01 / PURPOSE
What it is for
Make collective review and judgment explicit while retaining the evidence, abstentions, and dissent that inform an aggregate result.
03 · TOPOLOGY PROFILE
Biocenosis
Community evaluation and explicit ballots.
A community of roles contributes evidence and evaluations. Consensus can account for confidence and quorum, while the evidence barrier remains in the decision path.
PARTIAL · PARTIAL · LIVE CAMPAIGN RECORDED02 / SELECTION
When to use it
Choose Biocenosis when a decision benefits from several roles evaluating common proposals under a declared ballot and aggregation policy.
03 / SCIENTIFIC BASIS
Inspiration
and limits.
The model draws on deliberation, epistemic aggregation, quorum, and probabilistic calibration. A majority or weighted score is not a truth oracle.
RUNTIME PATH
What is wired
Community preparation, evaluation and explicit jury ballots; consensus services are available.
KNOWN BOUNDARY
What this does not imply
A juror must provide an explicit ballot. Profile capabilities are not all activated automatically. In the latest 12-mission live SQLite campaign, nine cycles blocked, three completed, and none met all mission criteria or received verified promotion.
01 / MODELThe principle
The principle
and its equation
A community of roles examines the same proposals through evaluations, evidence, and preserved disagreements. Depending on policy, aggregation may prioritize evidence, a quorum, or a distribution of judgments.
SIMPLIFIED FORMALIZATION
S(c) = Σᵢ wᵢ sᵢ(c) / Σᵢ wᵢ ; quorum(c) ⇔ Σᵢ wᵢ·voteᵢ(c) ≥ q·Σᵢ wᵢ
sᵢ is a member's evaluation, wᵢ its declared weight, and q the quorum threshold. Numeric aggregation does not prove truth; evidence and abstentions must remain visible.
02 / VARIANTS AND USE CASES
Choose a policy
Select a variant to explore steps based on its documented contract. This illustration does not run agents or call runtime services.
LOCAL SIMULATION · ILLUSTRATIVE01 / 12
epistemic jury POLICY IMPLEMENTED
Evaluate factual claims using experts and explicit evidence.
TOPOLOGY MAP · ILLUSTRATION ONLY · NO AGENT EXECUTED
1/4 · Seal each member's initial judgment
The drawing changes with the topology and variant to show their documented structure and policy. It is an explanatory model; maturity labels and runtime limits still apply.
This status follows the maturity of the variant policy in GenOS’ canonical catalog. “Policy implemented” does not certify end-to-end execution: topology maturity, required adapters, permissions, and evidence remain separate runtime conditions. This illustration does not run agents; its selector is manual. In the runtime, mission signals may select a preset automatically when its preconditions are met.
FAILURE MODES
What can go wrong
- A quorum may not be reached or may conceal minority disagreement.
- Correlated judgments can amplify shared errors.
- Missing evidence or unresolved outcomes makes calibration scores incomplete.
EVIDENCE AND BENCHMARKS
What has been checked
Working slice: Twelve executable variants share persistent deliberation, transactional round receipts, resume and proof-gated finalization.
Still open: Models, independent oracles and action adapters remain explicit dependencies. Runtime tests do not establish causal superiority; the dated October 4 campaign reported no verified promotion.
Linked evidence: integration. A policy for a variant does not establish a successful end-to-end mission or comparative performance.
No topology-specific benchmark protocol is linked from this profile.
Read the latest evidence ↗Read the product completion contract ↗