Human-readable brief
Direction and mandate
- Authority
- Orison Infrastructure Research Consortium
- Customer
- Consortium security and research-integrity committee
- Mandate
- Collect and assess information within the declared fictional jurisdiction and report uncertainty without forcing a preferred conclusion.
- Jurisdiction
- Consortium laboratories and shared dataset environment
- Intelligence requirement
- Determine whether an apparent leak reflects malicious disclosure, accidental replication, credential misuse, or a planted document intended to discredit a laboratory.
- Evidence threshold
- No personnel restriction becomes irreversible until evidence certainty crosses the declared case threshold and a reviewer confirms jurisdiction.
- Extraction plan
- Close with protective action, monitored continuation, or case closure; preserve dissent in the debrief.
- Debrief deliverable
- An assessment that separates observation, source report, interpretation, hypothesis, confidence, dissent, source impact, cover impact, and follow-on requirements.
Known facts
- A triggering anomaly or request has been logged.
- The authority has access to some but not all relevant records.
- At least two explanations remain plausible.
Assumptions
- Current system clocks are synchronized within the published tolerance.
- Declared access records have not yet been proven complete.
Competing hypotheses
- Administrative or technical failure
- Authorized but poorly documented activity
- Deliberate disclosure or manipulation
- Fabricated evidence intended to redirect attention
Role contract
Roles and information asymmetry
Counterintelligence Officer
- Role-specific tasking
- Authorized evidence subset
Intelligence Analyst
- Role-specific tasking
- Authorized evidence subset
Technical Operator
- Role-specific tasking
- Authorized evidence subset
Source Handler
- Role-specific tasking
- Authorized evidence subset
Collection and interaction
What the players do
Collection plan
- Access anomaly review
- Document provenance
- Interview
- Competing-hypothesis analysis
Player interactions
- Review tasking
- Establish access
- Collect evidence
- Mark contradiction
- Request corroboration
- Choose continue, convert, or abort
- Complete extraction and debrief
Compromise and abort
- Unexpected access challenge
- Unexplained route change
- Source behavior inconsistent with prior handling
- Evidence item lacking provenance
- Role handoff not acknowledged
- Abort: Cover integrity below 35
- Abort: Source safety cannot be maintained
- Abort: Jurisdiction is exceeded
- Abort: Required evidence custody cannot be preserved
Evidence Packet JSON
EVP-006
EV-001
Origin: player observation
Provenance: role event log
OBSERVEDEV-002
Origin: declared source
Provenance: source handling record
SOURCE_CLAIMEV-003
Origin: analytic comparison
Provenance: EV-001,EV-002
CONTRADICTIONSimulation configuration
Deterministic state contract
TaskPlanAccessCollectValidateDeliverExtractDebrief
Seed: internal-leak-review
Expected terminal states: Debrief, Abort, Compromise
Load simulator →Supporting standards
Canonical implementation records
Full reports
Research lineage and limitations
FULL REPORTintelligence-operative-archetypes-and-tradecraftOpen the canonical long-form report and its source lineage.→FULL REPORTjustice-system-and-warrant-escalation-for-rogue-intelligenceOpen the canonical long-form report and its source lineage.→FULL REPORThallucinated-ai-quest-design-in-vr-mmorpgsOpen the canonical long-form report and its source lineage.→
