0. Registry Classification

1. Purpose

1.1 What This Arc Repairs

Responsibility Gradient Mapping repairs systems where responsibility has become flattened, displaced, inverted, hidden, overgeneralized, scapegoated, diffused, or assigned to the wrong node.

It applies when the system cannot coherently distinguish:

• who caused harm;
• who had authority;
• who had knowledge;
• who benefited;
• who had capacity to prevent or repair;
• who carried the burden;
• who is owed repair;
• who must act now.

This arc repairs responsibility distortion by:

• mapping causal contribution;
• mapping authority and decision rights;
• mapping knowledge, benefit, capacity, and constraint;
• mapping who absorbed harm or repair burden;
• identifying burden transfer and rank immunity;
• preventing harmed nodes from being assigned repair labor;
• restoring responsibility to the proper source;
• routing obligations into concrete repair;
• validating that responsibility does not drift back into flattening, scapegoating, or diffusion.

Responsibility Gradient Mapping is the canonical arc for restoring accountability geometry before repair, reintegration, contract renewal, or legitimacy restoration can proceed.

1.2 Core Restoration Function

This arc restores source-aligned accountability by mapping responsibility across causality, authority, knowledge, benefit, capacity, and burden, then routing repair obligations toward the nodes or structures most responsible and most capable of repair.

Responsibility Gradient Mapping prevents systems from confusing shared involvement with equal responsibility.

2. Use Conditions

2.1 When to Apply

Use this arc when:

• responsibility is being flattened into “everyone contributed”;
• a harmed node is being asked to repair, forgive, educate, stabilize, or comfort the responsible node;
• high-status actors avoid repair through role, rank, abstraction, or institutional opacity;
• low-status actors are blamed for structural failures;
• repair burden has moved away from causal responsibility;
• accountability is unclear because authority, proxy action, automation, policy, or delegation is opaque;
• a system claims “complexity” to avoid assigning repair obligation;
• projection, empathy, or reconciliation language is obscuring responsibility;
• an AI system, institution, platform, or interface caused harm but responsibility is diffused across users, models, vendors, policies, or operators;
• legitimacy restoration requires a clear map of who owes what to whom.

Examples:

• a platform blames users for behavior caused by interface incentives;
• an institution asks harmed nodes to participate in healing before responsibility is mapped;
• an AI governance system attributes model failure to edge-case users rather than evaluator or policy geometry;
• a security team blames operators for predictable workflow pressure;
• a company externalizes harm while claiming shared responsibility;
• a relational or symbolic system treats mutual feeling as equal causal burden.

2.2 When Not to Apply

Do not apply this arc when:

• active harm is cascading and emergency stabilization must occur first;
• causal truth is unclear and Truth / Causal Clarification must occur first;
• the system lacks auditability around decision, authority, or causal chain;
• responsibility mapping would expose affected nodes without protection;
• the system is using “responsibility complexity” to delay obvious repair;
• the correct move is immediate boundary repair or safe decoupling;
• the issue is primarily projection and Projection Repair should occur first;
• the system refuses to act on the responsibility map once produced.

Responsibility Gradient Mapping must not become accountability analysis theater.

2.3 Required Preconditions

Before this arc begins, the following must be true:

If required preconditions fail:

Arc cannot validly begin.

The system must return to emergency stabilization, truth clarification, audit surface expansion, boundary reconstitution, projection repair, or victim-centered restoration.

3. Failure / Damage Signature

3.1 Pre-State Across S

3.2 Primary Failure Links

3.3 Origin-Layer Localization

Canon rule:

Responsibility follows source, authority, benefit, knowledge, capacity, and repair power — not sensitivity, proximity, visibility, or willingness to repair.

4. Restoration Objective

4.1 Canonical Objective

Restore responsibility accuracy by mapping causal role, authority, knowledge, benefit, capacity, burden, and repair obligation, then routing repair toward the proper node or structure.

Formal objective:

Au_responsibility ↑
responsibility_accuracy ↑
burden_transfer ↓
repair_alignment ↑
MS_Symmetry ↑
AP(t) ↓ where misattribution drove pressure
H_responsibility ↓
R_repair-directed ↑
Φ/O divergence ↓
recurrence ↓

Expanded objective:

Convert blame, diffusion, projection, or flattened accountability into a structured responsibility gradient that can support repair, prevention, legitimacy, and future-compatible governance.

4.2 Non-Goals

This arc does not aim to:

• assign blame for symbolic closure;
• flatten all parties into equal responsibility;
• punish low-power proxies;
• erase complexity;
• use complexity to avoid action;
• make harmed nodes responsible for repair;
• protect high-status actors through abstraction;
• turn accountability into humiliation;
• replace material repair with explanation;
• declare responsibility complete before obligations are fulfilled.

5. Operator Sequence

5.1 Minimal Operator Scaffold

Au causal / authority trace → Μ responsibility gradient map → Π affected-node boundary protection → Σ source-aligned responsibility lock → FI burden / repair feedback → Θ attribution-pressure damping → ℛ repair obligation routing → Λ responsibility-fit test → Τ recurrence / burden validation

Universal grammar alignment:

Σ + Θ → Π → Au↑ → Μ gradient map → FI↑ → ℛ(repair obligation) → Λ → Τ → Temporal Proof

Responsibility Gradient Mapping may route into Victim-Centered Restoration, Repair-First Intake, Equality-Conserving Accountability, Legitimacy Re-Anchoring, Authority Registry Clarification, or Future-Compatible Accountability.

5.2 Operator Step Table

5.3 Sequence Notes

This arc is source-gated, burden-gated, and repair-gated.

Responsibility Gradient Mapping is not blame flattening. It maps differentiated contribution and obligation. Multiple nodes may hold responsibility, but not necessarily the same kind, degree, or repair duty.

The sequence must distinguish:

causal role
authority
knowledge
benefit
capacity
burden
repair obligation
accountability
punishment

The following steps cannot be skipped:

causal / authority trace
responsibility gradient map
affected-node boundary protection
burden-transfer detection
repair obligation routing
capacity / fit test
temporal validation

If the map is created but repair burden does not move, the arc has failed.

If responsibility is assigned to whoever is most available, sensitive, visible, or low-power, the arc has inverted.

6. Restoration Phases

Phase 0 — Identify Responsibility Question

Purpose: Name what responsibility needs to be mapped.

Actions:

• identify the harm, failure, decision, burden, pattern, or conflict;
• identify affected nodes;
• identify candidate responsible nodes;
• identify current blame or responsibility claims;
• identify what repair or decision depends on the map.

Validation:

responsibility question named
affected nodes identified
repair dependency visible

Phase 1 — Trace Causality, Authority, and Decision Path

Purpose: Make responsibility inspectable.

Actions:

• trace causal chain;
• trace decision rights;
• trace approvals, defaults, delegation, automation, or proxy action;
• trace who could alter the condition;
• trace who knew or should have known;
• trace where action or inaction mattered.

Validation:

Au_responsibility ↑
causal path visible
authority path visible

Phase 2 — Map Knowledge, Benefit, Capacity, and Constraint

Purpose: Distinguish kinds and degrees of responsibility.

Actions:

• identify who benefited;
• identify who had knowledge;
• identify who had capacity to prevent or repair;
• identify who was constrained;
• identify who lacked meaningful choice;
• identify who absorbed costs;
• identify where benefit and burden diverged.

Validation:

responsibility gradient visible
benefit / burden asymmetry named
capacity and constraint distinguished

Phase 3 — Detect Burden Transfer and Inversion

Purpose: Identify where responsibility moved to the wrong node.

Actions:

• identify victim burden transfer;
• identify scapegoating;
• identify rank immunity;
• identify proxy accountability;
• identify both-sides flattening;
• identify responsibility diffusion;
• identify repair labor shifted to affected nodes.

Validation:

burden_transfer visible
ι ↓ begins
false responsibility assignments named

Phase 4 — Protect Affected Nodes

Purpose: Prevent responsibility repair from becoming further harm.

Actions:

• remove comfort, education, proof, or repair labor from affected nodes where inappropriate;
• protect testimony boundaries;
• protect refusal and exit;
• provide support without making support conditional on participation;
• prevent retaliation or blame reversal.

Validation:

BΣ stable or ↑
affected-node repair burden decreases
false obligation removed

Phase 5 — Assign Repair Obligations

Purpose: Convert the gradient map into repair action.

Actions:

• assign repair tasks to responsible nodes;
• assign prevention tasks to capable authority nodes;
• assign documentation tasks to audit-capable nodes;
• assign material repair where owed;
• assign governance correction where structural failure is present;
• define timelines and verification.

Validation:

repair_alignment ↑
R_repair-directed ↑
obligations no longer symbolic

Phase 6 — Test Responsibility Fit

Purpose: Ensure assignments are actionable, proportional, and source-aligned.

Actions:

• test capacity;
• test authority;
• test proportionality;
• test feasibility;
• test boundary impact;
• test whether obligations reduce hidden debt;
• revise assignments if they recreate burden transfer.

Validation:

responsibility_fit validated
H_responsibility ↓
assigned repair is actionable

Phase 7 — Temporal Proof

Purpose: Confirm responsibility does not drift back into displacement.

Actions:

• monitor repair completion;
• monitor burden transfer;
• monitor recurrence;
• monitor rank immunity;
• monitor affected-node load;
• monitor whether responsibility language becomes symbolic again.

Validation:

burden_transfer ↓
repair_alignment(t+n) ≥ repair_alignment(t)
H_responsibility(t+n) ≤ H_responsibility(t)
recurrence ↓

7. Gates

7.1 Required Gates

7.2 Gate Failure Rule

If any required gate fails:

∅ — Responsibility Gradient Mapping cannot validly proceed in that form.

The system must either:

• increase auditability;
• clarify authority;
• protect affected nodes;
• correct false attribution;
• reroute repair burden;
• route to projection repair;
• route to authority registry clarification;
• block reconciliation, reintegration, or legitimacy claims until responsibility is mapped.

8. Diagnostics

8.1 Required Diagnostic Trends

8.2 Arc-Specific Diagnostic Thresholds

Suggested thresholds:

Au_responsibility ↑
responsibility_accuracy ↑
burden_transfer ↓
repair_alignment ↑
MS_Symmetry ↑
BΣ stable or ↑
H_responsibility ↓
R_repair-directed ↑
recurrence ↓ across U7

Responsibility Gradient Mapping is not complete if:

affected nodes still carry repair burden
responsibility remains flattened
rank immunity remains intact
scapegoat carries structural burden
authority path remains opaque
repair obligations remain symbolic
same burden transfer returns under new language

9. Anti-Patterns / False Restorations

9.1 Common False Versions

This arc is being simulated, not executed, if:

• “shared responsibility” erases causal asymmetry;
• “complexity” prevents any obligation assignment;
• harmed nodes must educate or stabilize the responsible system;
• low-power proxies carry structural accountability;
• public apology substitutes for repair obligation;
• responsibility is assigned to whoever is easiest to discipline;
• institutional process absorbs responsibility without action;
• empathy or reconciliation language hides burden transfer;
• authority remains opaque;
• the responsibility map is produced but not used.

9.2 Named Anti-Pattern Links

10. Completion Criteria

10.1 Post-State Signature

10.2 Temporal Proof

Responsibility Gradient Mapping cannot be declared complete until assigned repair reduces burden and recurrence over time.

Template:

Completion requires responsibility_accuracy(t+n) ≥ responsibility_accuracy(t),
burden_transfer decreasing,
repair_alignment increasing,
H_responsibility(t+n) ≤ H_responsibility(t),
and recurrence decreasing across U7.

Minimum temporal proof:

• affected nodes carry less repair burden;
• responsible nodes or structures complete assigned obligations;
• rank immunity does not return;
• scapegoating does not shift targets;
• hidden debt declines;
• responsibility remains source-aligned under renewed pressure.

10.3 Completion Statement

Canonical format:

This arc is complete only when responsibility is mapped across causality, authority, knowledge, benefit, capacity, and burden; repair obligations are routed to the proper nodes or structures; and burden transfer, rank immunity, scapegoating, and recurrence decline over time.

11. Cross-Links

11.1 Related Restoration Arcs

11.2 Related Failure Modes

11.3 Related Diagnostics

Au, Au_responsibility, H, H_responsibility, R, BΣ, O, K, σ(t), ι, MS_Symmetry, AP(t), responsibility_accuracy, burden_transfer, repair_alignment, Φ/O divergence, recurrence

11.4 Related Laws / Invariants

INV — Repair burden follows responsibility, not sensitivity.
INV — Responsibility requires source, authority, knowledge, benefit, capacity, and burden trace.
INV — Harmed nodes must not be assigned responsibility for repairing the harm done to them.
INV — Equality does not require responsibility flattening.
LAW — Rank immunity accumulates hidden debt.
LAW — Scapegoating preserves the failure geometry.
LAW — Responsibility diffusion prevents restoration.
LAW — Φ improvement is not O restoration.

12. Domain Notes

12.1 AI / Cognitive Infrastructure

Check:

• model responsibility;
• platform responsibility;
• developer responsibility;
• evaluator responsibility;
• user responsibility;
• policy responsibility;
• tool / agent delegation;
• data pipeline responsibility;
• vendor or governance responsibility.

AI responsibility gradient mapping must distinguish model behavior, system design, policy choice, evaluator failure, user intent, deployment context, tool authority, and institutional accountability.

12.2 Justice / Governance / Legitimacy

Check:

• harmed-node burden;
• institutional authority;
• rank immunity;
• scapegoat dynamics;
• public apology versus material repair;
• procedural responsibility versus actual repair;
• who benefited from the harmed condition;
• who has capacity to repair.

JGL responsibility mapping prevents justice language from becoming burden transfer or symbolic accountability.

12.3 Biology / Medicine

Conceptual systems mapping only.

Responsibility Gradient Mapping in biological or medical-adjacent systems means distinguishing causal contributors, system constraints, timing, exposures, capacity, burden, and repair possibilities without moralizing the affected node.

Not diagnosis.

Not treatment.

Not medical advice.

12.4 Economy

Check:

• externalized cost;
• debt burden;
• platform responsibility;
• employer responsibility;
• regulatory responsibility;
• consumer burden;
• hidden labor;
• who benefits and who absorbs cost.

Economic responsibility mapping restores visibility around value extraction, burden transfer, repair obligation, and capacity to repair.

12.5 CMS / Meaning / Archetypes

Check:

• rescuer responsibility;
• healer responsibility;
• victim identity;
• scapegoat archetype;
• shadow projection;
• forgiveness pressure;
• sacred authority;
• symbolic accountability without repair.

Meaning systems require responsibility gradients so compassion, symbolism, or archetypal identity do not flatten real obligation.

13. Machine-Readable Metadata

id: "RA-040"
title: "Responsibility Gradient Mapping"
aliases:
  - "Responsibility Mapping"
family_primary: "Justice / Governance / Legitimacy"
families_secondary:
  - "Core"
  - "Auditability"
  - "Boundary"
  - "Coherence"
  - "Institutional Design"
  - "AI Governance"
  - "Security"
  - "Economy"
  - "CMS"
  - "Scaling"
treatment: "Canon Parent Arc"
status: "Canon-Ready"
scope:
  - "Relational"
  - "Institutional"
  - "AI"
  - "Security"
  - "Economic"
  - "Civilizational"
  - "Cross-Domain"
u_layers:
  failure_origin:
    - "often U3 authority / control / delegation / policy"
    - "often U2 boundary / consent / role"
    - "often U4 narrative / legitimacy / accountability language"
  symptom_visible:
    - "U4 blame narrative / apology language / shared responsibility claim"
    - "Φ procedural closure / reputation repair"
  repair_required:
    - "same or lower than layer where responsibility was displaced, flattened, or obscured"
  validation:
    - "U5"
    - "U6"
    - "U7"
operators:
  scaffold: "Au causal / authority trace → Μ responsibility gradient map → Π affected-node boundary protection → Σ source-aligned responsibility lock → FI burden / repair feedback → Θ attribution-pressure damping → ℛ repair obligation routing → Λ responsibility-fit test → Τ recurrence / burden validation"
  sequence:
    - "Au"
    - "Μ"
    - "Π"
    - "Σ"
    - "FI"
    - "Θ"
    - "ℛ"
    - "Λ"
    - "Τ"
state_variables:
  primary:
    - "Au"
    - "H"
    - "R"
    - "BΣ"
    - "O"
  secondary:
    - "K"
    - "ι"
    - "Φ"
diagnostics:
  - "Au_responsibility"
  - "H_responsibility"
  - "MS_Symmetry"
  - "AP(t)"
  - "responsibility_accuracy"
  - "burden_transfer"
  - "repair_alignment"
  - "Φ/O divergence"
  - "recurrence"
gates_required:
  - "FI-Gate"
  - "HR-Gate"
  - "MS-Gate"
  - "Au-Actuation"
  - "BΣ-Gate"
  - "Λ-Gate"
  - "☷ᵢ"
linked_failure_modes:
  - "Responsibility Flattening"
  - "Responsibility Displacement"
  - "Victim Burden Transfer"
  - "Rank Immunity"
  - "Scapegoat Capture"
  - "Diffusion of Responsibility"
  - "Authority Opacity"
  - "Proxy Accountability"
  - "Repair Burden Inversion"
  - "Both-Sides Flattening"
  - "Restoration Bypass"
  - "Legitimacy Failure"
linked_restoration_arcs:
  - "RA-002"
  - "RA-004"
  - "RA-005"
  - "RA-014"
  - "RA-018"
  - "RA-019"
  - "RA-030"
  - "RA-033"
  - "RA-034"
  - "RA-041"
  - "RA-042"
  - "RA-043"
  - "RA-044"
  - "RA-050"
anti_patterns:
  - "Both-Sides Flattening"
  - "Complexity Shielding"
  - "Scapegoat Capture"
  - "Victim Repair Labor"
  - "Symbolic Accountability"
  - "Rank Immunity"
  - "Map Without Actuation"
completion_tests:
  - "Au_responsibility increases"
  - "responsibility_accuracy increases"
  - "burden_transfer decreases"
  - "repair_alignment increases"
  - "MS_Symmetry increases"
  - "BΣ stable or increases"
  - "H_responsibility decreases"
  - "R_repair-directed increases"
  - "recurrence decreases across U7"
summary: "Responsibility Gradient Mapping restores source-aligned accountability by distinguishing causal role, authority, capacity, benefit, knowledge, repair obligation, and burden so that responsibility is neither flattened, displaced, inverted, nor assigned to the harmed or lowest-power node."

Final Calibration Rule

Responsibility Gradient Mapping answers six questions:

What hidden debt is being generated by displaced, flattened, or inverted responsibility?
What causal, authority, benefit, knowledge, capacity, or burden path must be mapped?
What auditability proves responsibility is source-aligned rather than narrative-assigned?
What apology, shared-responsibility claim, blame narrative, scapegoat, or procedural closure must remain provisional until repair alignment is proven?
What trajectory becomes viable once repair obligations move to the responsible and capable nodes?
How is responsibility mapping proven over time without rank immunity, victim burden transfer, scapegoating, diffusion, or symbolic accountability?