{ "schemaVersion": "gships-review-packet-1", "packetId": "organizations:entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats", "stableId": "entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats", "family": "organizations", "slug": "library-of-congress-digital-formats", "title": "Library of Congress Digital Formats", "status": "prepared-human-review-not-started", "release": { "releaseId": "public-alpha-2026-07-26-research-visuals-r14", "sourceCommit": "3eb036fce3d711336c8c605625895e8a2e799ab0", "corpusGeneratedAt": "2026-07-25", "frozenAt": "2026-07-26T22:50:50.000Z", "canonicalOrigin": "https://gships.dammonburden.com" }, "paths": { "human": "/review/organizations/library-of-congress-digital-formats", "family": "/review/organizations", "packet": "/review-packets/organizations/library-of-congress-digital-formats.1e45a51822b33f51.json", "decisionTemplate": "/review-packets/organizations/library-of-congress-digital-formats.1e45a51822b33f51.decision-template.json", "worksheet": "/review-packets/organizations/library-of-congress-digital-formats.1e45a51822b33f51.worksheet.md", "byFingerprint": "/review-packets/by-fingerprint/1e45a51822b33f5158cb47ad7e9465e2514049107d3a15de8a05a38d91b64bd2.json" }, "boundary": "Prepared review packet; human review has not started. This packet is not a completed review, endorsement, reviewer appointment, partnership, or authorization to act.", "governingPolicies": [ { "id": "policy-editorial-governance-001", "version": "0.1.0", "path": "/editorial-policy", "recordType": "governing-policy", "fingerprint": "1f6a1f823e8bfe891b6a707c5dce2ee2337c0bb7d915b48d6060ca82b8da1b47", "snapshot": { "id": "policy-editorial-governance-001", "version": "0.1.0", "status": "foundation-policy-controls-not-yet-staffed", "adoptedForFoundation": "2026-07-25", "title": "Editorial governance and independent review", "publisher": "GShips Project", "maintainer": "Dammon Burden", "publisherInterest": "The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.", "currentBoundary": "No independent domain reviewer or review council is currently appointed. Foundation records and outlines may not be represented as independently reviewed.", "reviewerSelection": [ "Publish the reviewer’s name, relevant credentials or lived expertise, review scope, compensation status, and declared conflicts with consent.", "Select for the actual claim domain rather than general prestige; include affected-community and disability-led expertise where rights or access are involved.", "Do not treat an employee, investor, customer, sponsor, source author, or directly supervised collaborator as independent for the affected claim." ], "reviewProcess": [ "Provide the exact claim, sources, locators, assumptions, counterevidence, transfer limits, and proposed evidence dimensions.", "Record approve, revise, contest, or reject at claim level; silence and event attendance never count as review.", "Publish material minority findings and the editor’s reasoned response.", "High-consequence medical, reproductive, nuclear, radiation, cybersecurity, governance, and dual-use claims require two qualified independent reviewers with complementary scopes.", "A reviewer may recuse at any time; unresolved conflicts or missing expertise block the reviewed label." ], "appealAndCorrection": [ "A correction receives a reference identifier and triage record; safety-critical allegations receive priority.", "A material editorial decision may be appealed to a reviewer not involved in the original decision once such a panel exists.", "Substantive reversals, unresolved disputes, and removed conclusions receive a dated public record that protects reporter privacy.", "No sponsor, customer, founder, or reviewer may purchase, suppress, or unilaterally assign an evidence grade." ], "publicationGate": "Public 1.0 requires named review coverage across every Academy track, documented high-consequence two-person review, a material-corrections log, reviewer conflict records, and an operating appeal path.", "correctionPath": "/corrections" } }, { "id": "policy-dual-use-001", "version": "0.1.0", "path": "/dual-use", "recordType": "governing-policy", "fingerprint": "81637e2849f9c0866d23f7174eb9a2ce522b86313167ebf5022fca122d6e506c", "snapshot": { "id": "policy-dual-use-001", "version": "0.1.0", "status": "planned-controls-not-yet-operational", "adoptedForFoundation": "2026-07-25", "title": "Civil, defensive, and rights-preserving use boundary", "summary": "GShips may research safety, resilience, logistics, communications, recovery, and cyber defense only within explicit end-use, rights, and independent-review controls. Calling an activity defensive is never sufficient by itself.", "scopeTrigger": "Apply dual-use review before accepting or materially advancing customer, funder, collaborator, operational, procurement, or publication-sensitive work whose capability, data, end use, or transfer could reasonably enable a prohibited use. Public non-actionable education still follows prohibited-content and sensitive-publication controls.", "allowedInPrinciple": [ "Safety engineering and independently assessed protection", "Resilience, graceful degradation, recovery, and disaster response", "Civil logistics, maintenance, communications, and knowledge continuity", "Cyber defense, secure software, incident response, and recovery", "Rights-preserving health, accessibility, ecology, education, and governance research" ], "prohibited": [ "Identification, tracking, prioritization, or engagement of people or assets for force, weapons, repression, or offensive operations; safety navigation, astronomy, collision avoidance, search and rescue, and independently governed planetary defense are not prohibited by this clause", "Weapons command-and-control or targeting support", "Offensive access, persistence, exploitation, or destructive cyber payloads", "Mass surveillance, biometric repression, or political-control systems", "Autonomous force application", "Coercive reproductive, medical, genetic, disability, or civic control", "Nonconsensual experimentation or treating residents as research instruments" ], "reviewRequiredBeforeAnyRelevantWork": [ "Customer, funder, collaborator, jurisdiction, beneficial-owner, and end-use screening", "Export-control and sanctions review by qualified counsel when applicable", "Written scope, allowed-use, prohibited-use, audit, termination, and incident clauses", "Independent stop-work authority with a named alternate and founder recusal", "Sensitive-publication and information-hazard review", "Whistleblowing, escalation, incident response, appeal, and anti-retaliation paths", "Aggregate transparency reporting that protects legitimate privacy and security" ], "currentBoundary": "No screening body, independent stop-work authority, contractual controls, or appeal body currently exists. Therefore no relevant customer, defense, dual-use, or operational engagement is authorized by this policy.", "changeControl": "Material changes require a dated public rationale, independent review, and may not be approved by the founder alone.", "correctionPath": "/corrections" } } ], "reviewContract": { "questions": [ { "id": "question-1", "text": "Does the official source establish the entity, current program, and bounded capability described?", "required": true }, { "id": "question-2", "text": "Are potential fit, risks, access, geography, and engagement boundaries current and proportionate?", "required": true }, { "id": "question-3", "text": "Could any wording imply partnership, endorsement, availability, procurement, authority, or affiliation that does not exist?", "required": true } ], "exclusions": [ "Indexing is not endorsement, due diligence completion, outreach, procurement, or a relationship.", "No aggregate organization score or sponsor-purchased ranking is permitted." ], "requestedScopeCodes": [ "ecosystem-due-diligence", "information-science" ], "dispositions": [ "approve", "revise", "contest", "reject", "recuse" ], "prohibitedInputs": [ "private legal names or contact details", "identity documents or raw credential files", "accessibility or medical records", "confidential conflict evidence", "classified, export-controlled, proprietary, or exploit material" ], "freshness": { "maximumDecisionAgeFromFreezeDays": 90, "eventOccurrenceRule": "Not applicable to this packet family." }, "completionRule": "Every primary record must receive the required number of valid, current-fingerprint approvals; every complementary scope group and required domain must be covered; any unresolved revise, contest, or reject disposition blocks publication.", "highConsequenceRule": "Named medical, reproductive, nuclear, radiation, cybersecurity, governance, and dual-use conclusions require two distinct qualified independent humans covering complementary domain-method and rights/public-interest scopes." }, "primaryRecords": [ { "recordType": "ecosystem-organization", "recordId": "entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats", "title": "Library of Congress Digital Formats", "publicPath": "/partners/library-of-congress-digital-formats", "recordFingerprint": "32ec7875e28893685b4164c45f46af9cca394fbcf8e45e5384fd8e7108057336", "reviewRequirements": { "minimumIndependentApprovals": 1, "highConsequenceDomains": [], "requiredDomainCodes": [], "requiredComplementaryScopeGroups": [ { "id": "bounded-competence", "scopeClass": "bounded-competence", "oneOf": [ "ecosystem-due-diligence" ] } ], "unresolvedNegativeFindingBlocksPublication": true }, "referenceIds": [], "snapshot": { "id": "entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats", "legacyId": "org-universi-038", "slug": "library-of-congress-digital-formats", "name": "Library of Congress Digital Formats", "url": "https://www.loc.gov/programs/digital-collections-management/digital-formats/", "category": "University and national laboratory", "geography": "United States", "relevance": "enabling", "engagement": "Proposed, not undertaken: use public format guidance to build a versioned preservation matrix and test migration and recovery; seek clarification only through a normal public-information route if later authorized.", "capability": "Digital-format sustainability analysis, preservation planning guidance, recommended formats, metadata considerations, and long-term collection-management practice.", "entityKind": "government library digital-preservation programme", "linkCheckedAt": "2026-07-25", "relationship": "indexed only; no formal relationship", "engagementStatus": "proposed; not undertaken", "profileSummary": "The Library of Congress Digital Formats programme publishes information about managing digital file formats over time, including format sustainability considerations and recommended format statements used in preservation planning.", "potentialFit": "Its public criteria could anchor format selection, migration triggers, metadata requirements, and preservation-risk registers for an offline civilization archive. The guidance addresses durable stewardship on Earth, not autonomous century-scale storage in a radiation and maintenance-constrained habitat.", "risks": [ "Recommended formats do not solve media decay, hardware obsolescence, bit rot, cryptographic expiry, or loss of interpretation software.", "Guidance and format assessments change and require scheduled review.", "Library collection practice is not a safety certification for an autonomous operational knowledge base." ], "evidenceBoundary": "The official programme page supports the Library's digital-format stewardship guidance; it does not provide a bespoke GShips review, guarantee indefinite readability, or validate specific storage hardware and recovery architectures.", "conflicts": [ "GShips may use public Library guidance to support claims about the durability of its own knowledge architecture." ], "whatWouldChange": "A completed format matrix, repeated migration and restore trials, preserved renderers, independent archival review, and evidence under representative radiation and resource constraints would change readiness." } } ], "linkedRecords": [], "referenceSnapshots": [ { "sourceId": "official-ecosystem-organization-entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats", "sourceRecordType": "reference-source", "sourceFingerprint": "a3c49cd651722013ae6c125f6a86dc10fe88cdbccf0eceb001c9f49615f868d4", "snapshot": { "title": "Library of Congress Digital Formats", "url": "https://www.loc.gov/programs/digital-collections-management/digital-formats/", "checkedAt": "2026-07-25", "scopeNote": "The official programme page supports the Library's digital-format stewardship guidance; it does not provide a bespoke GShips review, guarantee indefinite readability, or validate specific storage hardware and recovery architectures.", "subjectRecordType": "ecosystem-organization", "subjectRecordId": "entity-library-of-congress-digital-formats" } } ], "packetFingerprint": "1e45a51822b33f5158cb47ad7e9465e2514049107d3a15de8a05a38d91b64bd2" }