§A1 About this framework
Draft (AI)Status & version, how to cite, review cadence, AI-use statement, how it was made (method), credit
Primary sources: [W5B] §7.9 · R04 · Governor ledger
Asset Zero · The living framework
The Human–AI Boundary Framework for Asset Management
To our knowledge the world’s first Human–AI Boundary Framework for asset management— operationalising, never competing with, PMI’s June 2026 global standard for AI in project work. Drafted by AI from the evidence archive, judged and closed by a volunteer working group, in public.
Living draft v0.1 — last updated 16 August 2026
Versioned in the open: v0.5 full draft (7 Aug) → v0.6 (cycle 1) → v0.7 (cycle 2) → v1.0-rc (28 Aug) → v1.0 frozen Mon 31 Aug 2026. Nothing here is an official output until a named human signs it off.
Changelog — machine-generated from git history (4)
- 16 August 2026 · Cycle 1 closed out for the working group; cycle-2 packet v0.1 drafted (B3 matrix, B4 test, B5 envelopes) · 942fe35
- 5 August 2026 · Framework skeleton: generalise the maturity-path wording · 983a0b5
- 4 August 2026 · v1.16.0 M1 /evidence: webinar archive + phase-2 content pipeline · bed112e
- 2 August 2026 · Archive completed webinar delivery phase; kick off Phase 2 (Asset Zero) · 0f8a4e3
- Two artefacts, one content source: a living framework (versioned sections on the public site, updated on a stated review cadence) and a citable v1.0 snapshot (designed PDF, frozen Mon 31 Aug 2026 per the 2 Aug reschedule; W5's launch-event date is a program-office decision).
- Layered for two audiences ([W5B] §7.1): a short principle set → practices cross-walked to VAISS/AI6, ISO 55013, NIST AI RMF → checklists/tools with a "Getting started → Maturing" path on a 0–5 maturity scale.
- Community-developed guidance, not a standard (W3C report-vs-standard labelling pattern; AMC Board endorses and owns publication).
- Provenance-native: every section carries a provenance block (which results segments, which dossiers, which cycle closed it, who signed it); every claim traces to the Series Evidence Synthesis (
../evidence/Series-Evidence-Synthesis.md) or a cited dossier. AI-use statement published prominently. - Reflexive: the framework governs the project that produces it (Asset Zero; Governor's boundary profile + ledger become the PoC chapter and provenance appendix).
Continuity with the six promised outputs ([W5B] §11): Human–AI Boundary Framework = the whole document · Lifecycle AI Map = figure in A3 · Decision Rights Matrix = B3 · Boundary Questions Toolkit = B4 · Open Questions Register = D1 · Recommendations Paper = D2 (and the snapshot's executive layer) · Failure Modes & Lessons Library = C2.
Open proposal — cycle 1 decides, not us
Should the seven principles be restructured around “No action without a record”?
The W5 brief's seven principles ([W5B] §3) don't yet contain the series' strongest single result: the ledgers won their rooms — the series' highest-rated principle overall is the action ledger (P4-C, 4.27) and W3's highest was the deferral ledger (P3-C, 4.07) (Synthesis F4). Proposal for the WG: fold the current P6 (verifiable oversight) and the ledger evidence into an explicit "No action without a record" principle (decision records, action/deferral ledgers, named signatures), keeping the set at seven by merging P1 (decisions, not analytics) into the preamble as the framework's test-of-purpose. This is a WG call, not ours — present both sets side by side in the cycle-1 packet.
Part A — Foundations
§A2 Why a boundary framework
In review (cycle 1)The one finding ("AI amplifies what you already have; the boundary is a governance choice"); the is/ought gap; who this is for
Primary sources: [W5B] §1 · Synthesis F7
§A3 The evidence base
Draft (AI)The series (4 webinars, 2,796 responses), method, Lifecycle AI Map figure, reading rules, caveats
Primary sources: Synthesis §0–1, §11
§A4 Where this sits
Draft (AI)ISO 55000/55013 · PMI AI-in-project-work standard (Jun 2026, cited) · VAISS/AI6 · NIST AI RMF · EASA tiers · SR 11-7 "effective challenge" · AU anchors: SOCI, FAR, Privacy Act automated-decision transparency (Dec 2026), NSW WHS Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Act 2026 (enacted, awaiting proclamation) · EU AI Act (Annex III high-risk obligations deferred to 2 Dec 2027; Art 14 oversight unchanged)
Primary sources: [W5B] §7.8 · verified corrections in project memory
Part B — The boundary
§B1 The ladder & the human roles
In review (cycle 1)AI role levels 0–5 (0 None · 1 Assistant · 2 Analyst · 3 Recommender · 4 Controlled actor · 5 Autonomous) = the series ladder (no role → assist → analyse → recommend → act w/ approval → act autonomously); the retained-rights set (approve · validate · own value judgement · accept & record risk · stop · override · interpret context · govern knowledge · define purpose · accountable by name); which rights rooms under-price cold
Primary sources: [W5B] §4 note · Synthesis F1, F8
§B2 The seven principles
In review (cycle 1)Each: statement · evidence · live rating · practice notes · status. Draft set = [W5B] §3, restructured so the series' rated principles are visibly inside them (P2⊃W1 3.86 · P3⊃W2 3.76 · P4⊃P3-A/B/C · P5⊃P4-A/B · plus the ledger principle elevated — see §3 below)
Primary sources: [W5B] §3 · Synthesis F2, F4, F6
§B3 The Decision Rights Matrix
In review (cycle 2)12 AM decision rows × (assist/analyse/recommend/act-bounded) × humans-retain × named-accountability column × max level; populated from boundary-vote data; "never" rows written as concrete work classes
Primary sources: [W5B] §4 · Synthesis F1, F3, F6, F8
§B4 The boundary test
In review (cycle 2)The nine questions ([W5B] §5), reordered to lead with "what decision is being changed?" and "should this be automated at all?"; scoring/usage guidance; screening tool keyed to asset criticality
Primary sources: [W5B] §5, §7.6 · Synthesis F8
§B5 Envelopes, triggers and the stop
In review (cycle 2)Envelope anatomy (scope · magnitude · velocity/rate · reversibility window · conditional no-gos · owner · expiry · edge behaviour); the trigger gate; the engineered stop + drill; the volume budget with the community's draft number (median 7.5 WOs/planner/wk; 30% never) and the EEMUA-191 alarm-budget analogy; the reversibility premium (38pp)
Primary sources: Synthesis F1–F3, F5 · W4 pack dossier 05
Part C — Making it stick
§C1 Records & ledgers
Draft (AI)AI decision record · action ledger (actions AND denials) · deferral ledger · AI-use register · re-signing schedules; ISO/IEC 42001 alignment; why records: the community's highest-rated mechanism
Primary sources: [W5B] §8.4 · Synthesis F4
§C2 Failure modes & lessons library
Draft (AI)13 consolidated modes ([W5B] §6) + field prevalence (75% have seen bad-data→confident-output) + case library links; "have you seen this?" instrument for reuse
Primary sources: [W5B] §6 · Synthesis F7 · W2/W4 case libraries
§C3 Verifiable oversight & capability
Draft (AI)Meaningful vs rubber-stamp oversight; effective challenge (SR 11-7); automation-bias countermeasures; evaluate the human–AI team (GMLP P7); deskilling guardrails
Primary sources: [W5B] §7.4–7.5, P6–P7
§C4 Vendor & black-box AI
Draft (AI)Procurement clause set (audit rights, warranties, indemnities — vendor-liability stats flagged as law-firm analysis citing Stanford); deployer-not-developer posture; assurance market caveats
Primary sources: [W5B] §7.7
§C5 Getting started → maturing
Draft (AI)0–5 maturity path; the is/ought gap as the starting map (23% auto-create today · 36% hour-pause · 22% drilled · weights showable 39% · audit guess 0%); small-organisation / local-government path
Primary sources: [W5B] §7.1 · Synthesis F7
Part D — The living edges
§D1 Open Questions Register
Draft (AI)[W5B] §9 ten questions, merged with per-webinar leaving-questions; each: status · source attribution · what would settle it (OQ2 = the number; OQ5 = reversibility premium interpretation)
Primary sources: [W5B] §9 · W1 q10 · Synthesis F5
§D2 Recommendations to members
Draft (AI)The nine ([W5B] §8), prioritised by the community in the cycle-3 vote (W5 confirms/showcases)
Primary sources: [W5B] §8
§D3 Glossary
Draft (AI)Ladder verbs, envelope, engineered stop, rough consensus, provenance labels (verified/inferred/unknown), etc.
Primary sources: all packs
§D4 Credits & provenance appendix
Draft (AI)Contributor tiers; comment-disposition archive; Asset Zero boundary telemetry (from Governor's ledger); AI-use statement (long form)
Primary sources: R04 · Governor
How it gets reviewed — the three-cycle map
Sections close as the working group reviews them; the whole document freezes as v1.0 on Mon 31 Aug 2026. The full plan lives on the progress page.
| Phase | Dates (2026) | Closes | Why this order |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build week | Mon 3 – Fri 7 Aug | AI drafts the complete framework v0.5 (all 18 sections, provenance-tagged); fact-check; Kai signs | The bottleneck is volunteer cadence, not drafting — so the full draft comes first and volunteers review halves |
| 1 | Mon 10 – Fri 14 Aug | A2 one finding + B2 principles + B1 ladder/roles — what the boundary is | The normative spine; B2-A2 draft already built + fact-checked; B1 is small and pairs naturally |
| 2 | Mon 17 – Fri 21 Aug | B3 Decision Rights Matrix + B4 boundary test + B5 envelopes/trigger/stop — the instruments | The heart of v1.0; needs the principles settled first; W4-quantitative content lands together |
| 3 | Mon 24 – Fri 28 Aug | C1–C5 + D1–D4 + A1/A3/A4 + whole-document last call — async 72-h objection window + recommendations priority vote; optional drop-in clinic Thu 27 | Practices and living edges get last-call scrutiny; D2 is a vote, not a redraft; dissent recorded rather than a second week |
| — | Mon 31 Aug | v1.0 freeze — tag + snapshot PDF published; disposition archive + participation stats into D4 | Programme finish line |
| — | TBC (program office) | W5 — validation showcase / launch celebration of the already-published v1.0 | No longer gates the framework |
Version rhythm: v0.1 (this skeleton) → v0.5 full draft (7 Aug) → v0.6 (cycle 1) → v0.7 (cycle 2) → v1.0-rc (28 Aug) → v1.0 tagged 31 Aug. Section status vocabulary: Draft (AI) → In review (cycle N) → Closed (consensus) / Closed with dissent recorded → Frozen v1.0.
Compression valves, pre-agreed at kickoff: any section contested past its Friday closes with dissent recorded (no second weeks); C4 vendor remains the most self-contained section — if the final pass overloads, it ships as Draft (AI) — for v1.x review and the framework stays living under AMC stewardship after 31 Aug.