DOTM — Dependency Origin & Traceability Module

OOF® Origin Open Foundation®

Independent Methodological Authority

Architecture: SLGA™ — Software Lifecycle Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Software Dependency Standard (SDS)
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Software Lifecycle Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Software Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance
Module ID: SLGA-SDS-DOTM-002
Origin ID: OOF.CM.SLGA.03.02.01
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 11.10.2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · Modular OOF® Architecture Ecosystem
GIE-Compatible: Yes
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF® — OriginOpen® Foundation
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)

Canonical Definition

The Dependency Origin & Traceability Module (DOTM) governs the

establishment, verification, preservation, and reassessment of origin,
provenance, source relationships, and traceability for software
dependencies upon which a software system materially relies.

DOTM establishes the methodological conditions under which the claimed

origin of a software dependency may be distinguished from its
evidenced origin, and under which the dependency's movement through
repositories, suppliers, registries, build processes, distribution
mechanisms, transformations, and software integration paths may be
reconstructed.

It governs the relationship between a dependency's identified component,

claimed source, originating entity or process, distribution path,
transformation history, direct or transitive introduction path,
relevant evidence, and the dependent software object.

DOTM distinguishes component identity from dependency origin, source claims

from supported provenance, and the existence of technical dependency
records from evidence-supported traceability of the dependency
relationship.

It applies to internal and external software components, packages,

libraries, frameworks, generated components, embedded resources,
software services, development and build dependencies, platform
resources, and material direct or transitive software dependency
relationships.

Its principal output is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

Its foundational distinction is:

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance.

Operational Role

The operational role of DOTM is:

To ensure that material software dependencies have sufficiently
supported origin and traceability relationships so that their sources,
introduction paths, transformations, distribution histories, and
connections to dependent software objects can be reconstructed and
reassessed throughout the software lifecycle.

DOTM establishes the origin and traceability foundation of SDS.

It answers the second dependency-governance question:

Where did this dependency come from, through which material paths did
it reach the software system, and what evidence supports that history?

DOTM does not independently determine whether the dependency is
necessary, suitable, authorized for inclusion, secure, or
operationally sustainable.

It establishes the origin and traceability conditions required for

competent downstream dependency governance.

Core Question

How can the origin and material history of software dependencies
remain reconstructable across suppliers, repositories, registries,
build processes, transformations, transitive relationships, generated
components, and autonomous development actions without treating source
claims, package metadata, or recorded technical paths as sufficient
proof of dependency provenance?

Position in Architecture Governance Flow

The SLGA™ governance flow is:

Software Requirements → Software Creation → Software Dependencies →

Software Configuration → Software Quality → Software Security →
Software Release → Software Deployment → Software Change Management →
Software Retirement

Cross-cutting:

Software Lifecycle Control

DOTM operates within:

Software Dependency Standard (SDS)

The SDS internal governance flow is:

Component Identification → Dependency Origin & Traceability → Dependency

Suitability → Component Introduction & Change → Dependency Continuity
& Risk

DOTM governs:

Dependency Origin & Traceability

It is the second Core Module of SDS.

Its principal upstream input is:

Governed Software Component Identification State

CIM — Component Identification Module

Relevant software creation and artifact evidence may also be received
from:

CRIM — Code & Artifact Integrity Module

SACM — Software Artifact Composition Module

DTM — Development Traceability Module

Its principal output is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

This state supports:

DSM — Dependency Suitability Module

and the remaining SDS Core Modules.

DOTM may be invoked repeatedly when dependency origins, distribution
paths, suppliers, versions, or transformation conditions materially
change.

Governed Space

Software Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance

This space governs the recognition, verification, preservation, and

continuity of material dependency origin and traceability
relationships.

Its principal dimensions include:

Dependency origin governance objects
Dependency source identification
Claimed origin
Evidenced origin
Origin attribution
Publisher and supplier relationships
Repository and registry relationships
Distribution paths
Artifact provenance
Source-to-artifact relationships
Build and transformation provenance
Direct dependency introduction paths
Transitive dependency paths
Generated dependency provenance
Embedded dependency provenance
External service origin
Dependency relationship traceability
Origin evidence
Traceability evidence
Evidence competence
Evidence integrity
Origin uncertainty
Provenance conflicts
Traceability gaps
Origin and path changes
Provenance continuity
Origin and traceability governance states

The governed space is independent of any specific package registry,
source-control platform, programming language, supplier, software
repository, or build technology.

Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance Object

Every DOTM assessment shall establish a Dependency Origin & Traceability

Governance Object.

The object represents the origin and traceability conditions of an

identified software dependency relationship.

It should identify:

Governance Object Identity: The identifiable origin and traceability

Dependent Software Object: The software system relying upon the

dependency.

Dependency Component: The component identified by CIM.

Dependency Relationship: The material reliance relationship under

assessment.

Claimed Origin: The stated or reported source of the dependency.

Evidenced Origin: The origin supported by competent evidence.

Originating Entity or Process: The relevant producer, publisher,

generator, or originating mechanism.

Distribution Path: The relevant path through which the dependency was
obtained.

Transformation Path: Material transformations affecting the
dependency.

Introduction Path: The relationship through which the dependency
entered the dependent software context.

Provenance Evidence: Evidence supporting the dependency's origin and

Traceability Evidence: Evidence supporting material dependency

relationships.

Origin Uncertainty: Material unresolved origin conditions.

Traceability Gaps: Missing material relationship evidence.

Governance State: The current origin and traceability condition.

The governance object shall remain distinguishable from the component

itself.

Dependency Provenance Governance Object ≠ Software Component Artifact.

Dependency Origin Identification

DOTM shall identify the claimed and evidenced origin of material software

dependencies.

Origin information may include:

Original producer
Publishing entity
Source repository
Package registry
Internal software team
External software supplier
Software generation mechanism
Source distribution
Relevant artifact source

DOTM shall distinguish a source reference from evidence that the
source genuinely originated the dependency.

Source Reference ≠ Verified Dependency Origin.

Claimed Dependency Origin

A Claimed Dependency Origin is an assertion identifying where a
dependency allegedly originated.

Claims may appear in:

Package metadata
Supplier documentation
Repository descriptions
Software inventories
Build records
Developer statements
AI-generated explanations
Distribution manifests

DOTM shall preserve claims as claims until competent evidence supports
them.

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance.

Evidenced Dependency Origin

An Evidenced Dependency Origin is an origin relationship supported by
relevant and competent evidence.

Supporting evidence may include:

Authenticated publication records
Repository history
Signed artifact attestations
Verified build provenance
Supplier records
Content integrity evidence
Consistent distribution records
Relevant origin-control records

DOTM shall determine whether the available evidence supports the particular

origin claim being assessed.

An evidenced origin may remain incomplete or subject to material
limitations.

Evidence of Publication ≠ Proof of Original Creation.

Origin Attribution

DOTM shall identify the entity or mechanism to which a material dependency

origin is attributed.

Relevant actors may include:

Individual developers
Development organizations
Software suppliers
Open-source projects
Automated build systems
Code generation systems
AI development agents
Autonomous software creation systems

Attribution shall distinguish the entity that created a component from
entities that published, distributed, modified, or integrated it.

Component Creator ≠ Component Publisher ≠ Component Distributor.

Origin Authority Reference

DOTM shall preserve relevant references concerning the authority under

which a component was created, published, or distributed where
material to its origin.

It shall not infer legitimate authority solely from technical publication

capability.

Detailed authority determination remains within competent authority
and dependency introduction governance.

Publication Capability ≠ Legitimate Publication Authority.

Source Repository Identification

DOTM shall identify material source repositories associated with software

dependencies.

Relevant information may include:

Repository identity
Repository location
Relevant revision
Branch or tag reference
Source content identifier
Relevant historical records

A repository address does not independently establish that the
delivered dependency artifact originated from that repository state.

Repository Reference ≠ Verified Artifact Provenance.

Package Registry Identification

DOTM shall identify material package registries and distribution mechanisms

associated with dependencies.

Relevant information may include:

Registry identity
Package namespace
Published package identity
Version
Distribution reference
Publisher claim
Relevant publication evidence

Registry presence shall not independently establish original authorship or

component authenticity.

Registry Publication ≠ Verified Original Authorship.

Supplier Origin Relationships

DOTM shall identify material supplier relationships affecting dependency

origin.

A dependency may pass through multiple entities before reaching the
dependent software system.

Relevant roles may include:

Original producer
Publisher
Distributor
Reseller
Integrator
Internal supplier
External supplier
Maintenance provider

DOTM shall preserve distinctions between these roles.

Supplier Identity ≠ Original Component Origin.

Dependency Distribution Path

DOTM shall establish material distribution paths through which
software dependencies reach the dependent software environment.

A path may be:

Producer → Repository → Registry → Package Manager → Build Environment →

Software Artifact

Alternative paths may involve direct downloads, internal mirrors,
supplier delivery, or generated artifacts.

DOTM shall preserve material intermediaries where evidence permits.

Known Distribution Endpoint ≠ Complete Distribution Path.

Direct Dependency Introduction Traceability

DOTM shall establish how directly relied-upon components entered the

dependent software context.

Relevant paths may include:

Developer selection
Automated dependency installation
AI agent introduction
Supplier integration
Build configuration
Runtime service configuration
Manual component embedding

DOTM governs traceability of the introduction path.

Legitimate authorization of introduction remains within CICM.

Recorded Dependency Introduction ≠ Authorized Dependency Introduction.

Transitive Dependency Traceability

DOTM shall preserve material transitive dependency relationships.

A relevant chain may be:

Application → Direct Library → Transitive Library → Supporting Component

Traceability shall preserve the intermediate relationships where
sufficiently evidenced.

An indirectly introduced dependency shall not be treated as originless

merely because the dependent application did not select it directly.

Transitive Introduction ≠ Absence of Traceable Origin.

Multi-Path Dependency Traceability

A component may reach a software system through multiple dependency
paths.

DOTM shall preserve materially distinct paths where they affect origin
or traceability.

For example:

Application → Framework A → Library X

and:

Application → Framework B → Library X

The same component identity may appear through multiple relationships.

DOTM shall distinguish component identity from path identity.

Shared Component Identity ≠ Shared Dependency Path.

Dependency Path Completeness

DOTM shall assess whether material dependency introduction paths are
sufficiently reconstructable.

Completeness may concern:

Source identification
Distribution intermediaries
Transformation stages
Direct introduction
Transitive introduction
Runtime resolution
Final integration
Supporting evidence

Missing material stages shall remain explicit.

Known Origin and Destination ≠ Complete Dependency Traceability.

Artifact Provenance

DOTM shall establish relevant provenance relationships between software

dependencies and their distributed artifacts.

Relevant evidence may include:

Artifact identifiers
Content hashes
Signed attestations
Build references
Publication records
Distribution records
Version relationships

Artifact integrity evidence may support provenance but shall not
independently establish the complete historical origin.

Artifact Integrity ≠ Complete Artifact Provenance.

Source-to-Artifact Traceability

DOTM shall preserve material relationships between source references and

resulting dependency artifacts.

A relevant chain may be:

Source Revision → Build Process → Build Artifact → Distributed Package

Where this relationship cannot be established, the gap shall remain
explicit.

Source Availability ≠ Verified Source-to-Artifact Correspondence.

Build Provenance

DOTM shall identify material build processes affecting dependency

provenance.

Relevant information may include:

Build system
Build environment
Source inputs
Build instructions
Toolchain references
Generated outputs
Artifact identifiers
Build evidence

DOTM shall distinguish a recorded build process from evidence that the
distributed artifact was produced through that process.

Build Record Existence ≠ Verified Build Provenance.

Dependency Transformation Traceability

DOTM shall preserve material transformations affecting software

dependencies.

Transformations may include:

Compilation
Bundling
Minification
Packaging
Patching
Rebuilding
Reconfiguration
Code generation
Component merging
Vendor modification

A transformed component may retain a relationship to its source while
differing materially from the original artifact.

Source Component Identity ≠ Unchanged Distributed Artifact.

Repackaged Dependency Provenance

DOTM shall identify material dependencies repackaged or redistributed

through different mechanisms.

Examples include:

Internal package mirrors
Vendor-specific distributions
Repackaged open-source libraries
Customized software distributions
Bundled dependency archives

DOTM shall distinguish the original component origin from the repackaging

or redistribution event.

Repackaging Origin ≠ Original Component Origin.

Forked Dependency Provenance

DOTM shall identify material fork relationships where a dependency
derives from an earlier software project or component.

Relevant information may include:

Original project reference
Fork identity
Forking event
Relevant source relationship
Material modifications
Distribution identity

A fork shall not automatically be treated as identical to its source.

Common Source History ≠ Equivalent Dependency Provenance.

Embedded Dependency Provenance

DOTM shall govern origin and traceability for dependencies embedded
within larger software artifacts.

Embedded components may lack independent package metadata.

Relevant evidence may include:

Source inclusion records
Build inputs
Supplier declarations
Component composition records
Artifact analysis
Embedded version references

A complete provenance claim for a composite artifact shall not

automatically establish provenance for every embedded component.

Composite Artifact Provenance ≠ Complete Constituent Provenance.

Generated Dependency Provenance

DOTM shall identify material software dependencies created through
automated generation mechanisms.

Relevant mechanisms may include:

Code generators
AI coding assistants
Autonomous software development agents
Automated interface generation
Model-based code generation
Build-time component generation

DOTM shall preserve relevant generation relationships and evidence.

A generated component may have multiple origin dimensions, including
source inputs, generation instructions, models, tools, and
transformation processes.

Generated Artifact Existence ≠ Reconstructable Generation Provenance.

AI-Generated Dependency Origin

Where AI systems materially participate in dependency creation, DOTM
shall distinguish:

The AI system used
The generation context
Material source inputs
Generated artifact identity
Relevant transformation steps
The entity or process publishing the artifact
The entity or process introducing the artifact into the
dependent

An AI system's output shall not automatically establish original

authorship, lawful provenance, or verified source correspondence.

AI Generation Attribution ≠ Complete Dependency Origin Verification.

Autonomous Dependency Introduction Traceability

Where an autonomous development agent introduces a dependency, DOTM
shall preserve the material introduction path.

A relevant path may be:

Development Objective → Agent Action → Dependency Selection → Retrieval

Source → Retrieved Artifact → Integration Action → Dependent Software

DOTM governs traceability of the material path.

Authority to execute the objective does not independently establish
authority for each constituent action.

Task Authority ≠ Constituent Action Authority.

Authorization assessment remains within competent authority governance
and CICM.

External Service Origin

DOTM shall establish relevant origin relationships for external software

services.

Relevant information may include:

Service provider identity
Service ownership reference
Service publication or provision mechanism
Interface identity
Material service version
Relevant service provenance evidence

An endpoint address shall not independently establish service origin or

operator identity.

Service Endpoint Identity ≠ Verified Service Provider Origin.

Platform Dependency Origin

DOTM shall identify material origin and distribution relationships for

software platform dependencies.

These may include:

Runtime platforms
Operating systems
Container images
Application servers
Managed execution environments
Database platforms

Platform provenance may involve multiple software layers.

DOTM shall preserve material layer relationships where relevant.

Platform Label ≠ Complete Platform Dependency Provenance.

Dependency Version Provenance

DOTM shall establish the origin and traceability of relevant dependency

versions.

Version provenance may include:

Source revision
Release reference
Build reference
Distribution artifact
Publication event
Relevant content identifier

A version label shall not independently establish correspondence with a

specific source or artifact.

Version Label ≠ Verified Version Provenance.

Dependency Provenance Evidence

DOTM shall preserve evidence supporting material origin and traceability

claims.

Evidence may include:

Repository histories
Source revision records
Publication records
Signed attestations
Artifact identifiers
Build records
Supplier documentation
Distribution logs
Component inventories
Runtime observations
Development traceability records

Evidence shall remain associated with the specific claims it supports.

Provenance Evidence Presence ≠ Provenance Claim Validity.

Provenance Evidence Competence

DOTM shall assess whether evidence is competent to support the origin
or traceability claim.

For example:

A package registry record may support publication through a registry.

A repository history may support source development history.

A build attestation may support a particular build claim.

A cryptographic signature may support a signer-to-artifact
relationship.

A runtime observation may support actual component use.

These records do not establish identical facts.

Evidence of One Provenance Stage ≠ Evidence of Every Provenance Stage.

Provenance Evidence Integrity

DOTM shall preserve the integrity of material provenance evidence.

Relevant considerations may include:

Evidence source
Content integrity
Signature validity
Temporal relevance
Chain of custody
Record preservation
Material contradictions
Evidence completeness

Evidence integrity does not independently establish that the
underlying provenance claim is true.

Cryptographically Intact Evidence ≠ Complete Provenance Truth.

Provenance Claim Verification

DOTM shall determine whether material provenance claims are
sufficiently supported.

Verification should consider:

Claim specificity
Relevant origin object
Evidence competence
Evidence integrity
Source correspondence
Artifact correspondence
Distribution continuity
Transformation history
Material contradictions
Remaining uncertainty

A verified claim shall remain limited to the facts supported by
evidence.

Verified Provenance Claim ≠ Unrestricted Trust in the Dependency.

Dependency Traceability Reconstruction

DOTM shall support reconstruction of material dependency origin and

introduction paths.

A reconstructed path may include:

Origin → Source → Build → Artifact → Distribution → Introduction →

Dependent Software

Reconstruction shall distinguish:

Directly evidenced stages
Inferred stages
Claimed stages
Missing stages
Conflicted stages

Inferred relationships shall not be represented as directly verified

evidence.

Reconstructed Dependency Path ≠ Fully Verified Dependency Path.

Origin Uncertainty

Origin uncertainty may arise where:

The original producer is unknown
Publication records are incomplete
Repository ownership is ambiguous
A component has multiple competing origin claims
The delivered artifact cannot be linked to a source revision
A generated component lacks sufficient generation records
A supplier cannot establish the origin of embedded software

DOTM shall preserve material uncertainty.

Unknown Origin ≠ Proven Malicious Origin.

Provenance Conflict

A provenance conflict exists where material evidence supports
incompatible origin or traceability claims.

Examples may include:

Conflicting publisher identities
Inconsistent source histories
Contradictory build attestations
Different artifact identities for the same claimed release
Incompatible distribution records
Conflicting generation claims

DOTM shall preserve the conflict and its supporting evidence.

Conflicting Provenance Claims ≠ Permission to Select the Convenient
Claim.

Traceability Gap

A Dependency Traceability Gap exists where a material stage or
relationship in a dependency's origin or introduction path cannot be
sufficiently reconstructed.

Examples may include:

Missing build provenance
Unknown distribution intermediary
Untraceable package replacement
Unrecorded dependency transformation
Missing transitive dependency introduction path
Incomplete AI generation history

DOTM shall identify the gap and its material significance.

Traceability Gap ≠ Proven Dependency Compromise.

Critical Provenance Gap

A Critical Provenance Gap exists where insufficient origin or
traceability evidence prevents competent assessment of a materially
consequential dependency.

Examples may include:

An unidentified source for a critical runtime component
A dependency artifact whose origin cannot be established
A supplier-delivered critical library with conflicting
provenance
An autonomous agent-introduced component lacking reconstructable

retrieval and integration evidence.

DOTM shall preserve the critical gap for competent downstream
assessment.

It does not independently determine software suspension, security
failure, or legal liability.

Critical Provenance Gap ≠ Automatic Security Incident.

Dependency Origin Drift

Dependency Origin Drift occurs when the material origin or
distribution relationships of a dependency change relative to its
recognized provenance state.

Possible causes include:

Publisher changes
Repository transfers
Package ownership changes
Distribution channel changes
Supplier replacement
Build system changes
Artifact substitution
Source project forks
Autonomous dependency retrieval changes

DOTM shall identify material drift and support reassessment.

Stable Package Name ≠ Stable Dependency Origin.

Provenance Change Recognition

DOTM shall preserve material changes in dependency provenance.

Changes may include:

New source references
Corrected origin attribution
Publisher changes
New distribution paths
Revised build provenance
Component transformations
Resolved provenance conflicts
Newly discovered traceability gaps

Historical provenance states shall remain reconstructable where
material.

Provenance Correction ≠ Historical Provenance Erasure.

Provenance Continuity

DOTM shall preserve material provenance relationships across software

lifecycle changes.

Continuity may involve:

Dependency updates
Package migrations
Supplier transitions
Repository changes
Software modernization
Build system replacement
Runtime platform changes
Component repackaging
Component forks

A dependency's name or functional role may remain unchanged while its
provenance changes materially.

Functional Continuity ≠ Provenance Continuity.

Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance States

DOTM shall support identifiable governance states.

Possible states include:

Origin-Claimed: A dependency origin has been asserted but not

sufficiently evidenced.

Under Assessment: Origin and traceability conditions are being
evaluated.

Origin-Supported: Material origin claims are supported by competent
evidence within the assessed scope.

Traceability-Supported: Material dependency paths are sufficiently
reconstructable within the assessed scope.

Conditionally Supported: Origin or traceability recognition depends on

explicit conditions.

Partially Supported: Some material provenance dimensions remain

unresolved.

Evidence-Limited: Available evidence is insufficient for the required
determination.

Origin-Unresolved: Material origin conditions cannot be sufficiently

established.

Path-Unresolved: A material dependency path cannot be reconstructed.

Transformation-Unresolved: Material dependency transformation history

remains uncertain.

Conflicted: Material provenance evidence is contradictory.

Continuity-at-Risk: Material provenance continuity cannot be sufficiently

maintained.

Superseded: A later governance state has replaced the earlier state.

Unresolved: Available information does not support a sufficiently
determined state.

These states shall not be interpreted as dependency suitability, security,

or acceptance determinations.

Provenance Supported ≠ Dependency Accepted.

Origin & Traceability Recognition

DOTM shall determine whether the material origin and traceability

conditions of a dependency are sufficiently supported for the intended
governance purpose.

Recognition should consider:

Component identity
Claimed origin
Evidenced origin
Origin attribution
Source relationships
Publisher relationships
Distribution paths
Transformation history
Direct and transitive introduction paths
Artifact provenance
Evidence competence
Evidence integrity
Material uncertainty
Conflicts
Traceability gaps
Provenance continuity

Recognition shall remain limited to the provenance relationships actually

assessed.

Recognized Provenance ≠ Complete Dependency Governance.

Dependency Origin and Suitability

DOTM establishes origin and traceability conditions.

It does not independently determine whether a dependency is necessary
or suitable.

Detailed suitability governance remains within:

DSM — Dependency Suitability Module

A dependency may have fully supported provenance while being
unsuitable for the intended software context.

Verified Origin ≠ Dependency Suitability.

Dependency Origin and Introduction Authority

DOTM preserves material dependency introduction paths.

It does not independently establish legitimate authority to introduce
or change a dependency.

Detailed introduction and change governance remains within:

CICM — Component Introduction & Change Module

A dependency may be traceable to a known source while having been
introduced without authorization.

Traceable Introduction ≠ Authorized Introduction.

Dependency Origin and Continuity

DOTM preserves provenance continuity and identifies material changes in

origin relationships.

It does not independently establish maintenance, availability,
substitutability, or operational sustainability.

Detailed continuity and risk governance remains within:

DCRM — Dependency Continuity & Risk Module

Provenance Continuity ≠ Operational Dependency Continuity.

Dependency Origin Reassessment

DOTM shall support reassessment when material provenance conditions
change.

Triggers may include:

New origin evidence
Publisher changes
Repository transfers
Dependency updates
Artifact substitutions
Supplier changes
Build system changes
New distribution paths
Newly discovered transitive dependencies
Autonomous agent dependency introduction
Provenance conflicts
Traceability gaps
Origin drift
Software lifecycle changes

Reassessment shall preserve material historical provenance records.

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

The principal output of DOTM is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

The state shall preserve sufficient information to identify:

Origin Governance Object: The dependency origin and traceability

assessment.

Dependent Software Object: The software system relying on the
dependency.

Component Identity: The component identified by CIM.

Dependency Relationship: The relevant material reliance relationship.

Claimed Origin: The stated origin of the dependency.

Evidenced Origin: The origin supported by competent evidence.

Origin Attribution: The relevant producer, publisher, supplier, or

generating mechanism.

Source Reference: The relevant source repository or source object.

Publication Reference: The relevant publication or registry
relationship.

Distribution Path: The material dependency distribution route.

Transformation Path: Material modifications affecting the dependency.

Introduction Path: The route through which the dependency entered the
dependent software.

Direct or Transitive Path: The relevant dependency relationship
structure.

Artifact Provenance: The relationship between source, build, and

distributed artifact.

Generation Provenance: Relevant generation evidence where applicable.

Origin Evidence: Evidence supporting origin claims.

Traceability Evidence: Evidence supporting dependency paths.

Evidence Competence: The suitability of evidence for the claim
assessed.

Evidence Integrity: The condition of supporting evidence.

Origin Uncertainty: Material unresolved origin conditions.

Provenance Conflicts: Contradictory origin evidence.

Traceability Gaps: Missing material dependency path evidence.

Critical Provenance Gaps: Material provenance failures requiring

competent attention.

Origin Drift: Changes in recognized origin or distribution conditions.

Provenance Continuity: Preservation of material origin relationships

Origin & Traceability Governance State: The recognized governance

Downstream References: Information required by competent SDS governance

The state shall not independently establish dependency suitability,

introduction authority, security, quality, or operational continuity.

Minimum Implementation Framework

A conforming implementation of DOTM must provide the following six
functional capabilities.

Dependency Origin Object and Source Governance

Capability to establish dependency origin governance objects, identify

claimed sources, and distinguish original producers, publishers,
suppliers, distributors, and generating mechanisms.

The implementation must preserve claimed origins separately from
evidenced origins.

Source, Publication, Distribution, and Transformation
Traceability

Capability to reconstruct material source-to-artifact relationships,

publication paths, distribution intermediaries, build provenance,
repackaging, forks, and component transformations.

The implementation must preserve missing or uncertain stages rather
than treating an incomplete chain as verified.

Direct, Transitive, Generated, and Autonomous Dependency Path
Governance

Capability to establish material dependency introduction paths across

direct, transitive, embedded, generated, dynamically resolved, and
autonomous development contexts.

The implementation must distinguish technical introduction
traceability from legitimate introduction authority.

Provenance Evidence, Competence, Integrity, and Verification
Governance

Capability to associate material origin and traceability claims with

competent evidence, preserve evidence integrity, and determine which
claims are sufficiently supported.

The implementation must distinguish the specific provenance facts
established by each evidence type.

Origin Gap, Conflict, Drift, and Continuity Governance

Capability to identify material provenance gaps, critical gaps,

contradictory origin claims, distribution changes, artifact
substitutions, and provenance continuity conditions.

The implementation must preserve material historical provenance states
and corrections.

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State and SDS Handoff

Capability to produce a Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

with sufficient source, origin, distribution, transformation,
introduction path, evidence, uncertainty, and continuity information
for competent downstream SDS governance.

The implementation must not convert supported provenance into
dependency acceptance.

GIE™ Compatibility

DOTM is compatible with GIE™ as a downstream methodological analysis
and execution layer.

GIE™ may support:

Dependency source discovery
Claimed origin extraction
Origin evidence association
Producer and publisher distinction
Supplier relationship mapping
Repository history analysis
Package registry relationship analysis
Source-to-artifact traceability
Build provenance analysis
Distribution path reconstruction
Transformation path reconstruction
Repackaged dependency recognition
Fork relationship analysis
Embedded component provenance analysis
Generated component provenance analysis
Autonomous agent dependency path reconstruction
External service origin assessment
Platform provenance assessment
Version provenance correlation
Provenance evidence competence assessment
Provenance evidence integrity assessment
Origin claim verification support
Traceability gap detection
Critical provenance gap detection
Provenance conflict analysis
Origin drift detection
Provenance continuity assessment
Governed provenance state representation

GIE™ may infer candidate provenance relationships or identify possible
origin conflicts.

Such outputs shall remain distinguishable from sufficiently evidenced

provenance relationships.

GIE™ must not fabricate source histories, invent distribution paths,
infer legitimate origin authority from publication capability, or
convert incomplete provenance into verified origin.

OOF® logic adapts to the governed reality. The engine adapts to OOF®

Governance Logic

The canonical DOTM governance logic is:

Receive Governed Software Component Identification State

↓

Identify Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance Object

↓

Identify Dependent Software Object

↓

Identify Component Identity and Dependency Relationship

↓

Identify Claimed Dependency Origin

↓

Identify Originating Entity or Mechanism

↓

Identify Source Repository or Source Object

↓

Identify Publisher and Supplier Relationships

↓

Identify Package Registry and Distribution References

↓

Identify Source-to-Artifact Relationships

↓

Identify Build and Transformation Paths

↓

Identify Direct Dependency Introduction Path

↓

Identify Transitive and Multi-Path Dependency Relationships

↓

Identify Generated, Embedded, Service, and Platform Provenance

↓

Identify Autonomous Dependency Introduction Path Where Applicable

↓

Associate Origin and Traceability Evidence

↓

Assess Evidence Competence and Integrity

↓

Assess Origin Claim Support

↓

Assess Distribution and Transformation Traceability

↓

Assess Dependency Path Completeness

↓

Identify Origin Uncertainty

↓

Identify Provenance Conflicts

↓

Identify Traceability Gaps and Critical Provenance Gaps

↓

Identify Origin Drift

↓

Determine Origin & Traceability Governance State

↓

Establish Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

↓

Preserve Provenance Continuity

↓

Handoff to DSM and Competent SDS Governance

↓

Reassess When Material Provenance Conditions Change

The principal output is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

Governance Outputs

DOTM may produce:

Dependency Origin & Traceability Governance Object

Dependency Origin Identification Record

Claimed Dependency Origin Record

Evidenced Dependency Origin Record

Origin Attribution Record

Origin Authority Reference

Source Repository Identification Record

Package Registry Identification Record

Supplier Origin Relationship Record

Dependency Distribution Path

Direct Dependency Introduction Trace

Transitive Dependency Trace

Multi-Path Dependency Trace

Dependency Path Completeness Assessment

Artifact Provenance Record

Source-to-Artifact Traceability Record

Build Provenance Record

Dependency Transformation Trace

Repackaged Dependency Provenance Record

Forked Dependency Provenance Record

Embedded Dependency Provenance Record

Generated Dependency Provenance Record

AI-Generated Dependency Origin Record

Autonomous Dependency Introduction Trace

External Service Origin Record

Platform Dependency Origin Record

Dependency Version Provenance Record

Dependency Provenance Evidence Record

Provenance Evidence Competence Assessment

Provenance Evidence Integrity Assessment

Provenance Claim Verification Record

Dependency Traceability Reconstruction

Origin Uncertainty State

Provenance Conflict Record

Dependency Traceability Gap

Critical Provenance Gap

Dependency Origin Drift Record

Provenance Change Record

Provenance Continuity Record

Origin & Traceability Governance State

Origin & Traceability Recognition Record

Dependency Suitability Reference

Dependency Introduction Authority Reference

Dependency Continuity Reference

Dependency Origin Reassessment Record

SDS Provenance Handoff Record

The principal output is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

Critical Distinctions

DOTM preserves the following distinctions:

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance

Dependency Provenance Governance Object ≠ Software Component Artifact

Source Reference ≠ Verified Dependency Origin

Evidence of Publication ≠ Proof of Original Creation

Component Creator ≠ Component Publisher ≠ Component Distributor

Publication Capability ≠ Legitimate Publication Authority

Repository Reference ≠ Verified Artifact Provenance

Registry Publication ≠ Verified Original Authorship

Supplier Identity ≠ Original Component Origin

Known Distribution Endpoint ≠ Complete Distribution Path

Recorded Dependency Introduction ≠ Authorized Dependency Introduction

Transitive Introduction ≠ Absence of Traceable Origin

Shared Component Identity ≠ Shared Dependency Path

Known Origin and Destination ≠ Complete Dependency Traceability

Artifact Integrity ≠ Complete Artifact Provenance

Source Availability ≠ Verified Source-to-Artifact Correspondence

Build Record Existence ≠ Verified Build Provenance

Source Component Identity ≠ Unchanged Distributed Artifact

Repackaging Origin ≠ Original Component Origin

Common Source History ≠ Equivalent Dependency Provenance

Composite Artifact Provenance ≠ Complete Constituent Provenance

Generated Artifact Existence ≠ Reconstructable Generation Provenance

AI Generation Attribution ≠ Complete Dependency Origin Verification

Task Authority ≠ Constituent Action Authority

Service Endpoint Identity ≠ Verified Service Provider Origin

Platform Label ≠ Complete Platform Dependency Provenance

Version Label ≠ Verified Version Provenance

Provenance Evidence Presence ≠ Provenance Claim Validity

Evidence of One Provenance Stage ≠ Evidence of Every Provenance Stage

Cryptographically Intact Evidence ≠ Complete Provenance Truth

Verified Provenance Claim ≠ Unrestricted Trust in the Dependency

Reconstructed Dependency Path ≠ Fully Verified Dependency Path

Unknown Origin ≠ Proven Malicious Origin

Conflicting Provenance Claims ≠ Permission to Select the Convenient Claim

Traceability Gap ≠ Proven Dependency Compromise

Critical Provenance Gap ≠ Automatic Security Incident

Stable Package Name ≠ Stable Dependency Origin

Provenance Correction ≠ Historical Provenance Erasure

Functional Continuity ≠ Provenance Continuity

Provenance Supported ≠ Dependency Accepted

Recognized Provenance ≠ Complete Dependency Governance

Verified Origin ≠ Dependency Suitability

Traceable Introduction ≠ Authorized Introduction

Provenance Continuity ≠ Operational Dependency Continuity

Cross-Architecture Boundary

DOTM governs dependency origin and traceability within SDS and SLGA™.

It does not independently establish dependency necessity, suitability,
introduction authority, security, quality, or operational continuity.

Within SDS:

CIM — Component Identification Module governs component
identification.

DOTM — Dependency Origin & Traceability Module governs origin,

provenance, and traceability.

DSM — Dependency Suitability Module governs necessity, compatibility, and

CICM — Component Introduction & Change Module governs introduction

authority, inclusion, modification, replacement, and removal.

DCRM — Dependency Continuity & Risk Module governs criticality, risks,

maintenance, availability, substitutability, and continuity.

Within SLGA™:

Software Requirements Standard (SRS) governs requirements.

Software Creation Standard (SCS) governs software creation and artifact

formation.

Software Configuration Standard (SCFS) governs software configuration.

Software Quality Standard (SQS) governs software quality.

Software Security Standard (SSS) governs software security.

Software Release Standard (SRLS) governs release.

Software Deployment Standard (SDPS) governs deployment.

Software Change Management Standard (SCMS) governs broader lifecycle

change.

Software Retirement Standard (SRTS) governs retirement.

Software Lifecycle Control Standard (SLCS) governs cross-cutting

lifecycle control.

Relevant interoperating OOF® architectures include:

OBIDENITY® — Origin-Bound Identity Governance Architecture: Relevant

origin and identity governance.

GOA™ — Governance Architecture: General authority governance.

ORA™ — Operational Reality Architecture: Competent operational reality

AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture: Relevant accountability

DOTM preserves provenance relationships without replacing the competent

governance responsibilities of these domains.

Canonical Boundary

DOTM begins when a material software component or dependency resource
has been identified sufficiently to establish an origin and
traceability assessment.

DOTM governs:

DOTM does not independently determine:

Component identity completeness
Dependency necessity
Dependency suitability
Dependency introduction authorization
Dependency acceptance
Software security
Software quality
Software functional correctness
Operational dependency continuity
Software release readiness
Legal liability

DOTM ends when the relevant dependency origin and traceability
relationships have been represented as a:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability State

with sufficient origin, source, distribution, transformation, introduction

path, evidence, uncertainty, and continuity information for competent
downstream SDS governance.

Use Case 1 — A Trusted Package Name Conceals a Changed Distribution

Origin

An organization operates a software platform that depends on a widely
used external package.

The package has been included in the software for several years.

Its name remains unchanged.

Its version numbers continue increasing normally.

Automated dependency updates continue retrieving new releases.

The software compiles successfully and passes its functional tests.

However, the package's publishing control has changed.

A new entity now distributes releases under the same package identity.

The organization's dependency records identify the package name and version

but do not preserve sufficient evidence of the change in publishing
origin.

The technical dependency appears continuous.

Its provenance is not.

DOTM evaluates:

Component Identity → Claimed Origin → Publisher Relationship →

Distribution Path → Artifact Provenance → Origin Drift

The assessment identifies:

The component name remained unchanged
The distribution origin changed
Historical provenance records no longer fully describe the
current
Successful installation does not establish continuity of origin
The new distribution relationship requires evidence-supported

dependency. reassessment.

The relevant governance state may be:

Origin-Unresolved

or:

Partially Supported

until the material origin relationship is sufficiently established.

The critical distinctions are:

Stable Package Name ≠ Stable Dependency Origin.

Registry Publication ≠ Verified Original Authorship.

Functional Continuity ≠ Provenance Continuity.

The result: DOTM exposes a change in dependency origin that
conventional package-name and version tracking may fail to recognize.

Use Case 2 — An Autonomous AI Agent Introduces a Library Without

Reconstructable Provenance

An organization authorizes an autonomous AI development agent to implement

a software feature.

The agent searches for a suitable external library.

It retrieves a software package from an online distribution source.

The agent integrates the package, modifies part of its code, and

incorporates the result into the application.

The application compiles successfully.

Functional tests pass.

The development task is marked complete.

Later, the organization attempts to reconstruct the origin of the

incorporated library.

The available development records show the resulting software artifact but

do not establish:

The original retrieval source
The exact downloaded artifact
The relevant source revision
The transformations performed by the agent
The relationship between the downloaded package and the final

incorporated component.

The organization cannot competently determine whether the final component

corresponds to the claimed source.

DOTM evaluates:

Development Objective → Agent Retrieval → Source Reference → Retrieved

Artifact → Transformation → Integrated Component → Dependent Software

The assessment identifies:

The resulting component is present
The claimed source cannot be sufficiently connected to the final
Material transformation history is missing
The introduction path is not fully reconstructable
The provenance evidence is insufficient for the claimed origin

artifact. relationship.

The relevant governance state may be:

Transformation-Unresolved

or:

Evidence-Limited

until sufficient evidence is established.

The critical distinctions are:

Generated Artifact Existence ≠ Reconstructable Generation Provenance.

Source Availability ≠ Verified Source-to-Artifact Correspondence.

Reconstructed Dependency Path ≠ Fully Verified Dependency Path.

Task Authority ≠ Constituent Action Authority.

The result: DOTM reveals that successful autonomous software creation
does not establish the provenance of the software dependencies
introduced during that creation.

Canonical Closing Statement

Software dependencies do not appear without a history.

They are created, published, distributed, transformed, selected,
integrated, updated, and sometimes replaced.

Each of these events may change what a software system actually relies
upon.

A dependency may retain the same name while its publisher changes.

A package may carry a valid signature without proving where its source
code originated.

A supplier may deliver a functioning component without establishing
the history of its embedded libraries.

An autonomous AI agent may create working software while leaving no
sufficiently reconstructable record of the external components it
retrieved and transformed.

In each case, the dependency exists.

The software may function.

But the origin and material history of that dependency may remain
unresolved.

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance.

Repository Reference ≠ Verified Artifact Provenance.

Source Availability ≠ Verified Source-to-Artifact Correspondence.

Traceable Introduction ≠ Authorized Introduction.

Functional Continuity ≠ Provenance Continuity.

DOTM establishes a fundamental requirement:

A software dependency must not be considered provenance-governed
merely because its name, source address, publisher claim, or
distribution record is available. Its material origin and introduction
relationships must be supported by evidence sufficient for the
governance purpose.

This requirement applies to software created by humans, organizations,

automated tools, AI coding assistants, and autonomous development
agents.

The actor may change.

The distribution technology may change.

The dependency may be transformed or redistributed.

The requirement for evidence-supported origin and traceability
remains.

DOTM does not assume that unknown provenance proves a component is
malicious.

Nor does it assume that verified provenance makes a component safe,
suitable, or authorized.

It establishes the evidence-supported historical relationships necessary

for competent dependency governance.

DOTM transforms software dependency provenance from a collection of source

claims and technical records into a governed chain of origin and
reliance — ensuring that software systems can establish not only what
they depend on, but where those dependencies came from, how they
reached the system, what changed along the way, and which parts of
that history can actually be proven.