HDSM — Harm Determination State Module
OOF® Origin Open Foundation®
Independent Methodological Authority
Canonical Definition
The HDSM — Harm Determination State Module governs how the Governed HarmDetermination Evaluation is converted into an explicit, bounded,
qualified, traceable, and revisable Harm Determination State representing
what can legitimately be formally established about the governed Harm at a
given point in time.
HDSM governs Determination State assignment, state qualification, partial
establishment, pending status, insufficient basis, non-establishment,
confidence, limitations, scope, uncertainty, state transition, dispute,
reopening, reassessment, correction, and historical continuity without
converting Harm Determination into Harm State, causation, accountability,
responsibility, liability, or claim determination.
HDSM establishes the transition:
Governed Harm Determination Evaluation → State Eligibility → State
Assignment → State Qualification → Governed Harm Determination State
Its central question is:
Which formal Harm Determination State legitimately follows from the
governed Determination Evaluation?
- Operational Role
HDEM establishes what the complete governed basis supports.
HDSM converts that evaluation into the formal methodological status of the
Harm Determination.
Its operational role is:
to ensure that the formal Determination State says exactly what the
governed evaluation supports — no more, no less.
HDSM prevents:
uncertainty from becoming false certainty
insufficient basis from becoming non-existence
partial establishment from becoming complete establishment
and:
Recognition from becoming Determination without the required methodology.
- Position Within HDS
The HDS internal flow is:
Qualified Inputs → Determination Criteria → Evaluation → Determination
State → Governed Harm Record
The Core Module sequence is:
HDIM → HDCM-D → HDEM → HDSM → HDRM
HDSM receives:
Governed Harm Determination Evaluation
and produces:Governed Harm Determination State
for HDRM.- Governed Object
The primary governed object is:
Harm Determination State
The canonical HDS Determination States are:Established
Partially Established
Pending
Insufficient Basis
Not Established
These states must remain methodologically distinct.- Foundational State Principle
The foundational rule is:
The Determination State must represent the evaluation — not simplify it
beyond what the evaluation supports.
Therefore:
Evaluation Complexity ≠ Permission for Binary Oversimplification
- Why Five States Are Necessary
A binary:
Harm / No Harm
model cannot represent several fundamentally different governancerealities.
For example:
Harm is established
is different from:
some Harm dimensions are established
which is different from:
evaluation is still pending
which is different from:
there is currently insufficient basis
which is different from:
the governed basis supports non-establishment
HDSM preserves these distinctions.
- Established
Established means the governed Determination Evaluation satisfies the
applicable Determination Criteria sufficiently to formally establish the
bounded Harm.
Established means:
the Harm can legitimately be represented as formally determined.
It does not mean:
every characteristic is known
every uncertainty has disappeared
every subject has been individually identified
exact Harm onset is known
general causation is fully established
accountability has been assigned
or:
liability exists
Canonical distinction:
Established Harm ≠ Complete Knowledge
- Established with Limitations
An Established Determination may carry explicit limitations.
For example:
Harm existence — Established
Exact onset — Estimated
Subject scope — Established
One downstream relationship — Uncertain
The existence of a limitation does not automatically require downgradingthe entire Harm to Partially Established.
The key question is whether the limitation affects:
the Harm existence proposition itself
or only:
a secondary characteristic.
- Partially Established
Partially Established means that a material part of the bounded Harm
satisfies the Determination Criteria while another material part remains
unresolved or unsupported.
The state must identify:
what is established
what is not yet established
what remains uncertain
and:
what prevents complete establishment
Canonical principle:
Partial Establishment must preserve the boundary between what is known and
what remains open.
- Partial Establishment ≠ Weak Harm
Partially Established concerns the state of Determination.
It does not classify Harm severity.
Therefore:
Partially Established ≠ Minor Harm
A severe Harm may be only partially established.
A low-severity Harm may be fully established.
- Pending
Pending means the Determination cannot yet legitimately be completed
because a materially necessary governance process remains active or
unresolved.
Examples include:
required information pending
validation pending
boundary reassessment underway
material contradiction unresolved
expert evaluation incomplete
input qualification unresolved
or:
criteria application incomplete
Pending represents:
Determination Not Yet Complete
It does not represent:No Harm
- Pending ≠ Insufficient Basis
The distinction is important.
Pending means a material Determination process is still capable of
progressing with expected governance activity.
Insufficient Basis means the currently available governed basis does not
support the required Determination.
Therefore:
Pending ≠ Insufficient Basis
- Insufficient Basis
Insufficient Basis means the available governed basis cannot currently
support formal Harm Determination under the applicable criteria.
Possible reasons include:
missing required information
insufficiently qualified inputs
material unresolved uncertainty
inadequate scope coverage
unresolved contradiction
or:
failure to reach the required Determination threshold
Canonical principle:
Insufficient Basis ≠ No Harm
- Why Insufficient Basis Matters
Without this state, governance may make the invalid transition:
Cannot Establish Harm → Harm Did Not Exist
HDSM explicitly prevents that inference.
The correct representation may be:
Harm Determination: Insufficient Basis
while the underlying reality remains unresolved.
- Not Established
Not Established means the governed evaluation does not establish the
bounded Harm under the applicable Determination methodology.
Where materially relevant, the state should distinguish whether:
required criteria were not satisfied
counterevidence materially supports non-establishment
the Harm proposition is inconsistent with the governed basis
or:
another interpretation is materially better supported
- Not Established ≠ Insufficient Basis
This distinction is fundamental.
Insufficient Basis means:
governance cannot currently establish the answer.
Not Established means:
the completed governed evaluation does not establish the Harm proposition.
Therefore:
Lack of Sufficient Support ≠ Positive Support for Non-Existence
- Not Established ≠ Harm Never Existed
A Not Established state is a methodological conclusion based on the
governed basis available under the applicable methodology.
It must not be transformed into a stronger historical claim than the
evaluation supports.
Therefore:
Not Established ≠ Proven Never to Have Existed
unless that stronger conclusion itself is specifically supported.
- State Scope
Every Determination State must apply to a defined Harm scope.
This includes, where applicable:
Harm object
subject scopetemporal scope
effect scope
downstream scope
and:
domain scope
A Determination State must not silently extend beyond the Governed Harm
Boundary evaluated by HDEM.
- Scope Precision
A formal statement such as:
“Harm Established”
is insufficient where the determination concerns only part of the bounded
Harm.
The state should be capable of representing:
what exactly has been established.
Canonical principle:
Determination State Precision Must Match Determination Scope.
- Determination State ≠ Harm State
This distinction is critical.
HDSM governs epistemic-methodological status:
What can governance formally establish about Harm?
HSS governs Harm's lifecycle state:
What is the current state of the Harm itself?
Therefore:
Harm Determination State ≠ Harm Lifecycle State
For example:
Determination State: Established
may coexist with:
Harm State: Residual
- Determination State ≠ Recognition State
HRS may establish:
Recognized
or:Recognition Confirmed
before HDS establishes Harm.Therefore:
Recognized ≠ Established
Recognition concerns governance awareness.
Determination concerns formal methodological establishment.
- Determination State ≠ Reality State
A Determination State represents what governance can formally establish.
It does not create the underlying Harm reality.
Canonical principle:
Harm may exist before it is determined, and failure to determine Harm does
not retroactively erase Harm from reality.
- Determination Time ≠ Harm Emergence Time
The date on which HDSM assigns Established does not become the date on
which Harm began.
Therefore:
Determination Time ≠ Harm Emergence Time
Likewise:
Determination Time ≠ Recognition Time
- Determination Confidence
A Determination State may carry a confidence qualification where useful.
Examples:
Established — High Confidence
Established — Moderate Confidence
Partially Established — High Confidence regarding established scope
Confidence must describe the methodological strength of the determination.It must not redefine the state.
- Confidence ≠ State
Canonical distinction:
Determination Confidence ≠ Determination State
A high-confidence Insufficient Basis state is possible.
For example, governance may be highly confident that available information
is insufficient.
- Confidence ≠ Severity
Canonical distinction:
Determination Confidence ≠ Harm Severity
These dimensions must never be collapsed.
- Uncertainty Qualification
HDSM must preserve material uncertainty from HDEM.
Uncertainty may concern:
existence
scope
time
subject
effect
downstream relationship
or:
methodological limitation
Where Harm existence is established but a secondary characteristic remains
uncertain, the uncertainty should remain attached to that characteristic.
- Local Uncertainty ≠ Global Downgrade
Canonical principle:
Uncertainty in one Harm characteristic must not automatically downgrade
the complete Harm Determination State.
For example:
exact onset uncertain
does not necessarily require:
Partially Established
if Harm existence and the material bounded Harm are otherwise established.- Material Limitation
A limitation becomes state-relevant when it materially affects what can
legitimately be established.
HDSM must therefore distinguish:
non-material limitation
from:
state-limiting condition
This prevents minor uncertainty from unnecessarily weakening Determination
while preventing material uncertainty from being hidden.
- Composite Determination State
Where Harm is established through a composite basis, the Determination
State must be capable of applying to the composite Harm object.
Therefore:
No Individually Established Component ≠ No Established Composite Harm
The state must correspond to the level at which HDEM evaluated the Harm.
- Distributed Determination State
A Harm may be established across:
agents
systems
subjects
organizations
locations
domains
or:
time periods
The Determination State must not be artificially fragmented merely because
the Harm-producing or evidence environment is distributed.
Canonical principle:
Distributed Reality May Require a Unified Determination State.
- Collective Determination State
A collective Harm may be formally established without requiring identical
individual Harm Determinations for every member of the affected group.
Therefore:
Collective Harm Determination ≠ Sum of Identical Individual Determinations
- State Assignment Neutrality
HDSM must assign the state supported by HDEM regardless of whether that
state creates:
financial exposure
organizational consequences
reputational effects
regulatory consequences
claims
legal risk
or:
political consequences
Canonical principle:
The consequence of a Determination State must not determine the
Determination State.
- Accountability Neutrality
An inability to identify an accountable actor must not prevent an
otherwise legitimate Harm Determination State.
Therefore:
Unknown Accountability ≠ Insufficient Harm Determination
AGA™ remains separate.
- Liability Neutrality
The existence or absence of a legal liability path must not change the
Harm Determination State.
Therefore:
No Liability ≠ Not Established Harm
and:
Established Harm ≠ Established Liability
- Claim Neutrality
A Harm may be Established without a claim.
A claim may exist without Harm being formally Established under HDS.
Therefore:
Claim State ≠ Harm Determination State
- State Assignment from Evaluation
HDSM must derive the state from HDEM rather than independently
reevaluating all inputs.
Conceptually:
HDEM Evaluation → HDSM State Assignment
HDSM may verify that the proposed state follows from the evaluation.
It must not silently replace HDEM's methodology.
- Evaluation-to-State Mapping
A typical mapping may include:
Criteria Satisfied → Established
Criteria Materially Satisfied for Defined Scope → Partially Established
Evaluation Incomplete but Active → Pending
Basis Insufficient → Insufficient Basis
Completed Evaluation Does Not Establish Harm → Not Established
The mapping must remain governed rather than purely mechanical where
material complexity exists.
- State Conflict
Where the evaluation does not support a single legitimate Determination
State, HDSM must not force one.
It may return the matter for:
HDEM reassessment
HDCM-D criteria clarification
HDIM input requalification
or:HBS boundary reassessment
Canonical principle:Ambiguous State Mapping ≠ Permission for Arbitrary State Assignment
- State Dispute
A Determination State may be disputed.
Dispute must preserve:
current state
basis of dispute
scope of dispute
challenging information
affected criteria or evaluation
and:
status of reassessment
Dispute does not automatically invalidate the existing state.
- State Transition
A Harm Determination State may change.
Examples:
Pending → Established
Pending → Insufficient Basis
Insufficient Basis → Established
Partially Established → Established
Established → Partially Established
Established → Not Established
where later governed reassessment legitimately supports the transition.
Every material transition must be traceable.
- State Transition ≠ Historical Erasure
Canonical principle:
A new Determination State supersedes the current methodological status; it
does not erase the previous status from history.
The lifecycle may therefore be represented as:
State₁ → New Basis → Reassessment → State₂
- Reopening
A Determination State may be reopened where:
new information appears
a material input changes
the Harm Boundary changes
criteria are legitimately revised
an evaluation error is identified
new contradictory information emerges
or:
integrity concerns arise
Reopening must be explicit.
- State Correction
Where a Determination State was assigned incorrectly, HDSM must support
correction.
The record should preserve:
incorrect state
corrected state
reason
time
and:
basis for correction
Canonical principle:
Correction must repair the current state without rewriting the history of
how the error occurred.
- Historical State Integrity
HDSM must preserve the complete Determination State history.
At minimum:
state
scope
time
confidence where used
limitations
transition reason
reassessment basis
and:
supersession relationship
The current state alone is not the complete governance record.
- State Stability
A Determination State should remain stable until a materially sufficient
reason exists to change it.
Routine arrival of irrelevant or duplicative information must not
continuously destabilize the state.
Canonical principle:
New Information ≠ Required State Change
Only materially relevant new governance basis should trigger reassessment.
- State Finality Within HDS
A Determination State may become stable or closed within the HDS process.
But HDS Determination closure is not HAGA™ Harm Finality.
Therefore:
Determination Closure ≠ Harm Finality
HRFS governs Harm Resolution & Finality later in the lifecycle.
- Established Harm May Later Resolve
An Established Harm may later become:
Reduced
Recovering
Residual
or:Resolved
within HSS and later HAGA™ standards.Its historical Determination remains Established unless the Determination
itself is later corrected.
Canonical distinction:
Harm Resolution ≠ Determination Reversal
- Later Recovery ≠ No Prior Harm
Recovery must not retroactively change an Established Harm into Not
Established.
Therefore:
Later Recovery ≠ No Prior Harm
Likewise:
Disappearance of Current Effect ≠ Historical Non-Existence
- Determination State and Causation
A Harm Determination State may depend on sufficient association.
It does not establish complete general causation.
Therefore:
Established Harm ≠ Complete Causal Attribution
- Determination State and Evidence
ADIT® may govern the evidence supporting the evaluation.
HDSM governs what formal Harm Determination State follows from HDEM.
Therefore:
Evidence State ≠ Harm Determination State
- Determination State and Validation
VALIDOS™ may validate relevant inputs or methods.
But:
Validation State ≠ Harm Determination State
Validation may support Determination without replacing it.
- Determination State and Integrity
INTEGROS® may establish integrity findings.
But:
Integrity State ≠ Harm Determination State
HDSM remains responsible for formal Harm Determination status.
- Operational Reality Boundary
ORA™ may establish what occurred operationally.
But:
Operational Reality State ≠ Harm Determination State
An operation may fail without Harm, or Harm may exist despite technically
compliant operation.
- AI and Autonomous System Boundary
AIG® and ASGA™ may establish:
behavioral violation
constraint violation
unsafe execution
or:
governance failure
These do not automatically establish the HDSM state.
Therefore:
Unsafe Behavior ≠ Established Harm
Autonomous Governance Violation ≠ Established Harm
- Simulation and Prediction Boundary
SIMULOS® may establish simulated outcomes.
Prediction governance may establish future Harm probability.
But:
Simulated Harm ≠ Established Actual Harm
Predicted Harm ≠ Established Existing Harm
HDSM assigns states only to the actual governed Harm object under HDS.
- Value Boundary
VFM® may establish Value change.
But:
Value Loss ≠ Established Harm by Default
and:
No Value Loss ≠ Not Established Harm
- State Handoff to HDRM
HDSM produces:
Governed Harm Determination State
HDRM then creates the durable methodological representation of thedetermined Harm.
The handoff should include:
Harm identity
Determination State
scopeevaluation reference
criteria reference
confidence where applicable
limitations
uncertainty
dispute status
state history
and:
effective time
- Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum HDSM implementation requires eight capabilities.
- Canonical State Assignment
Support and distinguish Established, Partially Established, Pending,
Insufficient Basis, and Not Established.
- Scope & Qualification Governance
Attach Determination State to the exact Harm object and relevant subject,
temporal, effect, downstream, and domain scope, including limitations and
uncertainty.
- Evaluation-to-State Mapping
Derive the state from the Governed Harm Determination Evaluation without
silently changing inputs, criteria, evaluation, or Harm Boundary.
- Partial, Composite & Distributed State Governance
Support Partial Establishment and Determination states applying to
composite, collective, and distributed Harm objects.
- Neutrality & Boundary Controls
Prevent accountability, liability, claims, Value, severity, visibility,
organizational consequences, or preferred outcomes from defining the
state.
- Dispute, Reopening & Correction Governance
Support challenged states, reassessment, reopening, corrections, and
returns to earlier HDS or HBS governance where required.
- State Transition & Historical Continuity
Preserve state transitions, supersession, confidence, limitations, reasons
for change, and the complete Determination State history.
- Governed Output
Produce a traceable Governed Harm Determination State suitable for
formation of the Governed Harm Record by HDRM.
A system that can represent only Harm / No Harm does not fully implement
HDSM.
- Use Case 1 — Harm Is Established but Exact Onset Remains
Uncertain
HDEM concludes that the governed basis sufficiently establishes:
Harm existence
affected subjectand:
material effects
but the exact onset can only be bounded to a period.
HDSM does not automatically assign Partially Established merely because
exact temporal precision is unavailable.
Where the uncertainty does not materially undermine Harm existence, it may
assign:
Established
with:Temporal Limitation — Exact Onset Uncertain
The governing principle is:A Harm can be fully established even when every characteristic of that
Harm is not known with equal precision.
- Use Case 2 — Distributed Harm Is Only Partially Established
A distributed AI operation affects multiple systems and subjects.
The governed evaluation sufficiently establishes Harm across:
Subjects A and B
Systems 1 and 2
and:
Effects X and Y
but a proposed downstream effect on Subject C remains materially
unresolved.
HDSM assigns:
Partially Established
and explicitly records:Established Scope — Subjects A/B, Effects X/Y
Unresolved Scope — Subject C downstream effect
The unresolved component remains governable without being falselyrepresented as either established or nonexistent.
The governing principle is:
Determination must preserve the line between what governance can establish
and what remains unresolved.
- Governance Requirements
HDSM requires that:
- Established, Partially Established, Pending, Insufficient Basis,
and
Not Established remain distinct; - Determination State follow HDEM rather
than preferred outcomes; - Established remain compatible with bounded
secondary uncertainty; - Partially Established specify exactly what is and
is not established; - Pending remain distinct from Insufficient Basis; -
Insufficient Basis never automatically become No Harm; - Not Established
remain distinct from proof that Harm never existed; - Determination State
scope match the evaluated Harm scope; - Determination State remain
separate from Recognition State, Harm lifecycle State, and underlying
reality; - Determination Time not redefine Harm Emergence Time; -
confidence remain separate from state and severity; - local uncertainty
not automatically downgrade the whole Determination; - composite,
distributed, and collective Harm remain capable of appropriate unified
states; - accountability, responsibility, liability, claims, Value, and
downstream consequences not determine the state; - ambiguous state mapping
trigger reassessment rather than arbitrary assignment; - disputes,
reopening, corrections, and transitions remain governed; - historical
states never be erased; - later Recovery or Resolution not retroactively
erase prior established Harm; - the resulting state remain suitable for
HDRM.
- Governance Logic
HDSM applies the following logic:
Has HDEM produced a complete Governed Harm Determination Evaluation?
If no:
→ do not assign a final Determination State.
If yes:
→ identify what the evaluation establishes.
Does the governed evaluation satisfy the Determination Criteria for the
complete bounded Harm?
If yes:
→ Established
with explicit limitations where necessary.
Does it establish a material part of the bounded Harm while another
material part remains unresolved?
→ Partially Established
and identify both scopes.
Is a materially necessary Determination process still active or expected
to resolve the question?
→ Pending
Does the current governed basis fail to support the required Determination
threshold without supporting a substantive non-establishment conclusion?
→ Insufficient Basis
Does the completed governed evaluation fail to establish the Harm under
the applicable methodology, including where material counterevidence
supports that conclusion?
→ Not Established
Is the proposed state inconsistent with HDEM?
→ return for reassessment rather than force assignment.
Would assignment require changing the Harm Boundary?
→ return the boundary issue to HBS.
Would assignment require changing inputs?
→ return to HDIM.
Would assignment require changing criteria?
→ return to HDCM-D.
At every stage:
Recognition ≠ Determination
Insufficient Basis ≠ No Harm
Partial ≠ Complete
Not Established ≠ Proven Never Existed
Determination State ≠ Harm State
Determination State ≠ Liability
- Governance Outputs
HDSM may produce:
- Governed Harm Determination State
- Established State
- Partially Established State
- Pending State
- Insufficient Basis State
- Not Established State
- Determination Scope
- Established Scope
- Unresolved Scope
- State Limitation Record
- State Uncertainty Record
- Determination Confidence
- State Dispute Record
- State Reassessment Requirement
- State Reopening Record
- State Correction Record
- State Transition Record
- State Supersession Record
- Historical Determination State Record
- Effective Determination Time
- HDRM Handoff Package
The principal output is:
Governed Harm Determination State
- Critical Distinctions
Evaluation Complexity ≠ Permission for Binary Oversimplification
Established Harm ≠ Complete Knowledge
Partially Established ≠ Minor Harm
Pending ≠ Insufficient Basis
Insufficient Basis ≠ No Harm
Not Established ≠ Insufficient Basis
Not Established ≠ Proven Never to Have Existed
Determination State Precision Must Match Determination Scope
Harm Determination State ≠ Harm Lifecycle State
Recognized ≠ Established
Determination State ≠ Reality State
Determination Time ≠ Harm Emergence Time
Determination Confidence ≠ Determination State
Determination Confidence ≠ Harm Severity
Local Uncertainty ≠ Global Downgrade
No Individually Established Component ≠ No Established Composite Harm
Unknown Accountability ≠ Insufficient Harm Determination
No Liability ≠ Not Established Harm
Established Harm ≠ Established Liability
Claim State ≠ Harm Determination State
Ambiguous State Mapping ≠ Permission for Arbitrary State Assignment
New Determination State ≠ Historical Erasure
New Information ≠ Required State Change
Determination Closure ≠ Harm Finality
Harm Resolution ≠ Determination Reversal
Later Recovery ≠ No Prior Harm
Established Harm ≠ Complete Causal Attribution
Evidence State ≠ Harm Determination State
Validation State ≠ Harm Determination State
Integrity State ≠ Harm Determination State
Operational Reality State ≠ Harm Determination State
Unsafe Behavior ≠ Established Harm
Simulated Harm ≠ Established Actual Harm
Predicted Harm ≠ Established Existing Harm
- Canonical Boundary
The HDSM — Harm Determination State Module governs the assignment,
qualification, scope, confidence, uncertainty, limitation, dispute,
transition, reopening, reassessment, correction, supersession, and
historical continuity of the formal Harm Determination State produced from
the Governed Harm Determination Evaluation. It governs the canonical
states Established, Partially Established, Pending, Insufficient Basis,
and Not Established, but does not qualify Determination inputs, define
Determination Criteria, perform the underlying Determination Evaluation,
establish or modify the Harm Boundary, govern the Harm lifecycle State,
create the final Governed Harm Record, establish general causation, assign
accountability or responsibility, determine liability, govern claims or
compensation, or replace evidence, validation, integrity, operational
reality, identity, AI behavior, autonomous execution, simulation,
prediction, Value, tax-event, or jurisdiction-specific governance.
- Canonical Closing Statement
The most dangerous Determination system is not one that admits
uncertainty. It is one that hides uncertainty inside a false binary
answer.
HDSM preserves the difference between Harm that is established, Harm that
is established only in part, Harm whose Determination is still pending,
Harm that cannot currently be established, and Harm that the governed
evaluation does not establish.
Those distinctions are not procedural details. They preserve the boundary
between reality, evidence, and what governance can legitimately claim to
know.
A legitimate Determination State says exactly what has been established —
no more, and no less.