HSBM — Harm Subject Boundary Module
OOF® Origin Open Foundation®
Independent Methodological Authority
Canonical Definition
The HSBM — Harm Subject Boundary Module governs how the subjectsmaterially belonging to a recognized Harm object are identified,
distinguished, included, excluded, grouped, separated, expanded,
contracted, disputed, reassessed, and preserved as part of the governed
Harm Boundary.
HSBM establishes the transition:
Governed Boundary Identification State → Subject Candidates → Subject
Relationship Assessment → Subject Inclusion / Exclusion → Governed Harm
Subject Boundary
Its central question is:
Who or what legitimately belongs within the subject boundary of the
governed Harm?
- Operational Role
HBIM identifies subjects that may be relevant to the Harm Boundary.
HSBM determines which of those candidates legitimately belong to the
governed Harm as affected subjects.
Its operational role is:
to establish the affected-subject extent of Harm without limiting Harm to
the first visible, reporting, directly affected, individually
identifiable, or administratively recorded subject.
The resulting Subject Boundary becomes one component of the complete:
Governed Harm Boundary
- Position Within HBS
The HBS internal flow is:
Boundary Identification → Subject Boundary → Temporal Boundary → Effect
Boundary → Downstream Boundary
The Core Module sequence is:
HBIM → HSBM → HTBM → HEBM → HDBM
HSBM receives:
Governed Boundary Identification State
and produces:Governed Harm Subject Boundary
for integration with subsequent boundary dimensions.- Governed Object
The primary governed object is:
Harm Subject Boundary
A Harm Subject Boundary defines which affected entities belong to thegoverned Harm.
Possible Subject Boundary states include:
Unassessed
Candidate
Provisionally Included
Included
Partially Included
Collectively Included
Provisionally Excluded
Excluded
Disputed
Uncertain
Reopened
A subject state must remain traceable to its basis.- Harm Subject Model
HAGA™ recognizes Harm subjects including:
Individual Subject
Multiple Individual Subjects
Defined Group
Organization
Physical Object
Digital Object
Operational System
Infrastructure
Environment
Population / Society
The subject model must remain technology-neutral and domain-neutral.- Foundational Subject Principle
The foundational distinction is:
Affected Subject ≠ Reporting Subject
The entity that reports Harm is not necessarily:
the only harmed subject
or even:
the harmed subject at all.
Harm governance must therefore identify subjects from the Harm itself
rather than from reporting structure alone.
- Subject Inclusion
A subject may be included where a materially supportable relationship
exists between that subject and the governed Harm.
The relationship may be:
direct
indirect
collective
distributed
persistent
delayed
or:
downstream
depending on the Harm structure.
Inclusion means:
the subject belongs to the Harm object being bounded.
It does not establish causation, accountability, liability, compensation,
or claim entitlement.
- Subject Exclusion
A candidate subject may be excluded where available governance establishes
that the subject:
was not materially affected
belongs to another Harm object
was incorrectly associated
was duplicated
or:
does not satisfy the applicable subject-boundary relationship
Exclusion must remain reasoned and traceable.
Canonical distinction:
Excluded From This Harm ≠ Not Harmed by Anything
- Direct and Indirect Subjects
A Direct Subject experiences Harm through a materially immediate
relationship.
An Indirect Subject experiences a materially associated consequence
through an intermediate relationship.
Indirectness alone is not sufficient for exclusion.
Therefore:
Indirect Subject ≠ Irrelevant Subject
The relevant question is whether the subject remains materially connected
to the governed Harm.
- Primary and Secondary Subjects
Where useful, HSBM may distinguish:
Primary Subject
from:Secondary Subject
This classification describes relationship structure.It must not create an automatic hierarchy of Harm significance.
Therefore:
Primary Subject ≠ More Severe Harm by Default
and:
Secondary Subject ≠ Lesser Harm by Default
- Multiple Subjects Within One Harm
One Harm object may affect multiple subjects.
Conceptually:
Harm → Subject A
Harm → Subject B
Harm → Subject C
The existence of multiple subjects does not require separate Harm objects.
Canonical principle:
Multiple Subjects ≠ Multiple Harms by Default
- One Subject Across Multiple Harms
The opposite is equally important.
One subject may belong to several distinct Harm lifecycles.
Conceptually:
Harm A → Subject
Harm B → Subject
Therefore:
Same Subject ≠ Same Harm Object
Subject identity alone must never be used to merge distinct Harms.
- Collective Harm Subjects
Harm may exist at a collective level.
A governed subject may therefore be:
a defined group
an organization
an infrastructure system
an environment
a population
or:
society
without requiring the Harm to be represented exclusively as the sum of
individually identified subjects.
Foundational principle:
The absence of a single harmed subject does not preclude governed Harm.
- Group Boundary
Where a group is treated as a Harm subject, HSBM must establish what makes
the group sufficiently coherent for inclusion.
Relevant characteristics may include:
shared exposure
shared Harm effect
shared environment
shared dependency
shared operational relationship
shared affected condition
A statistical or administrative grouping alone does not automatically
create a Harm subject.
- Group Harm ≠ Identical Individual Harm
Members of the same affected group may experience different:
effects
timing
severity
duration
recovery
Therefore:
Collective Inclusion ≠ Identical Individual Harm
HSBM must preserve individual distinctions where they materially matter.
- Organizational Subject
An organization may itself be a harmed subject where Harm materially
affects its:
operation
assets
capability
continuity
information
functional integrity
or other governed interests.
Organizational subject status must remain separate from the organization's
possible role as:
operator
employer
provider
responsible actor
or:
liable party
Therefore:
Harmed Organization ≠ Accountable Organization
- Physical and Digital Object Subjects
Harm may concern a:
physical object
or:
digital object
where the governed object experiences material degradation, corruption,
impairment, destruction, loss of function, or another Harm state.
Object ownership is not required to define the Harm itself.
Therefore:
Harmed Object ≠ Harmed Owner by Default
The owner may constitute a separate affected subject where materially
justified.
- System and Infrastructure Subjects
Operational systems and infrastructure may themselves be Harm subjects
where Harm materially affects their:
function
availability
integrity
capacity
continuity
or:
operational condition
The individual components of a system do not necessarily constitute
separate Harm subjects.
Conversely, Harm to one component does not automatically establish Harm to
the complete system.
- Environmental Subject
An environment may constitute a governed Harm subject where materially
harmful change affects the environmental system itself.
HAGA™ must not require the environmental Harm to be represented only
through downstream effects on humans or organizations.
Therefore:
Environmental Harm Does Not Require a Human Proxy
- Population and Societal Subjects
Some Harm may operate at population or societal scale.
Such Harm may involve:
distributed effects
collective degradation
systemic impairment
population-level consequences
or:
societal disruption
The inability to enumerate every affected individual must not
automatically prevent the population or society from being represented as
a governed Harm subject.
- Known and Unknown Subjects
The complete subject population may not be known when the Harm Boundary is
first established.
HSBM must support:
Known Subject
Known Subject Group
Unknown Additional Subject
Estimated Subject Population
Open Subject Boundary
Canonical principle:Unknown Subject ≠ No Subject
- Unidentified Subject
A subject may be known to exist without its identity being known.
Example:
a system establishes that an affected user exists, but the user's identity
is unavailable.
The subject may remain within the Harm Boundary as:
Unidentified Affected Subject
Identity resolution belongs to adjacent identity governance whererequired.
Canonical distinction:
Unknown Identity ≠ Unknown Harm Subject
- Subject Identity and OBIDENITY®
OBIDENITY® may establish:
identity
origin
ownership
provenance
continuity
where relevant.
HSBM uses identity information to distinguish subjects.
It does not govern identity itself.
Therefore:
Identity Resolution ≠ Harm Subject Inclusion by Default
- Duplicate Subject Control
The same subject may appear through:
multiple reports
multiple identifiers
multiple systems
multiple organizations
multiple records
multiple sessions
HSBM must prevent one subject from being incorrectly counted as several
independent subjects.
Canonical principle:
Multiple Representations ≠ Multiple Harm Subjects
- Subject Relationship Mapping
HSBM should preserve material relationships among affected subjects.
These may include:
individual → group
employee → organization
user → platform
object → owner
component → system
system → infrastructure
environment → population
The relationship itself does not automatically determine whether both
entities belong inside the Harm Boundary.
- Dependent Subjects
Harm to one subject may materially affect another through dependency.
Conceptually:
Subject A Harm → Dependency → Subject B Effect
Subject B may become part of:
the same Harm
or:
a downstream Harm
depending on boundary continuity.
HSBM establishes subject relevance.
HDBM later governs downstream extent.
- Subject Boundary Across Domains
One subject may experience Harm across several domains.
Example:
Physical → Functional → Financial
or:
Digital → Operational → Organizational
Domain transition does not automatically create a new subject.
Therefore:
Domain Change ≠ Subject Change
- Subject Boundary Across Time
Subjects may enter the Harm Boundary at different times.
Conceptually:
Subject A affected at T1
Subject B affected at T2
Subject C affected at T3
Therefore:Shared Harm ≠ Shared Subject Entry Time
HTBM later governs the temporal extent.
- Subject Boundary Across Locations
The same Harm may affect subjects in different:
physical locations
digital environments
organizations
jurisdictions
Location must not automatically fragment the Subject Boundary.
Therefore:
Different Location ≠ Different Harm Subject Structure by Default
- Distributed AI Harm
AI-mediated Harm may affect subjects through multiple:
models
agents
sessions
tools
platforms
execution environments
HSBM must follow the affected subjects rather than the technical partition
through which Harm was produced.
Therefore:
Agent Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
Session Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
System Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
- Composite Harm and Subjects
Composite Harm may arise through several individually insufficient
interactions.
A subject may therefore be harmed by the complete operation even where no
individual component independently produced sufficient Harm.
Canonical principle:
Individual Action Insufficiency ≠ Subject Harm Insufficiency
The subject boundary must be evaluated against the complete governed Harm
object.
- Subject Boundary and Reporting Bias
Subjects who can:
recognize
document
report
or:
escalate
Harm may become visible earlier than subjects who cannot.
HAGA™ must not therefore equate reporting capacity with subject
legitimacy.
Canonical principle:
Ability to Report ≠ Right to Exist Within the Harm Boundary
This is particularly important for:
minors
vulnerable persons
non-human Harm subjects
automated systems
environments
and:
distributed populations
- Subject Visibility Bias
Visible, identifiable, or institutionally convenient subjects must not
automatically define the complete Subject Boundary.
Therefore:
Visible Subject ≠ Complete Subject Scope
- Subject Boundary Expansion
The Subject Boundary may expand where additional affected subjects become
materially supportable.
Conceptually:
Subject Boundary₁ → New Subject Information → Subject Boundary₂
Expansion must preserve:
new subject
basis
time of inclusion
relationship to Harm
previous boundary state
- Subject Boundary Contraction
The Subject Boundary may contract where a previously included subject is
later shown not to belong to the Harm.
Contraction must preserve:
previous inclusion
new basis
reason for exclusion
effective change
- Subject Boundary Reclassification
A subject may be reclassified without being removed.
Examples:
Individual Subject → Member of Collective Subject
Secondary Subject → Primary Subject
Unknown Subject → Identified Subject
Separate Subject → Duplicate Representation
Reclassification must preserve historical continuity.
- Subject Boundary Dispute
Subject inclusion may be disputed.
Disputes may concern:
whether the subject was affected
whether the effect belongs to the Harm
whether the subject belongs to another Harm object
whether a collective subject exists
whether two records represent the same subject
HSBM must preserve the dispute.
Canonical principle:
Subject Boundary Dispute ≠ Permission to Default to Exclusion
- Subject Boundary Uncertainty
Where support remains incomplete, HSBM may establish:
Provisionally Included
Provisionally Excluded
Uncertain
or:Open Subject Boundary
rather than forcing a false binary conclusion.- Subject Boundary Confidence
Confidence may be assigned to individual subject-boundary decisions.
Possible states:
High
Moderate
Low
Disputed
Unknown
Confidence concerns the legitimacy of subject inclusion.It does not represent Harm severity.
Therefore:
Subject Boundary Confidence ≠ Harm Severity
- Subject Boundary Inflation
Subject Boundary Inflation occurs where entities are included without
sufficient Harm relationship.
Possible causes include:
shared location
shared system
shared organization
shared exposure without Harm
administrative grouping
remote association
HBS must prevent such unsupported expansion.
- Subject Boundary Suppression
Subject Boundary Suppression occurs where materially affected subjects are
excluded because they are:
indirect
less visible
unidentified
outside the original organization
outside the reporting system
outside the original location
part of a collective effect
affected later
HSBM must prevent artificial narrowing.
- Exposure ≠ Subject Inclusion
A subject may have been exposed without being harmed.
Therefore:
Exposed Subject ≠ Harmed Subject by Default
HES governs Exposure.
HSBM governs inclusion in the recognized Harm Subject Boundary.
- Recognition ≠ Complete Subject Boundary
HRS may initially recognize Harm through one subject.
That does not establish that only that subject belongs to the Harm.
Therefore:
Recognition Subject ≠ Complete Harm Subject Boundary
- Subject Inclusion ≠ Causation
HSBM may require sufficient relational support between Harm and subject.
It does not establish general causation.
Therefore:
Subject Boundary Inclusion ≠ Final Causal Determination
- Subject Inclusion ≠ Accountability
A harmed subject may simultaneously have another operational role.
Subject status does not establish:
responsibility
fault
or:
accountability
Canonical distinction:
Harm Subject ≠ Accountable Actor
AGA™ governs accountability.
- Subject Inclusion ≠ Liability
Subject inclusion does not determine:
legal standing
compensation
insurance entitlement
damages
or:
liability
Therefore:
Harm Subject ≠ Legal Claimant by Default
and:
Harm Subject Boundary ≠ Liability Boundary
- Subject Inclusion ≠ Claim Scope
A claim may involve only some affected subjects.
Other affected subjects may never file a claim.
Therefore:
Claimant Set ≠ Harm Subject Set
This prevents claim structure from defining Harm reality.
- Subject Inclusion ≠ Harm Severity
The number of affected subjects does not alone establish Harm severity.
Therefore:
More Subjects ≠ More Severe Harm by Default
Similarly:
One Subject ≠ Minor Harm
- Subject Continuity
A subject remains part of the Harm Boundary while the relevant Harm
relationship remains materially supportable.
Changes in:
location
organization
system
identity representation
reporting status
or:
technical environment
do not automatically terminate subject inclusion.
- Subject Exit
A subject may leave the active Harm Boundary where the applicable Harm
relationship legitimately ends.
However:
Subject Exit From Active Harm ≠ No Historical Harm
Historical subject inclusion must remain preserved.
- Recovery Boundary
A subject may recover while remaining historically part of the Harm.
Therefore:
Recovered Subject ≠ Never-Harmed Subject
Recovery governance belongs later in HAGA™.
- Subject Reopening
A previously excluded or closed subject may be reopened where:
new evidence appears
historical effects are discovered
identity is corrected
duplicate records are resolved
cross-domain Harm becomes visible
collective relationships are established
Reopening must preserve previous decisions.
- Historical Subject Boundary Integrity
HSBM must preserve:
Subject Boundary State₁ → New Information → Subject Boundary State₂
including:
subject
classification
inclusion state
relationship basis
confidence
uncertainty
dispute
change reason
Canonical principle:
Current Subject Boundary ≠ Complete Subject Boundary History
- HSBM Handoff
HSBM produces:
Governed Harm Subject Boundary
This output establishes:which subjects currently belong
which are excluded
which remain uncertain
which collective structures apply
how subject relationships are represented
Subsequent HBS modules govern the remaining boundary dimensions.
- Relationship to Adjacent HBS Modules
HBIM asks:
Which subjects may be relevant?
HSBM asks:
Which subjects legitimately belong to the Harm?
HTBM next asks:
What is the temporal extent of that Harm?
HEBM later asks:
Which effects belong to it?
HDBM asks:
How far downstream does its boundary extend?
These dimensions must remain connected but methodologically distinct.
- Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum HSBM implementation requires eight capabilities.
- Subject Classification
Represent individuals, multiple individuals, groups, organizations,
physical objects, digital objects, systems, infrastructure, environments,
populations, and society as possible Harm subjects.
- Subject Inclusion & Exclusion
Apply traceable criteria for Included, Provisionally Included, Excluded,
Provisionally Excluded, Uncertain, and Disputed subject states.
- Individual & Collective Governance
Support individual and collective Harm without requiring collective Harm
to be reduced entirely to individually enumerated subjects.
- Subject Relationship Governance
Represent direct, indirect, dependent, distributed, cross-domain, and
multi-subject relationships without converting them into causation,
accountability, or liability conclusions.
- Identity & Duplication Control
Distinguish unidentified subjects, duplicate representations, multiple
identifiers, and actual distinct subjects.
- Boundary Bias Controls
Prevent reporting ability, visibility, location, organization, system,
claim status, or administrative structure from automatically determining
subject inclusion.
- Reassessment & Historical Continuity
Support subject-boundary expansion, contraction, reclassification,
dispute, reopening, and correction while preserving previous states.
- Governed Output
Produce a traceable Governed Harm Subject Boundary suitable for
integration into the complete Harm Boundary.
A system that recognizes only the first reporting, individually
identifiable, directly affected, or administratively recorded subject does
not fully implement HSBM.
- Use Case 1 — Harm Initially Recognized Through One Person Affects
Multiple Subjects
A harmful condition is first recognized because one individual reports a
clear effect.
Subsequent governance identifies:
two additional affected individuals
one indirectly affected dependent subject
and:
a broader group with a shared Harm pattern
HSBM does not automatically treat all exposed persons as harmed.
It determines which subjects have a materially supportable relationship to
the governed Harm and establishes:
individual subject inclusion
collective subject structure
uncertain subjects
and:
excluded exposure-only subjects
The governing principle is:
The first person through whom Harm becomes visible does not define the
complete population to which the Harm belongs.
- Use Case 2 — Distributed AI Operation Affects Users Across
Multiple
Systems
A composite AI operation spans several agents, tools, sessions, and
platforms.
Harm is initially recognized through one affected user on one interface.
Further analysis identifies materially related effects affecting users
through other execution paths.
HSBM follows the Harm relationship across the technical structure rather
than limiting the Subject Boundary to the original interface or session.
It establishes the supported affected-subject set while keeping merely
exposed or unrelated users outside the Harm Boundary.
The governing principle is:
Technical distribution may divide execution, but it does not automatically
divide the population affected by the resulting Harm.
- Governance Requirements
HSBM requires that:
- affected subject remain distinct from reporting subject
- subject inclusion remain traceable to a materially supportable
Harm
relationship; - exclusion from one Harm remain distinct from absence of
all Harm; - direct and indirect subjects remain governable; -
primary/secondary classification not imply severity hierarchy; - multiple
subjects not automatically create multiple Harms; - shared subject
identity not automatically merge distinct Harms; - collective Harm remain
governable without requiring complete individual enumeration; - group
inclusion not imply identical Harm for every member; - organizations,
objects, systems, infrastructure, environments, populations, and society
remain valid potential Harm subjects; - unknown identity remain distinct
from unknown subject existence; - duplicate records not create duplicate
subjects; - subject relationships remain distinct from accountability; -
domain, time, location, system, session, and agent boundaries not
automatically fragment the Subject Boundary; - composite Harm remain
capable of producing a governed Subject Boundary; - reporting ability and
visibility not determine subject legitimacy; - exposed subjects not
automatically become harmed subjects; - Recognition Subject not define the
complete Subject Boundary; - subject inclusion remain distinct from
causation, accountability, liability, claim entitlement, and Harm
severity; - expansion, contraction, reclassification, dispute, and
reopening preserve historical continuity.
- Governance Logic
HSBM applies the following logic:
Has HBIM identified Subject Candidates?
If no:
→ maintain the Subject Boundary as incomplete.
If yes:
→ classify candidate subjects.
Is the candidate materially affected by the recognized Harm?
If sufficiently supported:
→ include the subject.
If potentially supported but unresolved:
→ establish a Provisional or Uncertain state.
If unsupported:
→ exclude the subject from this Harm Boundary.
Is the subject merely exposed?
→ do not convert Exposure into Harm inclusion automatically.
Is the subject indirect?
→ assess the material relationship rather than excluding by default.
Do several records represent the same subject?
→ consolidate duplicate representations.
Is a subject known to exist but identity unresolved?
→ preserve an Unidentified Affected Subject state.
Does Harm exist at group, system, environmental, population, or societal
level?
→ assess the collective subject directly rather than requiring artificial
individualization.
Does the subject appear through another system, organization, session,
agent, location, or domain?
→ do not fragment the Subject Boundary solely because the technical or
administrative boundary changed.
Has new information changed the affected-subject set?
→ expand, contract, reclassify, dispute, or reopen while preserving
history.
At every stage:
Affected Subject ≠ Reporting Subject
Exposure ≠ Harm
Indirect ≠ Irrelevant
Multiple Subjects ≠ Multiple Harms
Same Subject ≠ Same Harm
Subject Inclusion ≠ Causation
Subject Inclusion ≠ Accountability
Subject Inclusion ≠ Liability
- Governance Outputs
HSBM may produce:
- Governed Harm Subject Boundary
- Included Subject Set
- Provisionally Included Subject Set
- Excluded Subject Set
- Uncertain Subject Set
- Disputed Subject Set
- Individual Subject Boundary
- Multi-Subject Boundary
- Collective Subject Boundary
- Organizational Subject State
- Object Subject State
- System / Infrastructure Subject State
- Environmental Subject State
- Population / Societal Subject State
- Unidentified Affected Subject State
- Subject Relationship Map
- Duplicate Subject Resolution
- Subject Boundary Confidence
- Subject Boundary Expansion Record
- Subject Boundary Contraction Record
- Subject Reclassification Record
- Subject Boundary Reopening State
- Historical Subject Boundary Record
The principal output is:
Governed Harm Subject Boundary
- Critical Distinctions
Affected Subject ≠ Reporting Subject
Excluded From This Harm ≠ Not Harmed by Anything
Indirect Subject ≠ Irrelevant Subject
Primary Subject ≠ More Severe Harm by Default
Secondary Subject ≠ Lesser Harm by Default
Multiple Subjects ≠ Multiple Harms by Default
Same Subject ≠ Same Harm Object
Collective Inclusion ≠ Identical Individual Harm
Harmed Organization ≠ Accountable Organization
Harmed Object ≠ Harmed Owner by Default
Environmental Harm Does Not Require a Human Proxy
Unknown Subject ≠ No Subject
Unknown Identity ≠ Unknown Harm Subject
Multiple Representations ≠ Multiple Harm Subjects
Domain Change ≠ Subject Change
Shared Harm ≠ Shared Subject Entry Time
Agent Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
Session Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
System Boundary ≠ Subject Boundary
Individual Action Insufficiency ≠ Subject Harm Insufficiency
Exposed Subject ≠ Harmed Subject by Default
Recognition Subject ≠ Complete Harm Subject Boundary
Subject Boundary Inclusion ≠ Final Causal Determination
Harm Subject ≠ Accountable Actor
Harm Subject ≠ Legal Claimant by Default
Claimant Set ≠ Harm Subject Set
More Subjects ≠ More Severe Harm by Default
Subject Exit From Active Harm ≠ No Historical Harm
Recovered Subject ≠ Never-Harmed Subject
- Canonical Boundary
The HSBM — Harm Subject Boundary Module governs which individuals,
multiple individuals, defined groups, organizations, physical objects,
digital objects, operational systems, infrastructure, environments,
populations, and societal entities legitimately belong within the subject
boundary of a recognized Harm object. It governs subject classification,
inclusion, exclusion, collective subject structures, direct and indirect
subject relationships, unidentified subjects, duplication, uncertainty,
dispute, expansion, contraction, reclassification, reopening, and
historical Subject Boundary continuity. It does not establish the Harm
Temporal Boundary, Effect Boundary, or Downstream Boundary; formally
determine Harm; establish general causation; assign accountability or
responsibility; determine liability or claim entitlement; or replace
identity, operational reality, evidence, validation, integrity, AI
behavior, autonomous execution, simulation, Value, or tax-event
governance.
- Canonical Closing Statement
Harm is not bounded by whoever reports it first, whoever is easiest to
identify, or whoever fits most conveniently into an existing case record.
A Harm may belong to one individual, many individuals, an organization, an
object, a system, an environment, or a population — and those subjects may
become visible at different times and through different systems.
HSBM ensures that the subject boundary follows the materially affected
reality while excluding entities that do not legitimately belong to that
Harm.
The subjects of Harm are determined by the Harm relationship, not by the
administrative structure through which they become visible.