IARPG-OPS-2 · 2.0.4-wip Intelligence operations design system Fictional missions · neutral authorities
IARPG.COM INTELLIGENCE AGENT ROLE PLAYING GAME
Work in progress IARPG-OPS-2 2.0.4-wip

Global publication search

Search the operations design system

Type to search standards, missions, roles, authorities, reports, sources, schemas, and UAI memory.

FOUND-02CurrentFoundationPublished WIP

Mandate, Customer, and Jurisdiction

Operational authority is bounded by who requested the work, where it applies, what methods are permitted, and what review follows.

Purpose

What this record standardizes.

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.

Normative requirements

What conforming implementations must, should, and may do.

01
MUSTrequired for conformance

Tasking declare a customer, intelligence requirement, legal or organizational authority, and operating jurisdiction.

02
MUSTrequired for conformance

The mission distinguish authorized methods from prohibited or unsupported methods.

03
SHOULDrecommended unless a documented reason applies

Cross-jurisdiction work declare which authority can recognize, deny, contest, or punish an action.

04
MAYoptional supported behavior

A mission include compartmented customers whose identities are revealed only when the player has the required access.

Game interaction mapping

What players and interfaces do.

01Review authority dossier
02Compare mandate constraints
03Accept or decline tasking
04Record conflict of interest
TaskPlanDeliver

Data contract

Inputs and outputs.

Inputs

  • Authority profile
  • Customer requirement
  • Jurisdiction profile

Outputs

  • Tasking context
  • Mandate boundary
  • Authority-specific success definition

State contract

Allowed or expected transitions.

FromEventTo
not-applicablerecord requirement evaluatedconforming-or-documented-exception

Evidence and provenance

Review requirements for claims and consequential state.

  • 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.

User-interface requirements

How the requirement must appear at the point of use.

  • 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

Equivalent access to essential information and controls.

  • 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

Minimum event records for implementation review.

standard.mandate-customer-and-jurisdiction.evaluated

Required fields:

event_idtimestamp_utcmission_idrecord_coderesultreason_code

Abuse and exploit cases

What the implementation must anticipate.

  1. A participant attempts to omit required context so another role accepts a misleading task.
  2. A generated or user-authored statement is presented as server-authoritative without verification.
  3. A consequential state transition occurs without a durable reason code.

Failure and recovery

Fail-closed behavior and recovery path.

FAILURE

Fail closed for irreversible or settlement-bearing actions. Preserve the current state, show the missing requirement, and allow correction or documented exception review.

RECOVERY

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 concise fictional game 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.

Open complete mission examples →

Related records and examples

Supporting research

Deep links into complete canonical reports.

Revision history

Published changes to this record.

1.0.02026-07-19 UTC

Initial IARPG-OPS-1 publication.

2.0.1-wip2026-07-19 UTC

Expanded for IARPG-OPS-2 workbench, simulation, evidence, accessibility, telemetry, and machine-readable publication.

2.0.2-wip2026-07-19T16:42:07Z UTC

2.0.3-wip2026-07-19T18:45:50Z UTC

Reviewed for integrity-aware package verification, merge, multi-role replay, custody comparison, batch review, backup, publication preview, and release-promotion workflows.

2.0.4-wip2026-07-20T12:04:07Z UTC

Reviewed for canonicalization, round-trip portability, recovery, provenance, compatibility, accessibility, hosting evidence, and stable-promotion gates.

Connected tools and standards

Explore the wider AI ecosystem.