Where did the knowledge come from?
Identify source records and attribution. A citation helps trace a claim; it does not establish ownership or permission.
Our approach
Keep the record.
Keep the responsibility.
Provenance, consent, and agreed terms answer different questions. A responsible documentation process should not collapse them into one score.
Design principles
Four questions worth keeping separate.
Who has authority to decide?
Document the people or bodies authorized to speak for the relevant knowledge and use. Do not assume one contact represents a whole community.
What use was agreed?
Keep the purpose, scope, restrictions, and review conditions attached to the record. Consent to one activity is not consent to every subsequent use.
What remains unresolved?
Make gaps, uncertainty, and the need for community or professional review visible. An incomplete record should not look like a completed authorization.
Consent and community authority
Participation is a choice.
Not a checkbox.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent is a guiding principle for our work. The process must respect community-specific protocols, authorized decision-making, and the scope of the proposed use.
A software-generated record cannot make consent legitimate, settle a dispute over authority, or replace a community-led process. Changed uses require renewed consideration of the relevant permissions and terms.
Illustrative documentation outline
What a reviewable record should make clear.
This is a design example, not a product screenshot, consent artifact, or compliance certificate.
- Source & attribution
- What is documented, and by whom?
- Authority & permission
- Who agreed to the use, and within what scope?
- Terms & restrictions
- What conditions must travel with the record?
- Open questions
- What still needs evidence or review?
Keep the context
A record is useful only
if its limits are visible.
Explore the research questions guiding development.