LDEM — Liability Determination Evaluation Module
LDEM — Liability Determination Evaluation Module
Architecture: LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Liability Determination Standard (LDS)
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Liability Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Liability Determination Evaluation
Module ID: LIGA-LDS-LDEM-001
Origin ID: OOF.CM.LIGA.07.02.01
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 23 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 Determination Evaluation Module (LDEM) governs how a Governed Liability Determination Input Set is methodologically evaluated against the applicable Liability Basis, Liability Conditions, Liability Relationships, LiabilityRelevant Connections, Determination Criteria, and materially relevant governed inputs to establish an explicit Liability Determination Evaluation State.
LDEM determines what the governed input structure supports, does not support, leaves unresolved, or places in conflict before a formal Liability Attachment Determination is made.
It governs the analytical transition between Determination Input formation and Liability Attachment.
LDEM does not itself attach Liability.
It governs the transition:
Governed Liability Determination Input Set → Evaluation Criteria → Basis & Condition Evaluation → Relationship & Connection Evaluation → Conflict & Uncertainty Evaluation → Evaluation State → Governed Liability
Determination Evaluation
Its foundational distinction is:
Liability Determination Evaluation ≠ Liability Attachment Determination.
Operational Role
The operational role of LDEM is:
to evaluate the complete governed Liability Determination Input Set in a structured, traceable, bounded, and reconstructable manner so that the subsequent Attachment decision can be made from an explicit Evaluation State rather than from an unstructured conclusion.
LDIM determines:
What enters the Determination?
LDEM determines:
What does that governed input structure establish when evaluated?
LDAM subsequently determines:
Does Liability attach?
Position in the Parent Standard Flow
The internal LDS progression is:
Liability Determination Input → Liability Determination Evaluation → Liability Determination & Attachment → Liability Determination Rationale → Liability Determination Versioning LDEM governs:
Liability Determination Evaluation
Its principal input is:
Governed Liability Determination Input Set
Its principal output is:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
Its canonical handoff is:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation → Liability Determination & Attachment
Central Operational Question
What does the Governed Liability Determination Input Set establish when evaluated against the applicable Liability Basis, Conditions, Relationships, Connections, and Determination Criteria?
Governed Space
LDEM governs:
Evaluation Object, Evaluation Scope, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Method, Basis Evaluation, Condition Evaluation, Relationship Evaluation, Connection Evaluation, Input Evaluation, Dependency Evaluation, Temporal Evaluation, Conflict Evaluation, Uncertainty Evaluation, Alternative Evaluation, Multi-Basis Evaluation, Multi-Subject Evaluation, Evaluation Sufficiency, Evaluation State, Evaluation Confidence, Evaluation Change, Evaluation Correction, Evaluation Reassessment, and Evaluation Handoff.
Evaluation Object
The Evaluation Object is the specific Liability Determination structure being evaluated.
It should remain associated with the Determination Object established by LDIM.
Therefore:
Evaluation Object ≠ Liability Object.
Evaluation Scope
LDEM should preserve the Determination Scope established upstream.
Evaluation must not silently expand beyond the governed inquiry.
Therefore:
Evaluation Scope Expansion ≠ Valid Evaluation by default.
Evaluation Scope Integrity
Where evaluation reveals that the existing scope is inadequate, LDEM should trigger reassessment rather than silently redefine the Determination.
Therefore:
Scope Defect ≠ Authority to Rewrite Scope.
Evaluation Criteria
LDEM should establish or reference the criteria by which the governed inputs are evaluated.
Criteria should be:
explicit, applicable, bounded, traceable, and sufficiently stable for the defined evaluation.
Criteria Origin
Evaluation criteria should preserve their origin.
They may derive from:
the applicable Liability Basis, Liability Conditions, governed methodology, competent authority, contractual structure, or another legitimate source.
Criteria Integrity
Criteria must not be invented after observing a desired Liability outcome.
Therefore:
Desired Outcome ≠ Evaluation Criterion.
Criteria Applicability
A valid criterion may still be inapplicable to a specific:
Subject, Relationship, Object, Basis, Condition, Connection, or lifecycle moment.
Therefore:
Valid Criterion ≠ Applicable Criterion by default.
Criteria Consistency
Materially equivalent evaluations should apply criteria consistently unless a governed distinction justifies different treatment.
Therefore:
Different Outcome Preference ≠ Different Evaluation Criteria.
Criteria Version
Where criteria change over time, LDEM should preserve the version applicable to the relevant evaluation.
Therefore:
Current Criterion ≠ Historically Applicable Criterion by default.
Evaluation Method
LDEM should preserve the methodology used to evaluate the governed inputs.
The method should explain how:
criteria, inputs, conditions, relationships, connections, conflicts, and uncertainties are brought together.
Method Transparency
The evaluation method should be sufficiently explicit for a qualified reviewer to understand how the Evaluation State was produced.
Therefore:
Opaque Evaluation ≠ Fully Governed Evaluation.
Method Consistency
The evaluation method should be applied consistently to materially comparable structures.
Method variation should possess a governed reason.
Basis Evaluation
LDEM evaluates the Determination Input Set under the applicable Governed Liability Basis.
The Basis establishes the methodological foundation for potential Liability.
LDEM asks whether the evaluated structure satisfies the Basis-specific requirements sufficiently to proceed toward Attachment.
Basis Presence
The existence of a valid Liability Basis is necessary where required.
Its existence does not establish Attachment.
Therefore:
Valid Liability Basis ≠ Attached Liability.
Basis Applicability
LDEM should evaluate whether the identified Liability Basis actually applies to the defined Determination Object and Scope.
Therefore:
Existing Basis ≠ Applicable Basis by default.
Basis-Specific Evaluation
The same input structure may produce different evaluations under different Liability Bases.
Therefore:
Evaluation under Basis A ≠ Evaluation under Basis B.
Multi-Basis Evaluation
Where several Bases apply, each should be evaluated separately where materially distinct.
LDEM should not collapse several Bases into one undifferentiated conclusion.
Basis Interaction
Multiple Bases may:
coexist, overlap, depend upon one another, exclude one another, or operate independently.
Their relationship should remain explicit.
Condition Evaluation
LDEM evaluates the governed Liability Conditions relevant to the applicable Basis.
The evaluation should preserve:
Condition identity, Requirement, State, Exception, Exclusion, Modifier, time, and uncertainty.
Condition Satisfaction
A Condition may be:
Satisfied, Failed, Partially Satisfied, Unknown, Uncertain, Disputed, Pending, or otherwise governed.
LDEM should preserve the applicable state rather than forcing binary treatment.
Condition Satisfaction and Attachment
Satisfied Conditions may support an Evaluation State favorable to Attachment.
They do not themselves attach Liability.
Therefore:
Condition Satisfaction ≠ Liability Attachment.
Condition Failure
A failed Condition may prevent Attachment under a particular Basis.
It does not necessarily establish the absence of Liability under every possible Basis.
Therefore:
Condition Failure under Basis A ≠ No Liability under Basis B.
Condition Exception
An Exception or Exclusion may modify the effect of a Condition.
LDEM should evaluate the governed Condition State after applicable modifiers are considered.
Relationship Evaluation
LDEM evaluates whether the relevant Liability Subjects and Relationships correspond to the applicable Liability Basis and Conditions.
An established Relationship may be necessary without being determinative.
Therefore:
Liability Relationship ≠ Liability Attachment.
Subject Evaluation
Each relevant Subject should be evaluated according to its own governed structure.
Therefore:
Shared Matter ≠ Shared Subject Evaluation.
Multi-Subject Evaluation
Where several Subjects exist, LDEM should preserve separate evaluations where their:
Bases, Relationships, Conditions, Connections, or inputs differ materially.
Relationship-Specific Evaluation
A Subject may participate in several Liability Relationships.
Evaluation under one Relationship should not automatically transfer to another.
Therefore:
Evaluation of Relationship A ≠ Evaluation of Relationship B.
Connection Evaluation
LDEM evaluates the Governed Liability Connection Structure as part of the complete Determination structure.
The Connection should remain associated with its:
Qualification State, Chain, Relationships, evidence associations, uncertainties, and conflicts.
Qualified Connection
A Qualified Liability Connection may satisfy the connective requirement for evaluation.
It does not itself establish Attachment.
Therefore:
Qualified Liability Connection ≠ Attached Liability.
Partially Qualified Connection
A Partially Qualified Connection may permit only a limited or conditional Evaluation State.
LDEM should preserve the unresolved connective elements.
Pending Connection
A Pending Connection may prevent completion of the evaluation where the unresolved element is material.
Therefore:
Pending Connection ≠ Negative Connection.
Disputed Connection
A Disputed Connection should remain disputed during evaluation unless an authorized upstream governance process resolves it.
LDEM should not manufacture certainty.
Connection Alternatives
Where LCNS preserves multiple plausible Connection Chains, LDEM should evaluate materially relevant alternatives separately.
Therefore:
Alternative Connection ≠ Irrelevant Connection.
Input Evaluation
LDEM evaluates the Determination Inputs according to their:
identity, state, relevance, applicability, scope, time, dependency, and uncertainty.
Inputs should not be treated as interchangeable.
Input Weight
Where the applicable methodology uses weighting, the weighting method should be explicit and governed.
Weight should not be assigned merely to produce a desired outcome.
Therefore:
Input Weight ≠ Input Truth.
Input Strength
Input strength may be represented where supported by the applicable methodology.
Strength should remain distinct from final Liability significance.
Therefore:
Input Strength ≠ Liability Strength.
Input Independence
Independent inputs may provide different evaluative significance from dependent or derivative inputs.
Therefore:
Multiple Inputs ≠ Multiple Independent Inputs.
Derived Inputs
Derived Inputs should preserve their dependency on underlying inputs.
They should not be counted as independent confirmation unless methodologically justified.
Corroborating Inputs
Independent inputs may corroborate the same material state.
Corroboration may strengthen the evaluation.
It does not independently establish Attachment.
Duplicate Inputs
Duplicated records should not artificially increase evaluative strength.
Therefore:
Input Duplication ≠ Corroboration.
Missing Input Evaluation
Where a material input is missing, LDEM should evaluate the effect of that absence.
The result may be:
evaluation limitation, Pending state, Unknown state, Uncertain state, or insufficiency.
Missing Input and Negative Inference
Missing information should not automatically be treated as evidence against Attachment unless the applicable governed methodology permits such an inference.
Therefore:
Missing Input ≠ Negative Determination Input by default.
Unknown Input Evaluation
An Unknown Input should remain unknown unless resolved through appropriate governance.
Therefore:
Unknown Input ≠ Failed Requirement by default.
Uncertain Input Evaluation
Uncertainty should be propagated through the Evaluation rather than silently removed.
Therefore:
Uncertain Input ≠ Certain Evaluation Input.
Disputed Input Evaluation
Competing input states should remain distinguishable.
The evaluation may produce a Disputed or conditional Evaluation State.
Conflict Evaluation
LDEM should identify and evaluate material conflicts among governed inputs.
Conflict may concern:
facts, states, relationships, conditions, connections, time, authority, or methodology.
Conflict Preservation
A conflict should not disappear merely because one representation produces a simpler result.
Therefore:
Simpler Narrative ≠ Conflict Resolution.
Conflict Materiality
Not every conflict prevents evaluation.
LDEM should distinguish material conflicts from immaterial differences.
A conflict is material where resolving it could change the Evaluation State or Attachment readiness.
Uncertainty Evaluation
LDEM should preserve uncertainty affecting materially relevant parts of the Determination structure.
Uncertainty may concern:
input identity, state, time, applicability, Relationship, Condition, Connection, or criterion satisfaction.
Uncertainty Propagation
Where an upstream input is uncertain, downstream evaluation should preserve the effect of that uncertainty.
Therefore:
Upstream Uncertainty ≠ Downstream Certainty by default.
Uncertainty Accumulation
Multiple uncertainties may interact.
LDEM should avoid treating each uncertainty as isolated where their combined effect is materially different.
Uncertainty Reduction
Uncertainty may be reduced by:
additional governed inputs, upstream correction, validation, evidence, or clarification.
Reduction should remain traceable.
Residual Uncertainty
An Evaluation may remain usable despite Residual Uncertainty where the applicable methodology permits.
Residual Uncertainty should be explicit.
Therefore:
Usable Evaluation ≠ Uncertainty-Free Evaluation.
Temporal Evaluation
LDEM should evaluate inputs within their relevant temporal structure.
Inputs from different times should not be collapsed into one state where timing materially affects Liability.
Evaluation Time
The time at which evaluation occurs should remain distinguishable from:
event time, input time, Attachment-effective time, and Determination time.
Historical Evaluation
LDEM may evaluate the Liability structure as it existed at an earlier lifecycle moment.
Historical evaluation should use the inputs and states appropriate to that time where required.
Later Knowledge
Later-discovered information should not automatically be treated as though it was available at the earlier evaluation moment.
Therefore:
Later Knowledge ≠ Earlier Knowledge.
Hindsight Control
LDEM should prevent known outcomes from being projected backward into earlier evaluations without methodological justification.
Therefore:
Known Outcome at T2 ≠ Knowledge Available at T1.
Alternative Evaluation
Where materially plausible alternative input or Connection structures exist, LDEM may produce separate Evaluation paths.
These should remain distinct until an appropriate governance process resolves them.
Scenario Evaluation
Hypothetical or conditional scenarios may be evaluated where explicitly identified.
They must not be represented as established Determination reality.
Therefore:
Scenario Evaluation ≠ Historical Determination Evaluation.
Counterfactual Evaluation
A counterfactual may be used where the applicable methodology requires comparison between actual and alternative states.
Counterfactual structure should remain explicitly hypothetical.
Therefore:
Counterfactual State ≠ Operational Reality.
Evaluation Path
An Evaluation Path is the governed sequence through which specific criteria are applied to specific inputs.
Different Bases or Subjects may require different Evaluation Paths.
Evaluation Path Identity
Materially distinct Evaluation Paths should remain identifiable.
Therefore:
One Matter ≠ One Evaluation Path.
Evaluation Path Comparison
Where multiple paths exist, LDEM may compare their results without prematurely merging them.
Differences should remain traceable to:
criteria, inputs, Basis, Subject, Relationship, Condition, or Connection.
Evaluation State
LDEM should produce an explicit Evaluation State describing what the governed evaluation establishes before Attachment is determined.
The Evaluation State is an intermediate LDS governance object.
Canonical Evaluation States
LDEM may represent Evaluation States including:
Supports Attachment
Does Not Support Attachment
Partially Supports Attachment
Conditionally Supports Attachment
Pending
Unknown
Uncertain
Disputed
These are Evaluation States, not Liability Determination States.
Supports Attachment
Supports Attachment means the evaluated governed structure supports proceeding to an Attachment Determination favorable to Attachment.
It does not itself attach Liability.
Therefore:
Supports Attachment ≠ Attached Liability.
Does Not Support Attachment
Does Not Support Attachment means the evaluated structure does not support Attachment within the defined evaluation scope.
LDAM still owns the formal Attachment Determination.
Partially Supports Attachment
Partially Supports Attachment means some required evaluation elements support Attachment while material elements remain incomplete, limited, or unresolved.
Therefore:
Partial Evaluation Support ≠ Partial Liability.
Conditionally Supports Attachment
Conditionally Supports Attachment means the evaluation supports Attachment only if explicitly identified conditions, assumptions, or unresolved dependencies are satisfied.
Pending Evaluation
Pending means the evaluation cannot yet be completed because a material governed dependency remains unresolved.
Therefore:
Pending Evaluation ≠ Negative Evaluation.
Unknown Evaluation
Unknown means the available governed structure is insufficient to establish an Evaluation State.
Therefore:
Unknown Evaluation ≠ Does Not Support Attachment.
Uncertain Evaluation
Uncertain means an Evaluation State can be represented but material uncertainty remains.
Therefore:
Uncertain Evaluation ≠ Unknown Evaluation.
Disputed Evaluation
Disputed means materially competing governed Evaluation results remain unresolved.
Therefore:
Disputed Evaluation ≠ Failed Evaluation.
Evaluation Confidence
Where methodology supports it, LDEM may represent confidence in the Evaluation State.
Confidence should refer to the methodological evaluation.
It should not be presented as a probability of legal Liability unless a separate governed method legitimately defines that interpretation.
Therefore:
Evaluation Confidence ≠ Legal Liability Probability.
Evaluation Sufficiency
Evaluation Sufficiency asks whether the evaluation is sufficiently complete, coherent, traceable, and bounded for LDAM to perform Liability Attachment Determination.
It does not ask whether Attachment should be positive.
Positive Evaluation vs Sufficient Evaluation
An Evaluation may be sufficient even where it does not support Attachment.
Therefore:
Evaluation Sufficiency ≠ Positive Evaluation.
Evaluation Completeness
Evaluation Completeness concerns whether all materially required criteria and input categories have been evaluated.
Therefore:
Evaluation Completeness ≠ Supports Attachment.
Complete but Uncertain Evaluation
An Evaluation may be complete while remaining uncertain.
Completeness concerns process coverage.
Uncertainty concerns the state of knowledge or evaluation.
Evaluation Integrity
A governed Evaluation should preserve:
criteria, inputs, method, scope, Basis, Conditions, Relationships, Connections, conflicts, uncertainties, and resulting Evaluation State.
Evaluation Traceability
The Evaluation State should be traceable backward to:
criteria, input states, upstream governance objects, and evaluation operations.
Therefore:
Untraceable Evaluation ≠ Fully Governed Evaluation.
Evaluation Explainability
A qualified reviewer should be able to understand:
what was evaluated, how it was evaluated, what supported the result, what contradicted it, what remained uncertain, and why the Evaluation State resulted.
Evaluation Reproducibility
The governed evaluation should preserve enough structure for another qualified implementation to understand and reproduce the methodology applied to the same governed inputs.
Reproducibility does not require all legal authorities to reach identical legal conclusions.
Evaluation Record
LDEM should preserve a durable Evaluation Record containing materially necessary information about:
Evaluation identity, scope, criteria, method, inputs, results, uncertainty, conflicts, time, and version.
Evaluation Identity
Each materially distinct Evaluation should possess sufficient identity for:
reference, review, correction, reassessment, versioning, and Attachment handoff.
Evaluation Change
An Evaluation may change when:
inputs change, criteria change, an upstream state changes, a conflict is resolved, or new information becomes available.
Change should remain traceable.
Evaluation Correction
An earlier Evaluation may be found incorrectly performed or represented.
Correction should preserve:
the earlier Evaluation, corrected Evaluation, reason, time, and provenance.
Therefore:
Evaluation Correction ≠ Historical Erasure.
Evaluation Reassessment
An Evaluation may be reassessed because the governed input structure changes without implying that the earlier Evaluation was incorrectly performed.
Therefore:
Evaluation Reassessment ≠ Evaluation Correction.
Evaluation Versioning
Material Evaluation changes may require a new version.
Therefore:
New Evaluation Version ≠ New Liability Origin by default.
Evaluation Supersession
A later Evaluation may supersede an earlier Evaluation.
The earlier state should remain reconstructable.
Therefore:
Evaluation Supersession ≠ Historical Deletion.
Evaluation Reversal
A later Evaluation may reach the opposite state after governed inputs or methodology materially change.
The earlier Evaluation should remain historically visible.
Therefore:
Evaluation Reversal ≠ Erasure of Earlier Evaluation.
Evaluation Re-Entry
Later LDS stages may reveal that Evaluation requires reconsideration.
LDEM should support targeted re-entry.
Therefore:
Evaluation Re-Entry ≠ New Liability Origin by default.
Re-Entry to LDIM
Where the Evaluation reveals that the Determination Input Set is defective, incomplete, incorrectly associated, or insufficiently governed, the process should return to LDIM.
LDEM should not manufacture missing inputs.
Re-Entry to LCNS
Where Evaluation reveals a Connection defect, the process should return to the relevant LCNS governance space.
Re-Entry to LCOS
Where Evaluation reveals a Condition defect, the process should return to LCOS.
Earlier LIGA™ Re-Entry
Where necessary, the process may return to:
LRS, LBS, LOS,
or LCS
according to the earliest materially affected governance space.
The governing principle remains:
Re-enter the earliest materially affected governance space.
No Outcome Bias
LDEM must not allow the severity or visibility of the outcome to substitute for evaluation.
Therefore:
Outcome Severity ≠ Evaluation Result.
No Subject-Prominence Bias
A prominent, wealthy, insured, visible, or institutionally powerful Subject should not receive a different Evaluation State merely because of that status.
Therefore:
Subject Prominence ≠ Evaluation Criterion.
No Insurance Bias
Insurance coverage should not alter the Attachment Evaluation unless it is genuinely relevant under the applicable Liability Basis.
Therefore:
Insurance Availability ≠ Attachment Support.
No Financial-Capacity Bias
Ability to satisfy a potential Liability does not determine whether the governed structure supports Attachment.
Therefore:
Ability to Pay ≠ Liability Evaluation.
No Evidence-Volume Bias
Large evidence volume does not automatically strengthen the Evaluation.
Therefore:
More Evidence ≠ Stronger Liability Evaluation by default.
No Narrative Bias
A simple, persuasive narrative should not replace the governed Evaluation structure.
Therefore:
Persuasive Narrative ≠ Governed Evaluation.
No Automation Bias
An AI or automated system may assist Evaluation.
Its output should not receive greater authority merely because it is computationally generated.
Therefore:
Automated Evaluation ≠ Authoritative Evaluation by default.
No Human Authority Bias
A human evaluator's status does not remove the need for traceable methodology.
Therefore:
Human Seniority ≠ Evaluation Validity.
Evaluation Authority
Where an Evaluation is performed by a particular authority, organization, system, or process, that identity should remain explicit.
Evaluation authority does not automatically equal authority to make the final legal determination.
Automated Evaluation
Automated Evaluation should preserve:
input versions, criteria, method version, system identity, relevant model or ruleset identity where applicable, output state, and traceability.
Human-Assisted Evaluation
Where humans and automated systems jointly evaluate the structure, the division of evaluative roles should remain sufficiently explicit.
Evaluation Governance Across Systems
Where Evaluation spans several technical or institutional systems, LDEM should preserve cross-system identity and continuity.
System boundaries must not obscure the Evaluation path.
Evaluation History
LDEM should preserve the sequence of materially relevant Evaluation States across time.
Therefore:
Current Evaluation State ≠ Complete Evaluation History.
Evaluation Reality, Knowledge, and Record
Where materially relevant, LDEM should distinguish:
Underlying Liability-Relevant Reality
Available Knowledge
Evaluation State
Evaluation Record
These may differ.
Therefore:
Reality ≠ Knowledge ≠ Evaluation Record by default.
Evaluation Readiness for Attachment
An Evaluation is ready for LDAM when:
the Evaluation Object and Scope are explicit, applicable Basis is established, material Conditions are evaluated, relevant Relationships are evaluated, the Connection structure is evaluated, material inputs have been considered, conflicts and uncertainties are explicit, the Evaluation State is recorded, and the Evaluation is sufficiently traceable and reconstructable.
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
The principal output of LDEM is:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
It may contain:
Evaluation Object, Evaluation Scope, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Method, Basis Evaluation, Condition Evaluation, Relationship Evaluation, Connection Evaluation, Input Evaluation, Conflict State, Uncertainty State, Alternative Evaluation Paths, Evaluation State, Evaluation Confidence where applicable, Evaluation Sufficiency State, and Evaluation History.
Meaning of the Output
A Governed Liability Determination Evaluation means that the complete Determination Input structure has been methodologically evaluated and its evaluative result made explicit.
It does not mean Liability has formally attached.
Therefore:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation ≠ Liability Attachment Determination.
Handoff to Liability Determination & Attachment
LDEM hands the:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
to:
LDAM — Liability Determination & Attachment Module
The next governance question becomes:
Given the governed Evaluation, what Liability Attachment Determination should be formally established within the defined Determination scope?
LDEM does not answer that final Attachment question.
Minimum Implementation Framework
A conforming implementation of LDEM must provide exactly the following eight capabilities:
Evaluation Object, Scope & Criteria Governance
Capability to preserve the Determination Object and Scope and establish explicit, applicable, traceable, and versionaware Evaluation Criteria.
Basis & Condition Evaluation
Capability to evaluate the Governed Liability Basis and applicable Liability Conditions while preserving Basis-specific requirements, Condition states, Exceptions, Exclusions, and modifiers.
Subject, Relationship & Connection Evaluation
Capability to evaluate Subject-specific Liability Relationships and Governed Liability Connection Structures without converting those structures directly into Liability Attachment.
Input, Dependency & Temporal Evaluation
Capability to evaluate materially relevant inputs according to their identity, state, relevance, applicability, dependency, independence, time, and historical context.
Conflict, Uncertainty & Alternative Evaluation Governance
Capability to preserve material conflicts, unknowns, uncertainty, alternative Connections, competing inputs, scenario paths, and residual uncertainty without manufacturing certainty.
Evaluation State, Confidence & Sufficiency Governance
Capability to establish explicit Evaluation States and distinguish Evaluation support, confidence, completeness, sufficiency, and uncertainty from Liability Attachment itself.
Evaluation Change, Correction, Versioning & Re-Entry
Capability to preserve Evaluation changes, corrections, reassessments, supersession, reversal, versions, history, and targeted lifecycle re-entry without historical erasure.
Attachment Evaluation Handoff
Capability to produce a Governed Liability Determination Evaluation sufficiently explicit, traceable, bounded, and reconstructable for handoff to LDAM without prematurely making the formal Liability Attachment Determination.
Governance Logic
The canonical LDEM governance logic is:
Governed Liability Determination Input Set
↓
Confirm Evaluation Object & Scope
↓
Identify Applicable Evaluation Criteria
↓
Confirm Criteria Origin & Version
↓
Evaluate Liability Basis
↓
Evaluate Liability Conditions
↓
Evaluate Liability Subjects & Relationships
↓
Evaluate Governed Liability Connection Structure
↓
Evaluate Material Determination Inputs
↓
Evaluate Dependencies / Independence / Corroboration
↓
Evaluate Temporal Alignment
↓
Identify Missing / Unknown / Uncertain Inputs
↓
Evaluate Material Conflicts
↓ Evaluate Alternative Paths where required ↓
Propagate Material Uncertainty
↓
Assess Evaluation Completeness
↓
Assign Evaluation State
↓ Assess Evaluation Confidence where applicable ↓
Assess Evaluation Sufficiency
↓
Record Evaluation Rationale & Trace
↓
Preserve Change / Correction / Version History
↓
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
↓
Handoff to Liability Determination & Attachment
Governance Outputs
LDEM may produce:
Liability Evaluation Object
Liability Evaluation Scope
Evaluation Criteria Set
Evaluation Criteria Origin Record
Evaluation Method Record
Basis Evaluation State
Condition Evaluation State
Subject Evaluation State
Relationship Evaluation State
Connection Evaluation State
Input Evaluation State
Input Dependency Evaluation
Temporal Evaluation State
Evaluation Conflict Record
Evaluation Uncertainty State
Alternative Evaluation Path
Scenario Evaluation Record
Evaluation State
Supports Attachment State
Does Not Support Attachment State
Partially Supports Attachment State
Conditionally Supports Attachment State
Pending Evaluation State
Unknown Evaluation State
Uncertain Evaluation State
Disputed Evaluation State
Evaluation Confidence State
Evaluation Completeness State
Evaluation Sufficiency State
Evaluation Trace Record
Evaluation Correction Record
Evaluation Reassessment Record
Evaluation Version Record
Historical Evaluation Record
The principal output is:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
Critical Distinctions
LDEM preserves the following distinctions:
Liability Determination Evaluation ≠ Liability Attachment Determination Evaluation Object ≠ Liability Object Evaluation Scope Expansion ≠ Valid Evaluation by default Scope Defect ≠ Authority to Rewrite Scope Desired Outcome ≠ Evaluation Criterion Valid Criterion ≠ Applicable Criterion by default Current Criterion ≠ Historically Applicable Criterion by default Opaque Evaluation ≠ Fully Governed Evaluation Valid Liability Basis ≠ Attached Liability Existing Basis ≠ Applicable Basis by default Evaluation under Basis A ≠ Evaluation under Basis B Condition Satisfaction ≠ Liability Attachment Condition Failure under Basis A ≠ No Liability under Basis B Liability Relationship ≠ Liability Attachment Shared Matter ≠ Shared Subject Evaluation Evaluation of Relationship A ≠ Evaluation of Relationship B Qualified Liability Connection ≠ Attached Liability Pending Connection ≠ Negative Connection Alternative Connection ≠ Irrelevant Connection Input Weight ≠ Input Truth Input Strength ≠ Liability Strength Multiple Inputs ≠ Multiple Independent Inputs Input Duplication ≠ Corroboration Missing Input ≠ Negative Determination Input by default Unknown Input ≠ Failed Requirement by default Uncertain Input ≠ Certain Evaluation Input Simpler Narrative ≠ Conflict Resolution Upstream Uncertainty ≠ Downstream Certainty by default Usable Evaluation ≠ Uncertainty-Free Evaluation Later Knowledge ≠ Earlier Knowledge Known Outcome at T2 ≠ Knowledge Available at T1 Scenario Evaluation ≠ Historical Determination Evaluation Counterfactual State ≠ Operational Reality One Matter ≠ One Evaluation Path Supports Attachment ≠ Attached Liability Partial Evaluation Support ≠ Partial Liability Pending Evaluation ≠ Negative Evaluation Unknown Evaluation ≠ Does Not Support Attachment Uncertain Evaluation ≠ Unknown Evaluation Disputed Evaluation ≠ Failed Evaluation Evaluation Confidence ≠ Legal Liability Probability Evaluation Sufficiency ≠ Positive Evaluation Evaluation Completeness ≠ Supports Attachment Untraceable Evaluation ≠ Fully Governed Evaluation Evaluation Correction ≠ Historical Erasure Evaluation Reassessment ≠ Evaluation Correction New Evaluation Version ≠ New Liability Origin by default Evaluation Supersession ≠ Historical Deletion Evaluation Reversal ≠ Erasure of Earlier Evaluation Evaluation Re-Entry ≠ New Liability Origin by default Outcome Severity ≠ Evaluation Result Subject Prominence ≠ Evaluation Criterion Insurance Availability ≠ Attachment Support Ability to Pay ≠ Liability Evaluation More Evidence ≠ Stronger Liability Evaluation by default Persuasive Narrative ≠ Governed Evaluation Automated Evaluation ≠ Authoritative Evaluation by default Human Seniority ≠ Evaluation Validity Current Evaluation State ≠ Complete Evaluation History Reality ≠ Knowledge ≠ Evaluation Record by default Governed Liability Determination Evaluation ≠ Liability Attachment Determination
Cross-Architecture Boundary
LDEM may evaluate governed inputs originating from other OOF® architectures.
ORA™ governs Operational Reality.
HAGA™ governs Harm.
AGA™ governs Responsibility, Accountability, Authority, and Attribution.
GOA™ governs Authority, Scope, Delegation, and other governance structures.
ADIT® governs evidence and auditability.
VALIDOS™ governs validation.
OBIDENITY® governs Identity, Ownership, Authority, Permission, Provenance, Transfer, and Continuity.
AIG® and ASGA™ govern AI and autonomous-system states.
PGA™ governs Prediction.
SIMULOS® governs Simulation.
LDEM does not re-evaluate those objects inside their originating domains.
It evaluates their Liability-specific significance within the defined Determination structure.
The canonical interoperability principle is:
An externally governed state may participate in Liability Determination Evaluation without becoming a Liability Determination and without transferring governance ownership of its original domain to LIGA™.
Canonical Boundary
LDEM begins with a:
Governed Liability Determination Input Set
and asks:
What does this governed input structure establish when evaluated under the applicable Liability Basis, Conditions, Relationships, Connections, and Determination Criteria?
LDEM governs:
Evaluation Object, Evaluation Scope, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Method, Basis Evaluation, Condition Evaluation, Subject Evaluation, Relationship Evaluation, Connection Evaluation, Input Evaluation, Dependency Evaluation, Temporal Evaluation, Conflict Evaluation, Uncertainty Evaluation, Alternative Evaluation, Scenario Evaluation, Evaluation State, Evaluation Confidence, Evaluation Completeness, Evaluation Sufficiency, Evaluation Change, Correction, Reassessment, Versioning, Supersession, Reversal, Historical Integrity, and Evaluation Handoff.
LDEM does not govern:
formal Liability Attachment, final Liability Determination State, Liability Scope, Liability Allocation, Liability State & Change, Liability Transfer, Recourse, Resolution, Discharge, or Finality.
LDEM ends when a:
Governed Liability Determination Evaluation
is sufficiently explicit and governed for formal Liability Determination & Attachment.
Use Case 1 — Autonomous System Determination
Evaluation
An autonomous industrial system performs an action followed by equipment damage.
LDIM has produced a Governed Liability Determination Input Set containing:
the applicable Liability Basis, the relevant Subject and Relationship structure, Condition states, the Governed Liability Connection Structure, Operational Reality, autonomous-system authority and execution states, and governed evidence references.
LDEM evaluates whether those inputs support Liability Attachment.
It may determine that the relevant Conditions are satisfied, the Connection is qualified, and the system action is sufficiently associated with the governed Object, while uncertainty remains concerning the operator's authority state.
The resulting Evaluation State may be:
Conditionally Supports Attachment
or another appropriate state.
LDEM does not formally attach Liability.
That determination passes to LDAM.
Use Case 2 — Multi-Party Industrial Evaluation
An industrial incident involves an owner, operator, maintenance provider, and component producer.
LDIM has produced Subject-specific and Basis-specific Determination Input Sets.
LDEM evaluates them independently.
The maintenance-provider Evaluation may support Attachment.
The operator Evaluation may partially support Attachment because a material Connection remains uncertain.
The producer Evaluation may not support Attachment under one Basis while supporting further evaluation under another.
The owner's Evaluation may remain Pending because an applicable Condition has not yet been resolved.
LDEM preserves these different Evaluation States rather than converting the shared incident into one Liability conclusion.
LDAM can then perform explicit Attachment Determinations for the relevant governed structures.
Canonical Closing Statement
Liability should not attach merely because the required inputs have been collected.
Those inputs must first be evaluated through an explicit methodology that preserves the applicable Basis, Conditions, Relationships, Connections, conflicts, uncertainty, timing, and scope.
LDEM creates that governed evaluation layer.
It determines what the complete input structure supports without prematurely converting evaluation into Attachment.
Evaluation establishes what the governed Liability structure supports. It does not itself attach Liability.
Evaluate the Liability structure before determining Attachment.