LBCM — Liability Basis Classification Module
LBCM — Liability Basis Classification Module
Architecture: LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Liability Basis Standard (LBS)
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Liability Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Liability Basis Classification
Module ID: LIGA-LBS-LBCM-001
Origin ID: OOF.CM.LIGA.03.02.01
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 21 September 2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · Modular OOF® Architecture Ecosystem
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF® — OriginOpen® Foundation
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)
Canonical Definition
The Liability Basis Classification Module (LBCM) governs how an Identified Liability Basis Candidate is methodologically classified according to the nature, source structure, operational character, dependency, and relevant distinguishing characteristics of the potential Liability foundation so that subsequent Liability governance can reason about the Basis consistently without converting classification into qualification, applicability, Liability Conditions, Liability Attachment, or Liability Determination.
LBCM governs the transition:
Identified Liability Basis Candidate → Classification Analysis → Basis Type Determination → Classification Structure → Classified Liability Basis Its foundational distinction is:
Liability Basis Classification ≠ Liability Basis Qualification.
Operational Role
The operational role of LBCM is:
to determine what kind of Liability Basis is being governed while preserving the distinction between identifying the nature of the Basis and determining whether that Basis is sufficiently qualified or applicable.
LBIM answers:
What potential Liability foundation has been identified?
LBCM answers:
What kind of Liability foundation is it?
The module creates a stable methodological classification that can be used by later LBS and LIGA™ governance.
Position in the Parent Standard Flow
The internal LBS progression is:
Basis Identification → Basis Classification → Basis Qualification → Basis Association → Basis Continuity LBCM governs:
Basis Classification
Its principal input is:
Identified Liability Basis Candidate
Its principal output is:
Classified Liability Basis
Its canonical handoff is:
Classified Liability Basis → Liability Basis Qualification
Central Operational Question
What kind of Liability Basis is this, and what characteristics must remain explicit for subsequent Liability governance?
Classification must answer this question without deciding whether Liability exists.
Governed Space
LBCM governs:
Basis Type Identification, Basis Classification, Source-Based Classification, Structural Classification, Functional Classification, Derived Basis Classification, Dependent Basis Classification, Composite Basis Classification, Multiple Classification, Classification Hierarchy, Classification Relationships, Classification Uncertainty, Classification Conflict, Classification Change, Classification Correction, Classification Reassessment, and Classification Sufficiency.
LBCM does not determine whether the classified Basis ultimately applies to a Liability Subject or produces Liability.
Classification Input
LBCM receives an:
Identified Liability Basis Candidate
from LBIM.
The candidate should contain sufficient information concerning:
Basis Candidate Identity, proposed Basis Origin, known Basis Source, Governed Liability Object reference, material uncertainty, and relevant identification history.
LBCM should not hide deficiencies in Basis identification through speculative classification.
Where classification cannot yet be established, uncertainty should remain explicit.
Classification Purpose
Classification provides structured meaning to an identified Basis Candidate.
It allows later governance to distinguish different foundations that may:
arise from different sources, operate differently, depend on different structures, require different Conditions, or participate differently in Liability Relationships.
Classification exists to improve governance precision.
It does not create Liability.
Therefore:
Classification ≠ Liability Creation.
Methodological Classification
LBCM establishes methodological classification.
Its purpose is to describe the governed character of the Liability Basis within LIGA™.
It does not replace jurisdiction-specific legal categories.
Therefore:
Methodological Basis Classification ≠ Jurisdiction-Specific Legal Classification.
A Basis may be methodologically classified without claiming that a court, regulator, arbitrator, or other competent authority would assign an identical legal classification.
Classification Dimensions
A Liability Basis may require classification across more than one dimension.
Relevant dimensions may include:
source, origin, structural character, dependency, operational character, temporal character, relationship to other Bases, and other materially relevant characteristics.
Therefore:
One Liability Basis ≠ One Classification Dimension by default.
A multidimensional classification may provide a more accurate representation than a single label.
Source-Based Classification
A Basis may be classified according to the type of source from which it derives.
Examples may include:
contractual, statutory, regulatory, organizational, ownership-related, control-related, undertaking-related, warranty-related, guarantee-related, status-related, or another recognized source class.
These categories describe methodological source characteristics.
They do not predetermine legal interpretation.
Contractual Basis
A contractual Basis derives from a governed contractual structure capable of becoming relevant to Liability.
The classification should identify the contractual character without determining:
whether the contract is legally valid, whether a contractual obligation was breached, whether all relevant Conditions are satisfied, or whether Liability attaches.
Therefore:
Contractual Basis Classification ≠ Contractual Liability Determination.
Statutory Basis
A statutory Basis derives from an identified statutory structure potentially relevant to Liability.
LBCM may classify the Basis as statutory while preserving questions concerning:
jurisdiction, temporal applicability, scope, conditions, interpretation, and authority.
Therefore:
Statutory Basis Classification ≠ Statutory Liability Determination.
Regulatory Basis
A regulatory Basis derives from an identified regulatory requirement or structure.
Classification establishes the character of the Basis.
It does not establish:
regulatory breach, enforcement authority, Liability Attachment, or jurisdiction-specific legal consequences.
Therefore:
Regulatory Basis Classification ≠ Regulatory Liability Determination.
Obligation-Related Basis
A governed obligation may provide a potential foundation for Liability.
Where appropriate, the Basis may be classified according to its obligation-related character.
However:
Obligation Classification ≠ Obligation Satisfaction Determination.
and:
Obligation ≠ Liability by default.
The obligation may require further qualification before becoming a Governed Liability Basis.
Ownership-Related Basis
Ownership may create or contribute to a potential Liability foundation in some governance structures.
LBCM may classify such a Basis as ownership-related.
This does not mean ownership automatically creates Liability.
Therefore:
Ownership ≠ Liability.
and:
Ownership-Related Basis ≠ Liability Determination.
OBIDENITY® may provide governed Ownership information while LIGA™ governs its Liability relevance.
Control-Related Basis
Control over:
an object, system, process, resource, operation, or another governed matter may become relevant to a potential Liability Basis.
LBCM may classify the Basis according to this control-related character.
However:
Control ≠ Liability by default.
The existence, degree, authority, conditions, and Liability relevance of control remain separate governance questions.
Undertaking-Related Basis
An undertaking may create a potential Liability foundation.
LBCM may classify the Basis according to the nature of the undertaking.
The undertaking may be:
express, documented, formalized, or otherwise governed.
Classification does not determine whether the undertaking was breached or whether Liability exists.
Warranty-Related Basis
A warranty may provide a potential Liability foundation.
LBCM may classify the Basis as warranty-related while preserving separate questions concerning:
warranty identity, coverage, conditions, temporal validity, exclusions, performance, and later Liability Determination.
Therefore:
Warranty Existence ≠ Liability Attachment.
Guarantee-Related Basis
A guarantee may create a distinct potential Liability foundation.
Its classification should remain distinguishable from:
the primary obligation, the underlying Liability Relationship, the guaranteed performance, and later Transfer or Recourse structures.
Therefore:
Guarantee Basis ≠ Primary Liability Basis by default.
Status-Based Basis
Certain potential Liability foundations may depend materially on a governed status.
A status-based Basis may derive from:
role, position, ownership status, control status, operator status, custodial status, professional status, or another relevant governed status.
The status must not be treated as Liability itself.
Therefore:
Governed Status ≠ Liability.
Authority-Related Basis
Authority may form part of a potential Liability foundation where the exercise, possession, delegation, or limitation of authority is materially relevant.
LBCM may classify the Basis accordingly.
However:
Authority ≠ Liability Basis by default.
GOA™ or AGA™ may govern the Authority state itself.
LIGA™ governs its potential Liability relevance.
Responsibility-Related Basis
Responsibility may contribute to a potential Liability foundation.
Where appropriate, LBCM may classify a Basis as responsibility-related.
The classification must preserve:
Responsibility ≠ Liability.
AGA™ governs Responsibility.
LBCM classifies only the Liability Basis that may derive from or depend upon the governed Responsibility structure.
Fault-Dependent Basis
Some Liability Bases may require fault-related elements.
LBCM may classify such a Basis as fault-dependent where that dependency is structurally relevant.
This does not determine that fault exists.
Therefore:
Fault-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Fault.
Fault-Independent Basis
Some Liability Bases may not require fault as a foundational characteristic.
LBCM should permit classification that reflects this difference.
Therefore:
Absence of Fault Requirement ≠ Automatic Liability.
A fault-independent Basis still requires later governance of Conditions, Connection, Attachment, and Determination.
Conduct-Related Basis
A potential Liability Basis may depend materially on:
action, omission, performance, non-performance, decision, intervention, or another form of conduct.
LBCM may classify the Basis according to this characteristic.
However:
Conduct ≠ Liability Basis by itself.
The Basis must remain distinct from the conduct to which it relates.
Event-Related Basis
A Basis may depend on the occurrence of a particular type of event.
The event may become a structural feature of the Basis.
However:
Event ≠ Liability Basis.
The Basis is the governed foundation under which the event becomes Liability-relevant.
Harm-Dependent Basis
Some potential Liability Bases may require Harm or a particular Harm state.
LBCM may classify such a Basis as Harm-dependent where appropriate.
This does not transfer Harm governance into LIGA™.
HAGA™ continues to govern Harm.
Therefore:
Harm-Dependent Basis ≠ Harm Determination.
Loss- or Damage-Dependent Basis
Some Bases may depend on the existence of Loss or Damage.
LBCM may represent that dependency.
However:
Loss-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Loss.
Damage-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Damage.
The external or later governance of those states remains separate from Basis classification.
Primary and Derived Basis
A Liability Basis may arise directly from a foundational source or may derive from another governed Basis or structure.
LBCM may distinguish:
Primary / Foundational Basis
from:
Derived Basis
where that distinction is methodologically useful.
A derived Basis should retain its dependency relationship.
Therefore:
Derived Basis ≠ Independent Basis by default.
Dependent Basis
A Basis may require another Basis or governed structure to remain valid or relevant.
The dependency should be classified explicitly.
The canonical structure may be:
Basis A → enables / supports → Basis B This does not make A and B identical.
Therefore:
Basis Dependency ≠ Basis Identity.
Independent Basis
A Basis may remain methodologically independent from other identified Bases.
Independence means that its foundational identity does not require another Liability Basis.
It does not mean the Basis operates without Conditions, Relationships, Connection, or external governed inputs.
Therefore:
Basis Independence ≠ Liability Independence.
Composite Basis
A potential Liability foundation may contain several inseparable structural elements that together form one Basis.
LBCM may classify such a foundation as composite where treating each element as a separate Basis would distort its governed meaning.
Therefore:
Multiple Basis Elements ≠ Multiple Liability Bases by default.
The classification must preserve the distinction between:
one composite Basis and several independent Bases.
Multiple Bases
Where genuinely distinct foundations exist, they must remain separately classified.
Therefore:
Multiple Liability Bases ≠ Composite Basis by default.
A single Liability Object may simultaneously be associated with several differently classified Bases.
Their later governance may diverge.
Alternative Bases
Alternative Bases represent distinct potential routes through which Liability may arise.
LBCM should classify each independently.
Alternative status does not establish priority.
Therefore:
Alternative Basis Classification ≠ Basis Selection.
Selection or applicability belongs to subsequent governance.
Concurrent Bases
Two or more Bases may potentially operate at the same time.
LBCM should preserve their separate classifications even where they overlap.
Therefore:
Concurrent Bases ≠ Single Basis.
Overlap does not eliminate methodological distinction.
Competing Bases
Basis Candidates may compete because different interpretations produce different classifications or foundational structures.
LBCM must preserve the competing classifications where they cannot yet be legitimately reconciled.
Therefore:
Classification Conflict ≠ Authority to Select a Preferred Basis.
Unresolved conflict should remain visible.
Basis Classification Hierarchy
Basis classification may require hierarchical representation.
A possible structure is:
Source Class → Structural Class → Dependency Class → Additional Characteristics For example, a Basis may simultaneously be:
contractual, derived, and Harm-dependent.
The classification hierarchy should preserve these dimensions without implying that one label fully describes the Basis.
Multi-Dimensional Classification
A Basis may legitimately carry several classifications where they describe different dimensions.
For example:
Contractual + Derived + Fault-Dependent
may describe source, structural relationship, and operational dependency.
Therefore:
Multiple Classification Labels ≠ Multiple Liability Bases by default.
The underlying Basis Identity remains controlling.
Classification Granularity
Classification should be sufficiently precise for subsequent governance.
Overly broad classification may conceal material differences.
Overly narrow classification may create artificial distinctions.
The governing principle is:
Classification Granularity should follow governance relevance.
The narrowest possible classification is not automatically the best classification.
Classification Uncertainty
A Basis may not be immediately classifiable with certainty.
Possible states may include:
Classified
Provisionally Classified
Multi-Classified
Classification Uncertain
Classification Disputed
Classification Conflict
Unclassified Pending Clarification
Uncertainty must remain explicit.
Therefore:
Classification Uncertainty ≠ Basis Invalidity.
Classification Assumptions
Classification may depend on assumptions concerning:
Basis Source, Basis Origin, authority, historical state, dependency, or the nature of an underlying structure.
Material assumptions should be preserved.
Therefore:
Classification Assumption ≠ Established Basis Characteristic.
Classification Conflict
Classification Conflict exists where materially different classifications are supported by available governance inputs.
The conflict should preserve:
the competing classifications, their supporting basis, the unresolved issue, and the current governance state.
Classification should not be forced merely to create apparent certainty.
Classification Change
A Basis classification may change because:
new information becomes available, the Basis Source is clarified, a dependency is discovered, an earlier classification was incomplete, or the Basis itself changes.
Therefore:
Classification Change ≠ New Liability Basis by default.
The Basis Identity must be evaluated separately.
Classification Correction
An incorrect classification may be corrected.
The correction should preserve:
the prior classification, the corrected classification, the reason for correction, and the relationship between them.
Therefore:
Classification Correction ≠ Historical Erasure.
Classification Reassessment
Later governance may require classification reassessment.
Reassessment may:
confirm, refine, expand, narrow, replace, or dispute the existing classification.
The previous classification should remain reconstructable.
Therefore:
Classification Reassessment ≠ Historical Rewrite.
Classification Sufficiency
Classification is sufficient when subsequent Basis Qualification can reliably understand:
what type of Basis is being governed, which source characteristics matter, which structural characteristics matter, which dependencies exist, which classifications coexist, and what material uncertainty remains.
Classification need not answer whether the Basis is ultimately applicable.
Therefore:
Classification Sufficiency ≠ Basis Qualification.
Handoff to Basis Qualification
Once classification is sufficiently governed, LBCM produces:
Classified Liability Basis
The handoff should preserve:
Basis Identity, Basis Origin, Basis Source, Object reference, classification structure, dependency relationships, classification uncertainty, classification conflicts, and classification history.
The next governance question becomes:
Is this classified Liability Basis sufficiently qualified to proceed as a potential foundation for Liability governance?
Minimum Implementation Framework
A conforming implementation of LBCM must provide at least the following eight capabilities:
Basis Type Classification
Capability to classify an Identified Liability Basis Candidate according to its materially relevant methodological type without converting classification into Liability Determination.
Source & Structural Classification
Capability to distinguish source-based and structural characteristics, including contractual, statutory, regulatory, obligation-related, ownership-related, control-related, undertaking-related, warranty-related, guarantee-related, statusrelated, or other relevant classifications.
Dependency Classification
Capability to distinguish foundational, derived, dependent, independent, and other materially relevant Basis relationships.
Multiple & Composite Classification
Capability to distinguish one multi-dimensional or composite Basis from multiple separate Liability Bases.
Alternative, Concurrent & Competing Basis Classification
Capability to preserve separately classified alternative, concurrent, and competing Bases without premature selection or consolidation.
Classification Uncertainty & Conflict Governance
Capability to represent provisional classification, uncertainty, assumptions, competing classifications, and unresolved classification conflicts explicitly.
Classification Change, Correction & Reassessment
Capability to preserve classification history and govern later changes, corrections, and reassessment without historical erasure.
Classification Sufficiency Determination
Capability to determine whether the Basis is sufficiently classified for Liability Basis Qualification while preserving unresolved material uncertainty.
Governance Logic
The canonical LBCM governance logic is:
Identified Liability Basis Candidate
↓
Identify Classification-Relevant Characteristics
↓
Determine Source Class
↓
Determine Structural Character
↓
Determine Dependency Character
↓
Identify Additional Material Characteristics
↓ One Basis or Multiple Distinct Bases?
If one Basis with multiple characteristics:
Preserve Multi-Dimensional Classification
If one inseparable Basis with multiple structural elements:
Preserve Composite Basis Classification
If multiple distinct foundations:
Preserve Separate Basis Identities and Classifications
↓
Identify Alternative / Concurrent / Competing Relationships
↓
Identify Classification Uncertainty and Assumptions
↓
Resolve or Preserve Classification Conflict
↓
Preserve Classification History
↓
Assess Classification Sufficiency
If insufficient:
Clarify / Reassess / Preserve Uncertainty
If sufficient:
↓
Classified Liability Basis
↓
Handoff to Liability Basis Qualification
Governance Outputs
LBCM may produce:
Basis Type Classification
Basis Source Classification
Basis Structural Classification
Basis Dependency Classification
Primary / Foundational Basis Classification
Derived Basis Classification
Independent Basis Classification
Composite Basis Classification
Multi-Dimensional Basis Classification
Alternative Basis Classification
Concurrent Basis Classification
Competing Basis Classification
Basis Classification Hierarchy
Basis Classification Relationship Map
Classification Uncertainty State
Classification Assumption Record
Classification Conflict State
Classification Change Record
Classification Correction Record
Classification Reassessment Record
Classification Sufficiency State
The principal output is:
Classified Liability Basis
Critical Distinctions
LBCM preserves the following distinctions:
Liability Basis Classification ≠ Liability Basis Qualification Classification ≠ Liability Creation Methodological Basis Classification ≠ Jurisdiction-Specific Legal Classification One Liability Basis ≠ One Classification Dimension by default Contractual Basis Classification ≠ Contractual Liability Determination Statutory Basis Classification ≠ Statutory Liability Determination Regulatory Basis Classification ≠ Regulatory Liability Determination Obligation Classification ≠ Obligation Satisfaction Determination Ownership ≠ Liability Control ≠ Liability by default Warranty Existence ≠ Liability Attachment Guarantee Basis ≠ Primary Liability Basis by default Governed Status ≠ Liability Authority ≠ Liability Basis by default Responsibility ≠ Liability Fault-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Fault Absence of Fault Requirement ≠ Automatic Liability Conduct ≠ Liability Basis by itself Event ≠ Liability Basis Harm-Dependent Basis ≠ Harm Determination Loss-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Loss Damage-Dependent Basis ≠ Established Damage Derived Basis ≠ Independent Basis by default Basis Dependency ≠ Basis Identity Basis Independence ≠ Liability Independence Multiple Basis Elements ≠ Multiple Liability Bases by default Multiple Liability Bases ≠ Composite Basis by default Alternative Basis Classification ≠ Basis Selection Concurrent Bases ≠ Single Basis Classification Conflict ≠ Authority to Select a Preferred Basis Multiple Classification Labels ≠ Multiple Liability Bases by default Classification Uncertainty ≠ Basis Invalidity Classification Assumption ≠ Established Basis Characteristic Classification Change ≠ New Liability Basis by default Classification Correction ≠ Historical Erasure Classification Reassessment ≠ Historical Rewrite Classification Sufficiency ≠ Basis Qualification
Cross-Architecture Boundary
LBCM may use classifications or governed states from other OOF® architectures where they materially inform Liability Basis classification.
GOA™ may distinguish Authority, Scope, Delegation, and other governance structures relevant to Basis classification.
ORA™ may classify relevant Operational Reality without classifying Liability.
AGA™ may distinguish Responsibility, Accountability, Authority, and Attribution structures.
HAGA™ governs Harm classification independently from Liability Basis classification.
ADIT® may provide evidence supporting the characteristics used for Basis classification.
VALIDOS™ may validate classification-relevant inputs.
OBIDENITY® may govern Identity, Ownership, Authority, Permission, Provenance, and Transfer structures relevant to classification.
Other OOF® architectures may provide governed classifications that become inputs to LBCM.
The governing principle is:
Classification of an external governed state may inform Liability Basis classification without transferring governance ownership of that state to LIGA™.
Canonical Boundary
LBCM begins with an:
Identified Liability Basis Candidate
and the question:
What kind of Liability Basis is this?
LBCM governs:
Basis Type, Source Classification, Structural Classification, Dependency Classification, Multi-Dimensional Classification, Composite Classification, Multiple Basis Classification, Alternative Basis Classification, Concurrent Basis Classification, Competing Basis Classification, Classification Hierarchy, Classification Uncertainty, Classification Assumptions, Classification Conflict, Classification Change, Classification Correction, Classification Reassessment, and Classification Sufficiency.
LBCM does not determine:
complete Basis Qualification, final Basis Applicability, formal Object–Basis Association, Liability Subjects, Liability Relationships, Liability Conditions, Condition Satisfaction, Liability-Relevant Connection, Liability Attachment, Liability Determination, Liability Scope, Liability Allocation, Liability State, Transfer, Recourse, Resolution, Discharge, or Finality.
LBCM ends when a:
Classified Liability Basis
is sufficiently established for Liability Basis Qualification.
Use Case 1 — Multiple Bases for an AI-Enabled Service
An Identified Liability Basis Candidate concerning an AI-enabled service originates from a contractual service agreement.
LBCM classifies the Basis as contractual and identifies that it is also dependent on a specific governed obligation within that agreement.
A separate Basis Candidate originates from a regulatory requirement and is classified independently as regulatory.
The two Bases may concern the same Liability Object.
Their classifications remain separate.
LBCM does not determine whether either Basis applies, whether any required Condition is satisfied, or whether Liability exists.
Use Case 2 — Industrial Equipment Matter
A Liability Basis Candidate concerning industrial equipment derives from an ownership-related structure and another candidate derives from a maintenance agreement.
LBCM classifies the first according to its ownership-related character and the second according to its contractual and obligation-related characteristics.
The maintenance Basis may carry multiple classification dimensions without becoming multiple Bases merely because several characteristics describe it.
The classification allows later Qualification governance to evaluate each Basis according to its actual structure rather than treating all potential Liability foundations as equivalent.
Canonical Closing Statement
Different Liability foundations can concern the same matter while operating through fundamentally different structures.
Classification makes those differences governable.
It does not decide whether the classified Basis is valid, applicable, satisfied, or capable of attaching Liability.
Classification tells governance what kind of Basis it is. Qualification determines whether that Basis is sufficiently grounded to proceed.
Classify the foundation without converting its classification into a Liability conclusion.