Explanation: Why Spec-First Governance

This document explains the rationale behind SEA™ Forge’s spec-first governance approach, describes the conceptual architecture, and discusses design decisions and trade-offs.

1. Why Spec-First Governance?

1.1 The Documentation Drift Problem

Traditional governance suffers from a fundamental flaw: documentation drifts from reality.

When governance artifacts are separate from code, they inevitably diverge. Teams bypass governance for speed, creating shadow systems and technical debt.

1.2 The SEA™ Forge Solution

SEA™ Forge eliminates drift by making specs the source of truth:

1
Specs → Generated Code → Never Handwritten

Core Principle: Code is a projection of specifications. Modify the spec, regenerate the code. Governance is embedded in the spec, so it’s embedded in the code.

1.3 Governance as Acceleration

Traditional governance slows teams down. SEA™ Forge governance accelerates by:

2. Conceptual Architecture

2.1 The Spec-First Pipeline

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                        SPEC-FIRST GOVERNANCE PIPELINE                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                             │
│   Human Intent → ADR → PRD → SDS → SEA™ DSL → AST → IR → Generated Code    │
│                                                                             │
│   ┌─────────────┐                                    ┌─────────────────┐   │
│   │ GovernedSpeed™│ ← Runtime enforcement            │ Spec Cross-Check │   │
│   │ (Policy GW) │                                   │ (Build-time)     │   │
│   └─────────────┘                                    └─────────────────┘   │
│         ↓                                                    ↓              │
│   Evidence Service ← Immutable audit trails → Traceability Chain           │
│                                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

2.2 Two-Phase Enforcement

Build-Time (Spec Cross-Check):

• Validates spec completeness and consistency
• Detects drift between specs and code
• Enforces SDS-035 invariants
• Gates CI/CD pipeline

Runtime (GovernedSpeed™):

• Policy Gateway filters LLM outputs
• Evidence Service captures audit trails
• Kill switch responds in < 1 second
• Continuous compliance monitoring

2.3 Framework Integration

SEA™ Forge synthesizes multiple governance frameworks into a unified implementation:

flowchart TD
    subgraph Frameworks
        NIST[NIST AI RMF]
        ISO[ISO 42001]
        EU[EU AI Act]
        CPMAI[CPMAI+E]
    end
    
    subgraph SEA™ Forge
        SEA™[SEA™ DSL Policies]
        GS[GovernedSpeed™]
        ES[Evidence Service]
        INV[SDS-035 Invariants]
    end
    
    NIST --> SEA™
    ISO --> INV
    EU --> SEA™
    CPMAI --> SEA™
    
    SEA™ --> GS
    GS --> ES
    INV --> GS

3. Design Decisions

3.1 Why SEA™ DSL for Policies?

Decision: Express governance policies in SEA™ DSL, not configuration files or code comments.

Rationale:

• Machine-readable: Policies compile to enforcement rules
• Version-controlled: Git history shows policy evolution
• Testable: Validation catches errors before deployment
• Expressive: Natural language-like policy definitions

Example:

policy OrderComplianceReview:
  it is obligatory that each Order with amount > $10000
    has compliance_review = approved
    before processing

This policy is not documentation—it’s an enforced constraint.

3.2 Why Evidence Service?

Decision: All governance-relevant events flow through tamper-evident logging.

Rationale:

• Regulatory requirement: Many frameworks require immutable audit trails
• Proof of compliance: SHA256 hashing proves log integrity
• Investigation support: Reconstruct what happened and when
• Continuous audit: Always ready for regulatory inquiry

Trade-offs:

• Storage costs for 7-year retention
• Performance overhead for logging
• Privacy considerations for log content

3.3 Why SDS-035 Invariants?

Decision: Define 15 non-negotiable system invariants that can never be violated.

Rationale:

• Safety boundaries: Some things must never happen
• Fail-closed: Unknown inputs are blocked, not allowed
• Kill switch: Human can halt AI instantly
• No exceptions: Invariants are enforced, not guidelines

Categories: | Category | Example | |———-|———| | Identity | No orphan tokens | | Governance | Kill switch < 1 second | | Economics | Burn-on-use tokens | | Semantic | Model singularity | | Security | Tamper-evident logs |

3.4 Why Drift Detection?

Decision: CI blocks deployment if generated code differs from committed code.

Rationale:

• Enforces spec-first: Can’t bypass specs by editing code
• Prevents silent changes: All changes visible in spec diff
• Maintains traceability: Code always traces to specs
• Eliminates handwritten runtime code: Generated code is immutable

Trade-offs:

• Learning curve for spec-first workflow
• Regeneration time in CI
• Spec complexity for edge cases

4. Trade-Offs and Alternatives

4.1 Depth vs. Breadth

Challenge: Comprehensive governance can overwhelm teams.

SEA™ Forge Approach:

• Progressive disclosure: Simple start, deep dive as needed
• Role-based paths: Engineers vs. compliance vs. executives
• Quick start: 30-day minimum viable governance

4.2 Flexibility vs. Consistency

Challenge: Different projects have different needs.

SEA™ Forge Approach:

• Core invariants are non-negotiable (SDS-035)
• Policy details are customizable per domain
• Templates provide starting point, not constraints

4.3 Automation vs. Human Judgment

Challenge: Not all decisions can be automated.

SEA™ Forge Approach:

• Automate the routine (validation, drift detection)
• Human-in-the-loop for high-stakes decisions
• Clear escalation paths defined in policies
• Kill switch for emergencies

5. The Cognitive Architecture Connection

SEA™ Forge’s governance integrates with the MECE Quadrant cognitive architecture:

This architecture ensures governance is not bolted-on but woven into the system’s cognitive fabric.

6. Future Evolution

6.1 Planned Enhancements

• Autonomous drift repair: Will suggests spec fixes when drift detected
• Predictive compliance: ML models identify compliance risks before they manifest
• Cross-boundary synthesis: Governance policies that span multiple contexts
• Regulatory updates: Semi-automated policy updates when regulations change

6.2 Open Questions

• How to govern emergent AI behaviors?
• How to balance transparency with competitive advantage?
• How to handle governance across organizational boundaries?

7. Conclusion

SEA™ Forge’s spec-first governance approach addresses the fundamental problem of documentation drift by making specifications the single source of truth. Governance becomes executable, not aspirational. Compliance becomes continuous, not periodic. And safety becomes a real-time signal, not an impediment.

By blending NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, EU AI Act, and CPMAI+E into SEA™ DSL policies enforced by GovernedSpeed™, organizations achieve governance that accelerates rather than constrains innovation.