{
  "code": "FOUND-02",
  "slug": "mandate-customer-and-jurisdiction",
  "title": "Mandate, Customer, and Jurisdiction",
  "category": "Foundation",
  "status": "Current",
  "version": "2.0.4-wip",
  "summary": "Operational authority is bounded by who requested the work, where it applies, what methods are permitted, and what review follows.",
  "keywords": [
    "mandate",
    "customer",
    "jurisdiction",
    "scope",
    "constraints",
    "authorization"
  ],
  "mission_phases": [
    "Task",
    "Plan",
    "Deliver"
  ],
  "canonical": "https://iarpg.com/standard/mandate-customer-and-jurisdiction",
  "json": "https://iarpg.com/records/mandate-customer-and-jurisdiction.json",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "level": "MUST",
      "text": "Tasking declare a customer, intelligence requirement, legal or organizational authority, and operating jurisdiction."
    },
    {
      "level": "MUST",
      "text": "The mission distinguish authorized methods from prohibited or unsupported methods."
    },
    {
      "level": "SHOULD",
      "text": "Cross-jurisdiction work declare which authority can recognize, deny, contest, or punish an action."
    },
    {
      "level": "MAY",
      "text": "A mission include compartmented customers whose identities are revealed only when the player has the required access."
    }
  ],
  "research": [
    {
      "label": "The multi-polar intelligence ecosystem",
      "href": "/docs/report/typology-of-intelligence-operatives-and-tradecraft-frameworks-a-comprehensive-architecture-for-clandestine-beh#the-multi-polar-intelligence-ecosystem",
      "note": "State, private, corporate, and independent operational customers."
    },
    {
      "label": "Recommended warrant architecture",
      "href": "/docs/report/justice-system-and-warrant-escalation-for-rogue-intelligence#recommended-warrant-architecture",
      "note": "Jurisdiction and evidence thresholds remain separate from severity."
    }
  ],
  "related": [
    "operational-neutrality-and-authority",
    "intelligence-requirement",
    "evidence-based-jurisdiction-and-warrants"
  ],
  "release": "IARPG-OPS-2",
  "revised_utc": "2026-07-20T12:04:07Z",
  "purpose": "Define the authority, customer, jurisdiction, mandate, and neutrality rules that make an operation intelligible without assigning permanent moral alignment.",
  "rationale": "A mission cannot be reviewed when its sponsor, customer, limits, and desired effect remain implicit.",
  "game_interaction": [
    "Review authority dossier",
    "Compare mandate constraints",
    "Accept or decline tasking",
    "Record conflict of interest"
  ],
  "inputs": [
    "Authority profile",
    "Customer requirement",
    "Jurisdiction profile"
  ],
  "outputs": [
    "Tasking context",
    "Mandate boundary",
    "Authority-specific success definition"
  ],
  "state_transitions": [
    {
      "from": "not-applicable",
      "event": "record requirement evaluated",
      "to": "conforming-or-documented-exception"
    }
  ],
  "evidence_and_provenance": [
    "The implementation records the source, UTC event time, mission identifier, responsible role, and reason code for consequential state changes.",
    "Generated dialogue and player interpretation are not stored as authoritative facts without a separate verification event."
  ],
  "ui_requirements": [
    "Show the record code and requirement level at the point of use.",
    "Expose the reason for blocked, failed, escalated, or irreversible actions.",
    "Provide a direct link to the canonical standard and machine-readable record."
  ],
  "accessibility_requirements": [
    "Essential information is available without reliance on color, audio, motion, or a VR-only gesture.",
    "Keyboard, screen-reader, reduced-motion, seated-play, and high-contrast equivalents are documented where the interaction applies."
  ],
  "telemetry_events": [
    {
      "name": "standard.mandate-customer-and-jurisdiction.evaluated",
      "required_fields": [
        "event_id",
        "timestamp_utc",
        "mission_id",
        "record_code",
        "result",
        "reason_code"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "abuse_and_exploit_cases": [
    "A participant attempts to omit required context so another role accepts a misleading task.",
    "A generated or user-authored statement is presented as server-authoritative without verification.",
    "A consequential state transition occurs without a durable reason code."
  ],
  "failure_behavior": "Fail closed for irreversible or settlement-bearing actions. Preserve the current state, show the missing requirement, and allow correction or documented exception review.",
  "recovery_behavior": "Restore from the last authoritative event, retain the rejected transition in the audit log, and require a new validated event before continuing.",
  "example_implementation": "A mission interface evaluates FOUND-02 before advancing the relevant state and writes the result to the local event log with a UTC timestamp and reason code.",
  "roles": [
    "Operative",
    "Handler",
    "Intelligence Analyst"
  ],
  "authority_types": [
    "Civil administration",
    "Military command",
    "Commercial intelligence service",
    "International verification body",
    "Scientific consortium",
    "Independent investigative network"
  ],
  "collection_disciplines": [],
  "interaction_types": [
    "Review authority dossier",
    "Compare mandate constraints",
    "Accept or decline tasking"
  ],
  "evidence_requirement": "Reviewable provenance required",
  "conformance_level": "Level B — Playable",
  "implementation_maturity": "Published WIP",
  "related_examples": [
    "port-access-anomaly-investigation"
  ],
  "revision_history": [
    {
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19",
      "note": "Initial IARPG-OPS-1 publication."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.1-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19",
      "note": "Expanded for IARPG-OPS-2 workbench, simulation, evidence, accessibility, telemetry, and machine-readable publication."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.2-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19T16:42:07Z",
      "change": "Reviewed for operation-package lifecycle compatibility and local tool integration."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.3-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19T18:45:50Z",
      "note": "Reviewed for integrity-aware package verification, merge, multi-role replay, custody comparison, batch review, backup, publication preview, and release-promotion workflows."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.4-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-20T12:04:07Z",
      "note": "Reviewed for canonicalization, round-trip portability, recovery, provenance, compatibility, accessibility, hosting evidence, and stable-promotion gates."
    }
  ]
}