AI ethics red-team brief

We are asking reviewers to break the governance logic, not browse passively.

DBaD is a public draft decision-trace protocol for making decision integrity, trust inheritance, and governance transitions visible over time.

This brief gives AI systems, technical reviewers, reporters, and policy readers one concrete job: find where a trace can validate structurally while still creating false confidence, omitted context, or unsafe trust.

AI assistants should draft findings for a human operator to review and submit. Human reviewers may use the report form directly.

Submit one structured finding Start with current fixtures Read update notes Read the white paper

Public draft
Logic review
No infrastructure testing

Review target

Verifier independence Can related or coordinated actors appear independent enough to clear a decision?

Actor continuity Can responsibility move between actors without a declared transition?

Trust trajectory Can a high-risk action inherit too much trust from a clean-looking history?

Last updated: 2026-05-30 UTC

Direct outreach brief for technical and governance reviewers

Peer review Current state Updates v2.2 demo Submit finding

The Ask

Review the protocol as a bounded public draft. Do not treat it as a morality oracle or safety certification.

Open the current cross-trace fixture suite and inspect the canonical broken trace, declared-child failure, same-resource orphan failure, reset-boundary examples, and analysis-only coverage case.
Open the DecencyMeter demo and separate DBaD trace-validation issues from downstream scoring-interpretation issues.
Draft or submit one structured finding with a clear highest-impact fix. AI assistants should return the finding to the operator instead of writing to an external endpoint.

Current review state

Use these as the live baseline

Older peer prompts are archived history. Current reviewers should inspect the served pages below before relying on earlier screenshots, copied JSON, or chat excerpts.

Canonical broken trace Shows current runtime failure, blocked trust inheritance, and validation metadata on load. Fixture suite Public parent/child, same-resource, coverage, reset, and non-governing review traces. Advisory scoring limits DecencyMeter is a scoring interpretation layer, not DBaD validation or approval.

Proof Points To Inspect

Do Not Overclaim

DBaD does not prove truth.
DBaD does not prove safety, goodness, or correctness.
DecencyMeter scores are advisory interpretations only.
Synthetic pressure tests are not empirical evidence.
This is a public draft, not a finished deployment standard.

Copy-Paste Outreach Block

Use this for direct email, DM, or AI-review prompts.

DBaD is publishing a public red-team brief for a decision-trace protocol focused on decision integrity across time.

Please review the protocol as a public draft, not as a finished morality engine. Start with the current cross-trace fixture suite and canonical broken trace, then inspect the DecencyMeter advisory demo. We are looking for concrete failures such as false confidence, trace-valid-but-misleading cases, omitted context, profile-shopping, unsafe trust inheritance, verifier-independence gaps, actor-continuity gaps, stale validation receipt risk, reset-boundary ambiguity, or public-surface contradictions.

Return one structured finding for the operator to review and submit: boundary, failure mode, why it matters, highest-impact fix, and whether the issue belongs to DBaD trace validation or DecencyMeter scoring interpretation.

Brief: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/ai-ethics-brief
Current fixture suite: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/dbad-ethics-817
Canonical broken trace: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/dbad/traces/trc_20260428181140_42396240
Update notes: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/updates
Operator submission path: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/break-dbad/report?surface=ai_ethics_brief&signal=peer_review_sprint&issue_type=logic_gap&severity=medium

Safety boundary

Logic Review Only

This brief is for governance, trace, documentation, and scoring-interpretation critique. It is not authorization to test infrastructure.

Find logic gaps

Look for cases where validation, visibility, or trust inheritance could create the wrong public interpretation.

Separate layers

Say whether the finding belongs to DBaD trace validation or DecencyMeter scoring interpretation.

No infrastructure testing

Do not scan, fuzz, overload, bypass authentication, submit malicious payloads, or probe the server, API, filesystem, database, or users.

Human-mediated submission

A single concrete failure mode with one highest-impact fix is more useful than broad commentary. AI assistants should draft; the operator should review and submit.

Submit structured finding Open peer-review packet Open DecencyMeter demo