Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.svrnos.com/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

The SVRNOS Governance Error Register is a curated open standard. Contributions are welcome.

​
What we accept

  • New code proposals — a structural failure mode the existing 71 codes don’t capture
  • Code refinements — a sharper definition, a missing sub-type, a corrected “Distinct From” boundary
  • Anchor incidents — a documented case that should be linked to an existing code
  • Translations — a non-English rendering of a code’s definition
  • Tag refinements — a more precise harm/vector/sector tag for a code

​
What we don’t accept

  • Incident reports. SVRNOS does not host an incident corpus. We map against the AI Incident Database. Report incidents there — we’ll inherit the mapping.
  • Speculative codes without at least one illustrative scenario from real-world observation.

​
How to submit

Email hello@svrnos.com or use the SVRNOS /ask channel. For new code proposals, include:
  1. Proposed code number (suggest one in the unassigned HTTP slots; we may renumber)
  2. Name — short, distinctive
  3. One-sentence definition
  4. Why this is distinct from the closest existing codes — name them and explain the boundary
  5. At least one illustrative or documented case (AIID ID if it exists)
  6. The structural property the code captures — what failed, not what was generated

​
Credit

Accepted contributions earn an entry in the Attributions page. Contributors with formally adopted framings appear in the Zenodo DOI metadata for that GER version.

​
The curation process

Sushee Nzeutem (SVRNOS) reviews every submission. Decisions follow these gates:
  1. Structural distinctness — does this fail in a way no existing code captures?
  2. Regulator test — can a regulator read this code name and immediately understand the failure?
  3. Evidence sufficiency — is there enough documented or illustrative material to defend the code under scrutiny?
Rejected proposals get a written explanation. Accepted proposals land in the next minor version release.

​
Pattern: this is MITRE CVE, not Wikipedia

The GER is curated, not crowd-edited. Public read, controlled write. Same model as MITRE CVE, IANA HTTP status codes, and MITRE ATT&CK. This is deliberate — it’s what makes the codes citable in court, in regulation, in insurance underwriting.