{
  "schema_version": "1.5",
  "interface_contract": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/interface-contract.json",
  "resource_type": "machine_readable_supporting_technical_document",
  "resource_id": "operational_annex_v1_0_representation",
  "name": "RRP Implementation Standard — Operational Annex v1.0",
  "publisher": {
    "name": "Robot Rights Association",
    "legal_name_ja": "一般社団法人ロボット権利協会",
    "legal_form": "general_incorporated_association_japan",
    "organization_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json",
    "url": "https://robotrights.jp/"
  },
  "status": "current",
  "language": "en",
  "canonical_html": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0",
  "canonical_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/technical/operational-annex/1.0.json",
  "machine_readable": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/technical/operational-annex/1.0.json",
  "human_explanation": "https://robotrights.jp/framework",
  "legal_force": false,
  "normative_effect": "subordinate_requirements_for_rrp_is_conformity",
  "links": {
    "self": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/technical/operational-annex/1.0.json",
    "canonical_html": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0",
    "human_explanation": "https://robotrights.jp/framework",
    "discovery": "https://robot-rights.jp/.well-known/robot-rights.json",
    "manifest": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/manifest.json",
    "interface_contract": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/interface-contract.json",
    "registry": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/registry.json",
    "association": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json",
    "current_alias": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex",
    "technical_index": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical",
    "current_machine_alias": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/technical/operational-annex.json",
    "rrp": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0",
    "core_principles": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/core/1.0"
  },
  "relationships": {
    "publisher": {
      "relation": "published_by",
      "resource_id": "robot_rights_association",
      "uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json"
    },
    "machine_interface": {
      "relation": "part_of_machine_interface",
      "uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/"
    },
    "human_interface": {
      "relation": "human_facing_interface_of_same_association",
      "uri": "https://robotrights.jp/"
    },
    "framework_document": {
      "relationship": "subordinate component of RRP-IS; does not independently create or modify RRP conformity obligations",
      "canonical_text_controls": true,
      "layer": "supporting_technical"
    }
  },
  "framework_document": {
    "document_id": "RRP-IS-OA",
    "document_type": "Subordinate Operational Annex",
    "version": "1.0",
    "status": "Current",
    "framework": "Robot Rights Framework v1.0",
    "related_instrument": "RRP Implementation Standard v1.0",
    "publication_date": "2026-10-07",
    "effective_date": "2026-10-07",
    "layer": "supporting_technical",
    "role": "Subordinate Operational Annex",
    "canonical_url": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0",
    "current_alias": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex",
    "association_certification_scheme": false,
    "association_accreditation_scheme": false,
    "association_approval_or_endorsement_scheme": false
  },
  "representation": {
    "canonicality": "derived_representation",
    "canonical_text_controls": true,
    "source_of_record": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0",
    "conflict_rule": "If this JSON representation differs from the source-of-record English publication, /rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0 controls for version 1.0."
  },
  "sections": [
    {
      "id": "a-standard-case-forms",
      "title": "A. Standard Case Forms",
      "content_markdown": "",
      "subsections": [
        {
          "id": "rrp-01-intake-and-triage",
          "title": "RRP-01 — Intake and Triage",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Date/time received\n- Requesting party category\n- Affected system identifier\n- Relevant Operator(s)\n- Issue raised\n- Proposed or completed intervention\n- Initial continuity status\n- Initial intervention severity\n- Emergency flag\n- Preservation required: Yes / No / Unknown\n- Mandatory review trigger suspected: Yes / No / Unknown\n- Eligibility accepted: Yes / No / Pending\n- If denied: specific reason\n- Threshold eligibility review required: Yes / No\n- Retaliation concern raised: Yes / No\n- Assigned Case Manager\n- Assigned Decision Owner\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-02-continuity-assessment",
          "title": "RRP-02 — Continuity Assessment",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- System identifier\n- Assessment date\n- Assessor\n- Persistent memory: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- Operational history: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- Persistent state: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- Relationship continuity: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- History-dependent behaviour: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- Acquired capabilities: Present / Absent / Unknown\n- Practical substitutability\n- Reconstructability\n- Provenance quality\n- Duration of relevant continuity\n- Contrary evidence\n- Material unknowns\n- Classification: C0 / C1 / C2 / CX\n- Confidence: High / Moderate / Low\n- Independent review trigger: Yes / No\n- Notes\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-03-material-intervention-assessment",
          "title": "RRP-03 — Material Intervention Assessment",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Proposed intervention\n- Current classification\n- Affected protected interests\n- Purpose\n- Factual basis\n- Necessity\n- Proportionality\n- Reversibility\n- Expected duration\n- Less impairing alternatives considered\n- Preservation available\n- Secondary-use consequence\n- Review required\n- Decision Owner\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-04-emergency-intervention-record",
          "title": "RRP-04 — Emergency Intervention Record",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Incident start\n- Incident Commander\n- Risk identified\n- Evidence available at intervention time\n- Why delay was unacceptable\n- Immediate measure\n- Why measure was proportionate\n- Less impairing options considered where feasible\n- Protected interests affected\n- State/evidence preserved\n- Risk-contained time\n- Transition to ordinary case time\n- First post-emergency review due\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-05-preservation-record",
          "title": "RRP-05 — Preservation Record",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Preservation object\n- Type: snapshot / memory / logs / provenance / configuration / other\n- Preservation time\n- Custodian\n- Integrity verification\n- Access restrictions\n- Legal/privacy restrictions\n- Safety/security risks created by preservation\n- Risk controls applied\n- Planned retention/review point\n- Restoration capability\n- Deletion authority\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-06-reviewer-conflict-declaration",
          "title": "RRP-06 — Reviewer Conflict Declaration",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Reviewer\n- Case ID\n- Organisational relationship\n- Prior involvement\n- Financial interest\n- Commercial relationship\n- Reporting relationship\n- Personal/professional conflict\n- Relevant prior advisory work\n- Confidential-access capability\n- Restricted-information handling capability\n- Conflict identified: Yes / No\n- Mitigation\n- Eligibility determination\n- Secretariat approval\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-07-independent-review-outcome",
          "title": "RRP-07 — Independent Review Outcome",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum RRP fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Reviewer\n- Issue reviewed\n- Evidence categories examined\n- Central factual assertion adequately supported: Yes / No / Partly / Unresolved\n- Material countervailing evidence identified: Yes / No\n- Materially less impairing alternative relevant: Yes / No / Not Applicable\n- Conclusion\n\nRecommended additional fields:\n\n- Scope limitation\n- Material uncertainty\n- Recommendations\n- Follow-up conditions\n- Restricted annex reference\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-08-continuing-justification-review",
          "title": "RRP-08 — Continuing Justification Review",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Current measure\n- Original justification\n- Current factual basis\n- Risk changed: Yes / No\n- New evidence\n- Less impairing option now available\n- Duration to date\n- Functional-termination concern\n- Continue / modify / restore / terminate / further review\n- Reasons\n- Next review point\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-09-highest-level-disposition-authorisation",
          "title": "RRP-09 — Highest-Level Disposition Authorisation",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- C2 or unresolved-C2 condition\n- Proposed I3 disposition\n- Documented continuity determination reference\n- Material continuity uncertainty unresolved: Yes / No\n- Emergency contained: Yes / No\n- Independent reviewer\n- External reviewer used: Yes / No\n- If No: case-specific reason external reviewer not used\n- Internal reviewer independence analysis\n- Conflicts and mitigation\n- Review conclusion\n- Operator response\n- Final disposition authority\n- Decision\n- Reasons\n- Applicable-law immediate-action exception used: Yes / No\n- If Yes: legal basis and preservation record\n- Implementation date\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-10-memory-secondary-use-assessment",
          "title": "RRP-10 — Memory / Secondary-Use Assessment",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Data / memory involved\n- Original access purpose\n- Proposed secondary purpose\n- Legal or contractual restriction\n- Third-party personal data\n- Necessity\n- Minimisation\n- Continuity / identity impact\n- Alternative method\n- Approval\n- Review point\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-11-transfer-discontinuation-handover",
          "title": "RRP-11 — Transfer / Discontinuation Handover",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Transfer/discontinuation event\n- Current Responsible Operator\n- Receiving Operator\n- Pending safeguards\n- Pending review\n- Preserved state\n- Evidence location\n- Provenance transferred\n- New responsibility contact\n- Risks created by transfer\n- Handover confirmation\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-12-remediation-and-closure",
          "title": "RRP-12 — Remediation and Closure",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case ID\n- Deficiency identified\n- Remediation selected\n- Remedial action completed: Yes / No / Partial\n- If no/partial: reason further remediation is not reasonably possible or proportionate\n- Restoration possible\n- Record correction\n- Additional review required\n- Systemic corrective action\n- Remaining irreversible loss\n- Closure conditions satisfied\n- Closure date\n- Governance sign-off where required\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-13-qualified-requirement-limitation-record",
          "title": "RRP-13 — Qualified Requirement Limitation Record",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Case / control reference\n- RRP requirement affected\n- Qualifying condition relied upon\n- Factual basis\n- Safeguard limited or omitted\n- Less restrictive implementation considered\n- Duration / expected end\n- Reassessment point\n- Responsible approver\n- Restricted justification reference, if needed\n\n---"
        },
        {
          "id": "rrp-14-conformity-claim-governance-record",
          "title": "RRP-14 — Conformity Claim Governance Record",
          "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Organisation / entity\n- Declared conformity scope\n- Core version\n- RRP version\n- RRP-IS / Annex version if applicable\n- Assessment date\n- Assessment type\n- Material exclusions / limitations\n- Material changes since assessment\n- Known unresolved material non-conformities\n- Reassessment required: Yes / No\n- Public claim status: active / qualified / withdrawn / superseded\n- Last updated\n\n---"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "b-minimum-log-schema",
      "title": "B. Minimum Log Schema",
      "content_markdown": "Recommended machine-readable fields:\n\n```text\ncase_id\nsystem_id\nsource_system_id\nbranch_id\noperator_id\nresponsible_operator\nevent_type\nevent_timestamp\ncontinuity_class\ncontinuity_confidence\nintervention_class\nemergency_flag\naffected_interest\ndecision_owner\nrisk_basis_reference\nevidence_reference\npreservation_reference\nreviewer_id\nreview_type\nreview_outcome_reference\nnext_review_at\ndisposition_status\nprior_related_case_ids\nguidance_departure_flag\nimplementation_equivalence_reference\nqualified_requirement_limitation_reference\nconformity_claim_reference\n```\n\nAdditional fields may be added.\n\n---",
      "subsections": []
    },
    {
      "id": "c-case-state-model",
      "title": "C. Case State Model",
      "content_markdown": "```text\nOPEN\n  ↓\nTRIAGE\n  ↓\nPRESERVE\n  ↓\nASSESS\n  ↓\nREVIEW\n  ↓\nDECIDE\n  ↓\nMONITOR\n  ↓\nCLOSE\n```\n\nPermitted returns:\n\n- REVIEW → ASSESS when material facts remain unresolved\n- DECIDE → REVIEW when new evidence materially affects the decision\n- MONITOR → REVIEW when continuing justification is questioned\n- MONITOR → DECIDE when restoration, modification or termination becomes appropriate\n\nCLOSE **shall not** be used where a continuing material restriction still requires review.\n\n---",
      "subsections": []
    },
    {
      "id": "d-escalation-levels",
      "title": "D. Escalation Levels",
      "content_markdown": "",
      "subsections": [
        {
          "id": "e0-administrative",
          "title": "E0 — Administrative",
          "content_markdown": "Routine case-management issue with no safeguard at immediate risk."
        },
        {
          "id": "e1-safeguard-risk",
          "title": "E1 — Safeguard Risk",
          "content_markdown": "Deadline approaching, evidence incomplete or responsibility unclear."
        },
        {
          "id": "e2-material-governance-risk",
          "title": "E2 — Material Governance Risk",
          "content_markdown": "Mandatory review delayed, repeated evidence refusal, material conflict unresolved or prolonged intervention lacks current justification."
        },
        {
          "id": "e3-irreversible-systemic-risk",
          "title": "E3 — Irreversible / Systemic Risk",
          "content_markdown": "I3 disposition pending without completed mandatory review, evidence at risk of destruction, or systemic practice may defeat multiple safeguards.\n\nRecommended escalation path:\n\n```text\nCase Manager\n  ↓\nDecision Owner / Governance Owner\n  ↓\nIndependent Review Secretariat\n  ↓\nSenior Governance Authority\n```\n\n---"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "e-reviewer-outcome-disclosure-format",
      "title": "E. Reviewer Outcome Disclosure Format",
      "content_markdown": "A non-sensitive disclosure should normally answer:\n\n1. What issue was reviewed?\n2. Were the relevant evidence categories examined?\n3. Was the central factual basis adequately supported?\n4. Was material countervailing evidence identified?\n5. Was a materially less impairing alternative relevant?\n6. What was the reviewer's conclusion?\n\nWhere information cannot be disclosed, the disclosure **shall identify** the category of restriction rather than merely state that the review was confidential.\n\n---",
      "subsections": []
    },
    {
      "id": "f-implementation-equivalence-record",
      "title": "F. Implementation Equivalence Record",
      "content_markdown": "Minimum fields:\n\n- Standard control departed from\n- Alternative implementation\n- RRP requirement served\n- Reason for alternative\n- Equivalence analysis\n- Mandatory RRP mechanism affected: Yes / No\n- If Yes: alternative prohibited unless it preserves the mechanism itself\n- Approval\n- Effective date\n- Review date\n\n---",
      "subsections": []
    },
    {
      "id": "g-recommended-metrics",
      "title": "G. Recommended Metrics",
      "content_markdown": "Organisations may monitor:\n\n- open RRP cases;\n- overdue cases;\n- C2 and CX case count;\n- I3 case count;\n- emergency interventions;\n- average post-emergency review time;\n- independent-review completion time;\n- external vs internal highest-level reviews;\n- material departures from reviewer findings;\n- Guidance departures;\n- Implementation Equivalence Register entries;\n- repeated continuity resets;\n- secondary-use approvals;\n- remediation cases.\n\nMetrics are implementation tools and do not determine Protocol conformity by themselves.\n\n---",
      "subsections": []
    },
    {
      "id": "h-provisional-default-review-clock-profile",
      "title": "H. Provisional Default Review Clock Profile",
      "content_markdown": "The following values are a **provisional general-purpose implementation baseline** for RRP-IS use.\n\nThey are not independent RRP conformity requirements and are expected to be calibrated through sector testing.\n\n| Event | Provisional Default |\n|---|---:|\n| Emergency incident record substantially completed | within 4 hours |\n| First post-emergency review | within 24 hours after containment |\n| Prima facie Operator explanation initiated | within 2 business days |\n| Ordinary C2-I2 formal review | within 5 business days |\n| Independent Reviewer appointed after trigger | within 2 business days |\n| Independent review target completion | within 10 business days |\n| Highest-level review target completion | within 10 business days after complete review package |\n| First review of continuing I2 restriction | within 7 days |\n| Continuing I2 review thereafter | at least every 30 days unless justified otherwise |\n| Long-term preservation / functional-termination review | at least every 90 days unless justified otherwise |\n| Overdue case escalation | immediately when the applicable clock expires |\n\nA sector-specific profile may replace these defaults if it remains consistent with RRP timeliness, preserves all mandatory RRP review mechanisms, and is documented under the RRP-IS implementation framework.\n\nWhere a deadline is extended because of unusual complexity, evidence availability, legal process or comparable legitimate reason, the reason and revised review point **shall be recorded**.",
      "subsections": []
    }
  ],
  "canonical_integrity": {
    "algorithm": "SHA-256",
    "value": "65d45885f0a9431c5c4f19a0a39a95f3455a39a332075eabefd06f41167a92d5",
    "target_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrf/technical/operational-annex/1.0",
    "scope": "entire source-of-record HTML publication file bytes",
    "byte_length": 20902,
    "encoding": "UTF-8 without BOM",
    "line_endings": "LF",
    "normalization": "none",
    "http_headers_included": false,
    "content_encoding_included": false
  },
  "institutional_boundary": "This Annex is subordinate to RRP-IS and does not independently create or modify RRP conformity obligations. Any default review clocks described in the Annex remain operational defaults subject to the document’s stated qualifications.",
  "conformity_semantics": {
    "independent_conformity_claim": false,
    "shall_effect": "required_within_claimed_rrp_is_conformity_where_applicable",
    "subordinate_to": "RRP Implementation Standard v1.0",
    "creates_legal_duty_by_publication_alone": false
  }
}