HSM — Harm Subject Mapping Module

OOF® Origin Open Foundation®

Independent Methodological Authority

Canonical Definition

The HSM — Harm Subject Mapping Module governs how subjects and objects
that may be affected by Harm are identified, distinguished, related,
scoped, represented, updated, and preserved within Governed Harm Context
without prematurely determining that they have been harmed, establishing
the nature or extent of Harm, or assigning causation, accountability,
responsibility, or liability.

HSM establishes the transition:

Harm Context Map → Potentially Affected Subject / Object Identification →
Subject Structure → Subject Relationships → Subject Scope → Governed Harm
Subject Map

Its central question is:

Who or what must be represented as potentially affected for the Harm
lifecycle to be governed without excluding, conflating, or prematurely
declaring Harm to any subject?

  • Operational Role


Harm governance frequently begins with an incomplete idea of who or what
is affected.

A visible individual may be only the first identified subject.

A digital system may affect thousands of users.

An environmental condition may affect populations, infrastructure,
ecosystems, and organizations simultaneously.

A repeated organizational practice may create individually small effects
that become significant only across a group.

A physical incident may affect one person directly and others indirectly.

HSM prevents the Harm lifecycle from being constrained by the first
visible subject or by the assumption that Harm requires a conventional
individual claimant.

Its responsibility is:

to establish the governed subject structure of Harm before downstream Harm
governance relies upon that structure.

  • Position Within Harm Context Standard (HCS)


The internal flow is:

Harm Context Mapping → Harm Subject Mapping → Harm Domain Context → Harm
Temporal Context → Harm Context Relationships

HCM establishes the broader context map.

HSM determines which subjects or objects within or connected to that
context require explicit Harm-governance representation.

  • Governed Object


The governed object is the Harm Subject Map.

A Harm Subject Map identifies potentially affected subjects or objects and
preserves their relevant relationships to the Harm Context.

The map may contain:

Individual Subject

Multiple Individual Subjects

Defined Group

Organization

Physical Object

Digital Object

Operational System

Infrastructure

Environment

Population / Society

or combinations of these.

  • Subject Mapping Trigger


HSM activates when Governed Harm Context contains one or more subjects or
objects whose potential affected status is materially relevant to
downstream Harm governance.

The trigger may arise from:

  • direct observation
  • reported effect
  • potential exposure
  • system interaction
  • physical contact
  • digital interaction
  • repeated conditions
  • environmental effects
  • propagation
  • later recognition
  • newly discovered relationships


Subject Mapping Trigger ≠ Harmed Subject Determination

  • Potentially Affected Subject


A subject may enter the Harm Subject Map because sufficient context
indicates that it may be affected.

This does not establish that Harm exists.

HSM therefore distinguishes:

Potentially Affected Subject

from:

Governed Harmed Subject

The latter requires appropriate downstream Harm governance.

  • Individual Subject


An individual may be represented where Harm relevance concerns one
identifiable person or other individually governable subject.

Relevant context may include the subject's relationship to the
Harm-relevant condition, not every characteristic of that subject.

HSM must follow relevance and proportionality.

  • Multiple Individual Subjects


A single Harm-relevant condition may involve several individually
identifiable subjects.

HSM must preserve them separately where differences between their
circumstances may materially affect Harm governance.

Multiple Subjects ≠ One Composite Subject

Aggregation must not erase meaningful individual differences.

  • Defined Group


Subjects may also form a relevant group.

Examples may include people exposed to the same condition, users affected
by the same digital process, workers operating under the same environment,
or participants subject to the same organizational practice.

A group must have a sufficiently meaningful basis for inclusion.

Shared Label ≠ Governed Harm Group

  • Collective Subject


Some Harm may become meaningful at collective level even when no
individual effect fully represents the Harm.

HSM must therefore support collective subject structures where the
relevant governed object is a population, community, group, or distributed
set of subjects.

This protects HAGA™ from single-subject bias.

The absence of a single harmed subject does not preclude governed Harm.

  • Organizational Subject


An organization may itself become a potentially affected subject where
Harm can meaningfully apply to its governed interests, capabilities,
operations, or other appropriate Harm-relevant conditions.

The organization must not be reduced automatically to the sum of
individual members affected.

Organizational Harm Context ≠ Individual Harm Context

  • Physical Object


Physical objects may enter the Harm Subject Map where physical damage,
degradation, loss of function, contamination, destruction, or another
Harm-relevant effect may apply.

HSM identifies the object as potentially affected.

It does not determine damage or Value loss.

  • Digital Object


Digital objects may be potentially affected through corruption, deletion,
unauthorized alteration, loss of availability, degradation, manipulation,
or other Harm-relevant states.

Digital Harm must not require physical manifestation to become governable.

Non-Physical Effect ≠ Non-Harm by Default

  • Operational System


A system may be represented as potentially affected where Harm concerns
its operational capability, integrity of functioning, availability, or
other Harm-relevant system condition.

ORA™ may govern the Operational Reality of that system.

HSM governs its position as a potentially affected object within Harm
Context.

  • Infrastructure


Harm may affect infrastructure whose significance extends beyond one
physical object.

Relevant subjects may include:

Transport Infrastructure

Energy Infrastructure

Communication Infrastructure

Digital Infrastructure

Medical Infrastructure

Public Infrastructure

or another materially defined infrastructure system.

HSM must support the infrastructure as a distinct affected object where
appropriate.

  • Environmental Subject


The environment may constitute a governed Harm subject independently of an
immediately identifiable human victim.

Potential Harm may concern:

  • ecosystems
  • air
  • water
  • soil
  • habitats
  • biodiversity
  • environmental systems
  • other sufficiently defined environmental objects


No Immediate Human Injury ≠ No Environmental Harm Context

  • Population & Societal Subject


Some Harm may operate at population or societal scale.

Examples include distributed effects across large populations, systemic
information environments, long-term public conditions, or other
Harm-relevant societal states.

HSM must permit this scale without automatically treating every member of
society as individually harmed.

Population-Level Harm Context ≠ Harm Determination for Every Individual

  • Human and Non-Human Subject Coexistence


One Harm Context may contain human and non-human subjects simultaneously.

For example:

Industrial Event → Worker + Equipment + Infrastructure + Environment

or:

Digital Failure → Users + Digital Objects + Organization + Operational
System

HSM must preserve these subject types without forcing them into one
homogeneous category.

  • Directly Affected Subject


A Directly Affected Subject has a sufficiently immediate relationship to
the Harm-relevant condition to require explicit representation.

Directness concerns contextual relationship.

It does not establish causation or severity.

Direct Relationship ≠ Established Harm

  • Indirectly Affected Subject


A subject may be affected through downstream relationships rather than
immediate interaction with the originating condition.

HSM must support such subjects where their inclusion is materially
justified.

Indirect Effect ≠ Irrelevant Effect

  • Primary and Secondary Subject Structure


Where useful, HSM may distinguish subjects according to their position
within the Harm Context.

For example:

Primary Harm-Relevant Subject → Secondary Harm-Relevant Subject →
Downstream Subject

These labels describe contextual structure.

They must not automatically encode importance, severity, responsibility,
or legal standing.

  • Subject Relationship


Subjects may be related through:

Shared Exposure

Operational Dependency

Physical Proximity

Digital Relationship

Organizational Relationship

Environmental Relationship

Information Relationship

Downstream Effect

or another materially relevant relationship.

HSM preserves the relationship without converting it into causal
determination.

  • Shared Exposure Group


Multiple subjects may enter the map because they share a potentially
relevant exposure condition.

The existence of shared exposure does not establish equal Harm.

Shared Exposure ≠ Shared Harm State

Each subject may later require different downstream Harm governance.

  • Unequal Subject Effects


The same Harm-relevant condition may affect subjects differently.

Differences may arise from:

  • exposure
  • duration
  • vulnerability
  • system position
  • location
  • dependency
  • timing
  • downstream circumstances


HSM must not assume uniformity merely because subjects share context.

  • Subject Vulnerability Context


A subject may possess characteristics or circumstances that materially
affect potential Harm.

HSM may preserve vulnerability where it is relevant to subject mapping.

It must not transform vulnerability into Harm.

Vulnerability ≠ Harm

and:

Higher Vulnerability ≠ Established Greater Harm

  • Subject Capability Context


Relevant subject capability may affect how a Harm-relevant condition is
experienced, resisted, escaped, corrected, or recovered from.

HSM may preserve such context where materially necessary.

Capability must not be used to erase Harm relevance merely because a
subject could theoretically respond.

  • Subject Dependency


A subject may depend upon another subject, object, system, organization,
or infrastructure.

Where dependency materially affects potential Harm, HSM should represent
it.

Dependency ≠ Causation

but dependency may materially shape propagation or consequence.

  • Subject Proximity


Physical, operational, informational, organizational, or systemic
proximity may affect Harm relevance.

Proximity alone does not establish affected status.

Proximity ≠ Harm

HSM must require a materially justified relationship.

  • Subject Participation


A subject may simultaneously be:

Participant

and:

Potentially Affected Subject

Participation does not eliminate the possibility of Harm.

Likewise:

Participation ≠ Responsibility

  • Subject Role Multiplicity


One subject may occupy multiple contextual roles.

For example:

Operator + Affected Subject

User + Decision Participant + Affected Subject

Organization + System Owner + Potentially Affected Organization

HSM must preserve role multiplicity where materially relevant.

A single simplified label must not erase relevant relationships.

  • Subject Identity Boundary


HSM requires enough identity continuity to distinguish relevant subjects.

It does not establish identity governance.

Where origin, ownership, authority, provenance, permission, or identity
continuity requires formal governance, OBIDENITY® may provide the relevant
governed identity structure.

Subject Identification ≠ Identity Governance

  • Anonymous Subject


A Harm-relevant subject need not always be individually named.

HSM may represent:

Known Identified Subject

Known Unidentified Subject

Anonymous Subject

Subject Class

Estimated Subject Population

where the available context legitimately supports such representation.

Unknown Name ≠ Unknown Subject Existence

  • Unknown Subject Population


Some Harm-relevant situations reveal that additional subjects may exist
without establishing their exact number or identity.

HSM must permit:

Known Minimum Population

Estimated Population

Potential Additional Population

Unable-to-Determine Population

rather than forcing false precision.

  • Dynamic Subject Population


The affected subject population may change over time.

Conceptually:

S₁ → S₁ + S₂ → S₁ + S₂ + S₃

New subjects may be discovered through delayed recognition, propagation,
additional evidence, or changed understanding.

The Harm Subject Map must remain updateable.

  • Subject Discovery


A newly identified subject may enter an existing Harm lifecycle after the
originating condition has stopped.

Late Subject Discovery ≠ New Harm Origin

HSM must preserve the relationship between discovery time and the relevant
Harm Context.

  • Subject Boundary Expansion


Where additional potentially affected subjects are legitimately
identified, the subject boundary may expand.

Expansion must preserve:

Prior Subject State → Expansion Basis → Added Subjects → Updated Subject
State

The original map must remain reconstructable.

  • Subject Boundary Contraction


A subject may be removed from the current active subject scope where
sufficient governance demonstrates that inclusion is no longer justified.

Removal must remain traceable.

Removal from Current Scope ≠ Historical Non-Involvement

  • Subject Merge Prevention


Subjects should not be merged merely because they appear similar.

Material differences in exposure, domain, timing, consequence,
vulnerability, or context may require separate representation.

Similarity ≠ Subject Equivalence

  • Subject Duplication Prevention


The same subject may appear through multiple data sources, identifiers,
systems, or contextual roles.

HSM should prevent duplicate representation from artificially increasing
affected-subject counts.

Multiple Records ≠ Multiple Subjects

  • Group Formation


Where individual subjects are grouped, HSM must preserve the basis for
grouping.

A legitimate group may be based upon:

  • shared exposure
  • common environment
  • common system relationship
  • shared temporal condition
  • common Harm-relevant characteristic
  • another explicit governance basis


Group formation must not be arbitrary.

  • Group Membership Change


Group membership may change as context evolves.

Subjects may:

Enter

Remain

Exit

Become Uncertain

Be Reclassified

Material changes should remain traceable.

  • Group-Level and Individual-Level Separation


HSM must preserve the distinction between:

Group-Level Harm Context

and:

Individual-Level Harm Context

Evidence of a group-level pattern does not automatically establish
identical Harm for every individual.

Likewise, individual Harm does not automatically establish collective
Harm.

  • Distributed Harm Subject Structure


A Harm-relevant condition may affect many subjects through small
distributed effects that become significant collectively.

HSM must support:

Distributed Subjects → Shared Harm-Relevant Pattern → Collective
Governance Context

without requiring one dominant victim.

This is essential for digital, organizational, environmental, cognitive,
and societal Harm.

  • Cascading Subject Structure


Harm relevance may move through subject relationships.

For example:

System → Organization → Service Users → Dependent Infrastructure →
Additional Population

HSM maps the subject structure necessary for later propagation governance.

It does not itself determine Harm propagation.

  • Cross-Domain Subject


One subject may be potentially affected across several Harm domains.

An individual may simultaneously have:

Physical + Medical + Financial Harm Context

A company may have:

Operational + Digital + Financial Harm Context

HSM preserves the subject.

The Harm Domain Context Module governs the domain structure.

  • Subject-State Uncertainty


Potential affected status may be uncertain.

HSM may preserve:

Potentially Affected

Likely Relevant

Confirmed Relevant to Harm Context

Disputed

Insufficient Information

Not Currently Relevant

These are subject-mapping states.

They are not Harm Determination states.

  • Subject Claim Boundary


A person or organization may claim to be affected.

That claim may legitimately trigger mapping.

It does not automatically establish Harm.

Claimed Harmed Subject ≠ Governed Harmed Subject

HSM preserves the subject and the claim state without prejudging
downstream determination.

  • Subject Observation Boundary


A subject may display an observable effect.

Observation may increase Harm relevance.

But HSM does not determine the nature, magnitude, or causal origin of the
effect.

Observed Effect ≠ Complete Harm Determination

  • Subject Mapping Evidence Boundary


ADIT® may govern evidence supporting subject identity, relationship,
exposure, or other relevant information.

HSM may consume appropriately governed evidence.

It does not own evidence governance.

Subject Map ≠ Evidence Record

  • Subject Mapping and Operational Reality


ORA™ may establish operational states relevant to subject involvement.

HSM uses those states to determine which subjects or objects require
Harm-specific representation.

The relationship is:

Governed Operational Reality → Harm-Relevant Subject Identification → Harm
Subject Map

  • Subject Mapping and Autonomous Systems


Autonomous systems may create complex subject structures because one
action can affect humans, physical objects, infrastructure, digital
systems, and environments simultaneously.

HSM must remain valid whether the autonomous system operates through
language or direct perception-to-action mechanisms.

Non-Linguistic Autonomous Action ≠ Ungovernable Subject Relationship

ASGA™ governs autonomous operation.

HSM governs the potentially affected subject structure.

  • Subject Mapping and AI Systems


AI systems may affect subjects through information, recommendations,
classification, content, decisions, automation, interaction, or downstream
human use.

HSM does not assume:

AI Output → Harmed User

Instead:

AI-Related Harm Context → Potentially Affected Subject Mapping →
Downstream Harm Governance

AIG® remains responsible for AI behavioral governance.

  • Subject Mapping and Accountability


HSM may identify actors, operators, organizations, system owners, users,
and affected subjects because their relationships matter contextually.

It must not transform that map into an accountability map.

Actor ≠ Accountable Party

Operator ≠ Liable Party

System Owner ≠ Harm Causer by Default

AGA™ governs accountability where applicable.

  • Subject Mapping and Liability


The subject harmed and the party potentially liable are different
governance objects.

A Harm Subject Map must therefore not be constructed as a search for a
defendant, responsible party, insurer, or payer.

Harmed Subject ≠ Liability Holder

Potentially Affected Subject ≠ Claimant by Default

  • Subject Mapping and Value


A subject may experience Harm together with Value loss.

HSM does not determine Value state or Value change.

VFM® may govern Value consequences where relevant.

Harm Subject ≠ Value Object

Harm ≠ Value Loss

  • Subject Mapping and Tax-Relevant Events


A Harm affecting a subject may later contribute to a Tax-Relevant Event.

TREGA™ governs that event lifecycle where applicable.

HSM does not determine tax relevance.

Harm Subject Relationship ≠ Tax-Relevant Event Determination

  • Subject Mapping Sufficiency


The subject map is sufficiently governed when the subjects and objects
materially necessary for the intended next Harm-governance step are
represented with adequate distinction and qualification.

The test is:

Would omission, conflation, duplication, or unsupported inclusion of a
subject materially distort downstream Harm governance?

If yes:

→ subject mapping is not yet sufficient.

  • Subject Mapping Reassessment


HSM must permit reassessment when:

  • additional subjects are discovered
  • existing subjects are excluded
  • group boundaries change
  • relationships change
  • propagation reveals downstream subjects
  • identity information is corrected
  • earlier duplication is discovered
  • collective effects become visible
  • latent Harm reveals previously unknown affected populations


Reassessment must preserve historical subject states.

  • Historical Subject Continuity


The Harm Subject Map must remain reconstructable over time.

Conceptually:

Subject Map₁ → Subject Map₂ → Subject Map₃

Later discovery must not make it appear that all subjects were known from
the beginning.

This distinction is particularly important for latent, accumulated,
propagated, environmental, and systemic Harm.

Current Subject Knowledge ≠ Historical Subject Knowledge

  • Enterprise Application


HSM can be applied across:

  • healthcare
  • workplace safety
  • industrial systems
  • digital platforms
  • financial systems
  • infrastructure
  • environmental governance
  • AI systems
  • autonomous systems
  • robotics
  • transportation
  • public services
  • organizational processes
  • human-AI interaction
  • multi-agent and multi-system environments


Its function remains constant:

identify who or what may be affected without converting potential affected
status into a premature Harm, causation, accountability, or liability
determination.

  • Governance Requirements


HSM requires that:

  • potentially affected subjects and objects remain distinguishable
    from


established harmed subjects; - individual, multiple, group, collective,
organizational, physical, digital, systemic, infrastructural,
environmental, population, and societal subject structures remain
supportable; - direct and indirect affected relationships remain
distinguishable; - group formation have an explicit governance basis; -
individual and group-level Harm contexts not be conflated; - shared
exposure not imply identical Harm; - unknown identity not automatically
exclude a subject; - uncertain subject populations remain representable
without false precision; - dynamic subject populations remain updateable;
- late subject discovery remain distinguishable from Harm origin; -
subject-boundary expansion and contraction remain traceable; - duplicate
records not create duplicate subjects; - role multiplicity remain
preservable; - contextual role remain distinct from responsibility; -
subject identity governance remain separate; - claims of Harm remain
distinct from Harm Determination; - subject mapping remain distinct from
evidence, Operational Reality, accountability, liability, Value
governance, and tax-event governance; - historical subject states remain
reconstructable.

  • Governance Logic


HSM applies the following logic:

Does the Governed Harm Context contain potentially affected subjects or
objects?

If no:

→ preserve the absence or insufficiency of subject information.

If yes:

→ identify the relevant subject types.

Are subjects individually distinguishable?

If yes:

→ preserve individual representation where materially necessary.

If no:

→ establish an appropriate group, class, population, anonymous, or
uncertain subject representation.

Do subjects share a common Harm-relevant condition?

If yes:

→ determine whether a governed group representation is appropriate without
erasing individual differences.

Are direct and indirect subjects present?

→ preserve their different contextual relationships.

Are additional downstream or latent subjects possible?

→ preserve appropriate uncertainty and expansion readiness.

Are multiple records referring to the same subject?

→ prevent duplication.

Has the subject population materially changed?

→ update the map while preserving historical states.

Is the map sufficiently complete for the intended next Harm-governance
step?

If no:

→ maintain a qualified subject-mapping state.

If yes:

→ produce the Governed Harm Subject Map.

At every stage:

Potentially Affected ≠ Harmed

Participation ≠ Responsibility

Responsibility ≠ Liability

  • Governance Outputs


HSM may produce:

  • Governed Harm Subject Map
  • Individual Subject Record
  • Multiple-Subject Structure
  • Defined Group Structure
  • Collective Subject Structure
  • Organizational Subject Record
  • Physical / Digital Object Subject Record
  • System / Infrastructure Subject Record
  • Environmental Subject Structure
  • Population / Societal Subject Structure
  • Direct / Indirect Subject Relationship
  • Shared Exposure Group
  • Subject Dependency Relationship
  • Unknown Subject Population State
  • Dynamic Subject Population Record
  • Subject Boundary State
  • Subject Group Membership State
  • Subject Uncertainty State
  • Subject Mapping Reassessment Record
  • Historical Harm Subject Map


The principal output is:

Governed Harm Subject Map

linked to the Governed Harm Context.

  • Critical Distinctions


Potentially Affected Subject ≠ Governed Harmed Subject

Subject Mapping Trigger ≠ Harmed Subject Determination

Multiple Subjects ≠ One Composite Subject

Shared Label ≠ Governed Harm Group

Organizational Harm Context ≠ Individual Harm Context

Non-Physical Effect ≠ Non-Harm by Default

No Immediate Human Injury ≠ No Environmental Harm Context

Population-Level Harm Context ≠ Harm Determination for Every Individual

Direct Relationship ≠ Established Harm

Indirect Effect ≠ Irrelevant Effect

Shared Exposure ≠ Shared Harm State

Vulnerability ≠ Harm

Higher Vulnerability ≠ Established Greater Harm

Dependency ≠ Causation

Proximity ≠ Harm

Participation ≠ Responsibility

Subject Identification ≠ Identity Governance

Unknown Name ≠ Unknown Subject Existence

Late Subject Discovery ≠ New Harm Origin

Removal from Current Scope ≠ Historical Non-Involvement

Similarity ≠ Subject Equivalence

Multiple Records ≠ Multiple Subjects

Group-Level Harm Context ≠ Individual-Level Harm Context

Claimed Harmed Subject ≠ Governed Harmed Subject

Observed Effect ≠ Complete Harm Determination

Subject Map ≠ Evidence Record

Actor ≠ Accountable Party

Operator ≠ Liable Party

Harmed Subject ≠ Liability Holder

Potentially Affected Subject ≠ Claimant by Default

Harm Subject ≠ Value Object

Harm ≠ Value Loss

Current Subject Knowledge ≠ Historical Subject Knowledge

  • Canonical Boundary


The HSM — Harm Subject Mapping Module governs the identification,
differentiation, grouping, relationship mapping, scope, uncertainty,
evolution, reassessment, and historical preservation of subjects and
objects that may be affected within Governed Harm Context. It supports
individual, multiple, collective, organizational, physical, digital,
systemic, infrastructural, environmental, population, and societal subject
structures without requiring a single harmed individual or a single
discrete incident. It does not determine that a mapped subject has
suffered Harm, determine Harm severity or state, establish identity
governance, determine causation, govern evidence, assign responsibility or
accountability, establish legal liability, determine Value loss, establish
Tax-Relevant Events, or identify a guilty party.

HCM maps the broader Harm Context.

HSM determines who or what within that context must remain visible as
potentially affected.

Subsequent Harm Context Standard (HCS) functions establish the relevant
domain, temporal, and contextual relationship structure.

  • Canonical Closing Statement


Harm governance cannot assume that the first visible victim is the
complete subject of Harm.

The HSM — Harm Subject Mapping Module ensures that individuals, groups,
organizations, systems, infrastructure, environments, and populations can
remain visible within the same governed Harm context without treating
shared exposure as identical Harm or participation as responsibility.

Harm may be individual, distributed, collective, systemic, or
environmental. The subject structure must be capable of representing all
of them before the Harm lifecycle can be governed correctly.