compromising independence or coherence.

  5. 05

    Conflict governance

    Defines how conflicts of interest are disclosed, assessed and handled.

  6. 06

    Publication governance

    Defines what can be publicly released, what must remain qualified, and how uncertainty must be communicated.

04

Human authority and AI limits

Kairo is intended to support consequence assessment by helping connect evidence, surface assumptions, trace reasoning and make uncertainty visible.

Kairo must not be presented as:

The governance model must preserve a clear boundary:

  • an autonomous decision-maker;
  • an oracle;
  • a source of legal, political, scientific or institutional authority;
  • a replacement for expert judgment;
  • a substitute for democratic, regulatory or accountable institutional processes;
  • a certification system;
  • a guarantee of correctness.
AI supports consequence visibility.Humans retain authority, accountability and responsibility.

05

Independence and conflict-of-interest controls

The foundation should define controls for:

At founding phase, these controls are not presented as completed institutional procedures. They are part of the governance design work required before the initiative can credibly seek larger institutional authority.

  • funding dependency;
  • advisory conflicts;
  • institutional influence;
  • methodological capture;
  • data-source bias;
  • model-provider dependency;
  • publication pressure;
  • reputational incentives.

06

Transparency and evidence traceability

A credible governance model requires that assessments remain inspectable.

A Decision Integrity Check should make visible:

This does not mean every source or dataset must always be public. It means that the structure of reasoning, the limits of evidence and the existence of uncertainty must not be hidden.

  • the material decision being assessed;
  • the affected systems;
  • the evidence base;
  • the assumptions used;
  • the uncertainty level;
  • the reasoning path;
  • the consequence categories;
  • the unresolved questions;
  • the human review record.

07

Review and accountability model

The intended review model separates analysis from authority.

  1. 01

    Analytical layer

    Structures evidence, assumptions, consequences, uncertainty and trade-offs.

  2. 02

    Review layer

    Challenges completeness, bias, source quality, uncertainty and interpretation.

  3. 03

    Authority layer

    Remains with accountable human and institutional decision-makers.

  4. 04

    Record layer

    Preserves what was assessed, what was uncertain, what was challenged and what was ultimately accepted or rejected.

08

What is not claimed at this stage

At this founding phase, the Planetary Integrity Foundation does not claim that:

These limits are part of the trust architecture. Overclaiming would damage the integrity the initiative is trying to build.

  • the governance model is final;
  • governance bodies are already operating;
  • the protocol is complete;
  • Kairo is a deployed production system;
  • Decision Integrity Checks are certified assessments;
  • public institutions have adopted the model;
  • scientific validation has been completed;
  • legal or regulatory authority has been obtained;
  • funding or institutional partnerships have been secured.

09

Current status

The governance model is being defined alongside the Planetary Decision Integrity Protocol, Kairo and the Decision Integrity Check.

The next work is to define:

  • governance roles;
  • versioning rules;
  • review procedures;
  • contributor admission criteria;
  • conflict-of-interest procedures;
  • publication rules;
  • evidence traceability requirements;
  • AI authority limits.

11

Contact

For serious institutional, advisory or technical conversations, contact the founding team.

Contact the Founding Team