Accountability Protocol

Treating a missed contribution the same as an invariant violation either crushes minor cases with heavy process or lets serious ones slip through a private chat. Graduated pathways — soft check-in, medium written notice, direct escalation for serious breaches — match response weight to breach weight and keep repair the default where repair is still possible.

Define soft (inactivity), medium (obligation breach), and serious (invariant violation, safety) pathways. State who initiates, the response window, and the escalation route for each.

Accountability without due process is just punishment with paperwork. A member facing a sanction needs to know the concern, have real time to respond, and have somewhere to appeal to — otherwise the deciding body’s word is final by default, which concentrates power exactly where it should not concentrate.

State the right to written notice, a minimum response window, and an explicit appeal path to Full Members.

If raising a concern or giving information can cost a member standing, relationships, or access, people will stay silent and the accountability system collapses in practice. Naming retaliation as itself a trigger makes the cost of suppression higher than the cost of reporting.

State that retaliation against any member who raises, participates in, or gives information to an accountability process is itself an accountability trigger.

Ad-hoc sanctions invented mid-process reflect whoever is loudest in the room, not what the breach warrants. A fixed menu — with preconditions, authorized body, and appeal path for each — keeps responses proportional, prevents informal exclusion from becoming the default punishment, and makes it obvious when a sanction is out of scope for the body applying it.

For each sanction type, define preconditions, authorized body, and appeal path. Repair-oriented responses should be the default; punitive ones reserved for safety-critical or unresolved breaches.

If there is no defined path back, every sanction becomes effectively permanent and every exit becomes a life sentence. Explicit restoration conditions signal that accountability is about repair where repair is possible, and they prevent post-hoc gatekeeping about whether someone is “really” welcome back.

For each sanction class, state the path to restoration of rights — re-application after voluntary exit, re-application block after forced exit, restoration after temporary restriction.

Exit rules live in Layer 1 for a reason — they govern who is and is not a member. If accountability actions created their own parallel exit path, there would be two sets of rules, two sets of records, and a loophole for skipping due process. One canonical exit protocol closes that gap.

State that all forced exits and temporary access restrictions follow the Exit & Separation Protocol (Layer 1), and clarify that a temporary restriction does not constitute exit.