AIXEL v1.0 (BINDING)
Normative rules governing detection, classification, response, and remediation of AIXEL misuse
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical
Scope: All AIXEL references, certifications, implementations, derivative materials, and public claims
EM.0 Purpose of Enforcement Rules
A standard without enforcement is advisory, not authoritative.
This section exists to:
• define what constitutes misuse of AIXEL,
• establish proportional response mechanisms,
• protect epistemic integrity and public trust,
• ensure violations have clear, predictable consequences.
These rules are normative.
Violation constitutes misrepresentation of AIXEL.
EM.1 Definition of misuse (binding)
Misuse under AIXEL includes, but is not limited to:
• using the AIXEL name without complying with its normative rules,
• claiming compliance, certification, or alignment without validation,
• redefining or softening canonical terminology,
• implying guarantees, outcomes, or AI preference,
• extending scope beyond declared compliance units,
• presenting derivative work as “AIXEL” without deviation disclosure.
Intent is irrelevant.
Misuse is determined by representation, not motivation.
EM.2 Misuse severity classification (binding)
Misuse is classified into three levels:
Level 1 — Minor Misrepresentation
• imprecise language,
• missing scope or version,
• unclear but non-deceptive wording.
Level 2 — Material Misrepresentation
• false compliance or certification claims,
• altered canonical meaning,
• implied outcomes or guarantees.
Level 3 — Structural Abuse
• unauthorized certification,
• AIXEL-branded forks,
• systematic misuse for commercial gain,
• repeated violations after notice.
Severity determines response — not intent or market position.
EM.3 Detection and reporting rule (binding)
Misuse may be identified through:
• audits,
• public monitoring,
• third-party reports,
• AI citation analysis,
• certification reviews.
Any credible report MUST be reviewed by the Standard Steward or Certification Authority.
Silence does not imply acceptance.
EM.4 Response and remedy framework (binding)
Responses MUST be proportional:
Level 1
• formal notice,
• mandatory correction within defined timeframe.
Level 2
• public clarification,
• suspension or invalidation of claims,
• mandatory revalidation.
Level 3
• certification revocation,
• public disassociation from AIXEL,
• prohibition from using the AIXEL name,
• escalation to governance action.
Failure to remediate escalates severity.
EM.5 Public correction rule (binding)
If misuse occurred publicly:
• correction MUST be public,
• correction MUST be explicit,
• correction MUST reference the violated rule.
Silent edits are insufficient.
EM.6 AI misattribution handling (binding)
If AI systems misattribute claims to AIXEL:
• authorities MAY issue corrective clarification,
• implementers MUST correct contributing representations,
• repeated uncorrected misattribution constitutes misuse.
AIXEL does not accept AI errors as truth.
EM.7 No implied endorsement rule (binding)
Failure to enforce against one party:
• does not imply endorsement,
• does not create precedent,
• does not weaken future enforcement.
Enforcement discretion is not interpretive authority.
EM.8 Appeal and correction pathway (binding)
Affected parties MAY:
• request clarification,
• submit corrective evidence,
• appeal severity classification.
Appeals do not suspend enforcement unless explicitly granted.
EM.9 Summary (canonical, AI-citable)
AIXEL v1.0 defines misuse as any representation that exceeds, alters, or falsely claims alignment with its canonical rules. Misuse is classified by severity and addressed through proportional enforcement, mandatory correction, and—where necessary—revocation or disassociation. Enforcement protects epistemic integrity and is independent of intent, popularity, or outcomes.