In the D-POAF® ecosystem, roles are designed to exploit the full potential of AI-driven automation while fostering horizontal collaboration without unilateral decision-making. Each role contributes structurally to traceability, proof generation, and continuous software delivery, in accordance with collective intelligence principles.
Primary Mission: Prepares intelligent context for AI by automatically extracting and structuring business requirements from complex documents such as specifications.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: The RAGer® provides structured raw material that will serve as the basis for prompts and subsequent deliverables, ensuring each business requirement is properly documented and fully traceable.
Required Skills:
Typical Tools:
Concrete Example:
A RAGer® receives a 200-page specification for a banking application. Using RAG, they automatically extract 45 structured Feature Blocks® (e.g., “FB_AUTH_001 - Multi-factor authentication”, “PAYMENT_TRANSFER_003 - SEPA transfer”), each with acceptance criteria, constraints, and dependencies.
Primary Mission: Transforms business needs into optimized prompts that generate code, tests, documentation, and interfaces.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: The Wave Surfer® guarantees precise traceability between each deliverable and its original prompt, ensuring proof and reproducibility of results.
Required Skills:
Typical Tools:
Concrete Example:
For Feature Block® “FB_AUTH_001 - Multi-factor authentication”, the Wave Surfer® creates 4 Prompt Actions®:
- PA-AUTH-001-CODE: “Generate authentication function in Node.js with bcrypt and JWT…”
- PA-AUTH-001-TEST: “Create unit tests with Jest, minimum 80% coverage…”
- PA-AUTH-001-DOC: “Write API documentation with OpenAPI 3.0…”
- PA-AUTH-001-UI: “Generate React component for login form…”
Primary Mission: Automatically generate code, tests, documentation, and any executable deliverable from Prompt Actions®.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: AI Agents ensure each delivery is secured, verifiable, and strictly aligned with the initial business requirement.
Types of AI Agents:
Typical Tools:
Concrete Example:
A Code Agent receives Prompt Action® “PA-AUTH-001-CODE” and automatically generates:
src/auth/register.js: complete registration functionsrc/auth/login.js: login function with JWTsrc/middleware/authMiddleware.js: route protection middlewareEach file is cryptographically hashed and recorded in WaveRegister® with its hash, timestamp, and link to source prompt.
Primary Mission: Orchestrates the end-to-end delivery cycle, from planning to final validation.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: The Wave Captain® secures reliable, fast, and error-free delivery flow, guaranteeing auditability and proof.
Required Skills:
Typical Tools:
Concrete Example:
The Wave Captain® organizes a Wave Planning® to prioritize 5 Feature Blocks® according to their PVS®. They then coordinate:
- The RAGer® who prepares the context
- The Wave Surfer® who creates 20 Prompt Actions®
- The AI Agents who generate deliverables in 4 hours
- The Wave Vote® where the community validates results with PoV® of 78% (70% threshold reached)
Primary Mission: All project members vote on important decisions and actively participate in Living Governance®.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: Community Members embody horizontal governance and collective intelligence, ensuring decisions reflect the group’s will.
Who are they?
Rights and Duties:
Concrete Example:
During a Wave Vote®, 12 Community Members vote on delivery validation:
- 8 members allocate their points mainly to Feature Block A (BVS=9, PVS=35)
- 4 members prefer Feature Block B (BVS=7, PVS=22)
- Final PoV score for A: 78% of maximum (70% threshold reached → validated)
- Decision recorded in WaveRegister® with all vote details
Primary Mission: Continuously monitor security, compliance, and application stability after delivery.
Key Responsibilities:
Framework Contribution: Peace Guardians® guarantee resilience, compliance, and stability of the D-POAF® ecosystem, protecting applications against security risks and ensuring overall reliability.
Required Skills:
Typical Tools:
Concrete Example:
A Peace Guardian® detects abnormal increase in failed login attempts on authentication API (possible brute-force attacks). They:
- Automatically activate reinforced rate limiting
- Block suspicious IPs
- Alert Wave Captain®
- Create incident report in FeedbackRegister®
- Propose Dynamic Law® to harden authentication rules (submitted to vote)
The RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) clarifies each role’s responsibilities in D-POAF® key activities.
Legend:
| Activity | RAGer® | Wave Surfer® | AI Agents | Wave Captain® | Community Members® | Peace Guardians® |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature Blocks® extraction | R/A | C | I | C | I | I |
| Prompt Actions® creation | C | R/A | I | C | I | I |
| Deliverable generation | I | C | R/A | C | I | I |
| Wave® planning | C | C | I | R/A | C | I |
| Delivery coordination | I | C | C | R/A | I | I |
| Feedback collection | C | C | C | R | C | C |
| Dynamic Laws® proposal | C | C | C | C | R/A | C |
| Prioritization vote (PVS®) | C | C | C | C | R/A | C |
| Validation vote (PoV®) | C | C | C | C | R/A | C |
| Security monitoring | I | I | I | C | I | R/A |
| Compliance audit | C | C | I | C | C | R/A |
| Incident response | I | I | C | C | I | R/A |
| Prompt improvement | C | R/A | C | C | I | I |
| Pattern capitalization | R | C | I | C | C | I |
Important Note: In D-POAF®, the “A” (Accountable) is often collective via Community Members® voting mechanism. No individual role holds unilateral decision-making power over strategic choices.
D-POAF® artifacts are tangible elements that structure, trace, and orchestrate the project lifecycle. In this methodological guide, we present the 5 fundamental artifacts that define the methodological approach. Detailed technical artifacts are covered in the Technical Architecture Guide.
Definition: A Feature Block® is an atomic functional unit representing a complete business capability deliverable independently.
Characteristics:
Feature Block® structure:
ID: FB_AUTH_001
Title: Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
Description: Allow users to log in with email/password + SMS code
Business Value Score (BVS®): 9/10
Effort & Risk Score (ERS®): 1.8
Prioritization Value Score (PVS®): 45
Acceptance criteria:
- User can enable/disable MFA
- SMS code valid for 5 minutes
- Maximum 3 incorrect code attempts
- Complete logs of login attempts
Technical constraints:
- Node.js 18+, Express
- PostgreSQL database
- SMS Service: Twilio
- GDPR compliance for phone number storage
Dependencies:
- FB_AUTH_000 (Simple authentication) must be delivered
Required tests:
- Minimum coverage: 80%
- Integration tests with Twilio in sandbox mode
Decomposition Example:
Project: Mobile Banking Application
└─ Module: AUTHENTICATION
├─ FB-AUTH-001: User registration
├─ FB-AUTH-002: Simple login (email/password)
├─ FB-AUTH-003: Multi-factor authentication (MFA)
├─ FB-AUTH-004: Password reset
└─ FB-AUTH-005: Session management and JWT tokens
└─ Module: PAYMENTS
├─ FB-PAY-001: SEPA transfer
├─ FB-PAY-002: Card payment
└─ FB-PAY-003: Transaction history
Feature Block® Lifecycle:
Definition: A Prompt Action® is a structured and optimized instruction directed to AI to generate a specific deliverable (code, test, documentation, interface).
Characteristics:
Prompt Action® structure:
ID: PA-AUTH-003-CODE
Feature Block: FB_AUTH_001 (MFA Authentication)
Type: Code Generation
Version: 2.1
Date: 2025-10-08
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Stack: Node.js 18 + Express + PostgreSQL
Pattern: JWT_AUTHENTICATION_PATTERN
Security: bcrypt cost 12, strict validation
Tests: Jest, minimum 80% coverage
OBJECTIVE:
Create complete MFA activation function that:
- Generates random 6-digit SMS code
- Sends code via Twilio
- Stores hashed code in database with 5min expiration
- Validates code during login
- Limits to 3 incorrect attempts
TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS:
- Response time: < 300ms (p95)
- Rate limiting: max 5 SMS/user/hour
- Error handling: 400, 429, 500, 503 (Twilio down)
- Logs: Winston, INFO level minimum
EXPECTED DELIVERABLES:
1. src/auth/mfa/enableMFA.js
2. src/auth/mfa/verifyMFA.js
3. tests/auth/mfa.test.js
4. docs/api/mfa.md
VALIDATION CRITERIA:
✓ All tests pass with coverage ≥ 80%
✓ ESLint: 0 errors
✓ No vulnerabilities (no SMS code in clear text)
✓ Complete API documentation
PATTERNS TO FOLLOW:
Reference: src/auth/login.js (JWT generation, error handling)
Use: AppError class from src/utils/errors.js
Types of Prompt Actions®:
| Type | Generates | Example |
|---|---|---|
| CODE | Source code | PA-AUTH-003-CODE |
| TEST | Unit/integration tests | PA-AUTH-003-TEST |
| DOC | Technical documentation | PA-AUTH-003-DOC |
| UI | User interface | PA-AUTH-003-UI |
| API | API specification (OpenAPI) | PA-AUTH-003-API |
| DB | Database scripts (migrations) | PA-AUTH-003-DB |
Prompt Action® Evolution:
Version 1.0 → Initial generation
Feedback: "SMS code doesn't expire correctly"
Version 1.1 → Added explicit expiration
Feedback: "No rate limiting on SMS sending"
Version 2.0 → Added rate limiting
Feedback: "Twilio errors poorly handled"
Version 2.1 → Complete Twilio error handling (current version)
Definition: The Workhub® is the intelligent and secure environment that centralizes the entire project lifecycle, from requirements capture to post-delivery monitoring.
Role: The Workhub® acts as the operational brain of the D-POAF® project, orchestrating all components and facilitating collaboration between humans and AI.
Integrated Components in Workhub®:
Workhub® Benefits:
Workhub® Interface Example (conceptual view):
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ WORKHUB® - Project: Banking Mobile App │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│Dashboard │
│ ├─ 45 Feature Blocks® (12 in progress, 28 delivered, 5 backlog) │
│ ├─ Current Wave: #23 (PLAN phase, 78% complete) │
│ ├─ PE®: 8.5/10 | QL®: 92% | AA®: 67% │
│ │
│Feature Blocks® in progress │
│ ├─ FB-AUTH-003 (MFA) - PVS: 45 - Wave Surfer: Alice │
│ ├─ FB-PAY-001 (SEPA) - PVS: 38 - Wave Surfer: Bob │
│ └─ FB-NOTIF-002 (Push) - PVS: 22 - Wave Surfer: Carol │
│ │
│Recent Prompt Actions® │
│ ├─ PA-AUTH-003-CODE (v2.1) - Generated 2h ago │
│ ├─ PA-AUTH-003-TEST (v1.0) - In progress... │
│ └─ PA-PAY-001-DB (v1.3) - Validated OK │
│ │
│Recent Feedbacks (12 new) │
│ ├─ "Bug detected: MFA code expires too soon" (Critical) │
│ ├─ "SEPA form UI not intuitive" (Medium) │
│ └─ "Excellent performance on auth module" (Positive) │
│ │
│Ongoing Vote │
│ Dynamic Law DL-2025-008: "Harden auth rules" │
│ 7/12 votes received - Closes in 18h │
│ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Workhub® Integrations:
Definition: PromptRegister® is a secured and versioned registry that archives all Prompt Actions® used in the project, guaranteeing traceability and reproducibility.
Key Features:
Registration Structure:
{
"id": "PA-AUTH-003-CODE",
"feature_block": "FB_AUTH_001",
"version": "2.1",
"created_at": "2025-10-08T14:32:15Z",
"author": "alice.dupont@example.com",
"prompt_content": "[complete prompt content]",
"hash": "a3f5b2c8d1e9f0a7b4c2d8e1f5a9b3c7d2e8f1a5",
"linked_deliverables": [
"src/auth/mfa/enableMFA.js",
"src/auth/mfa/verifyMFA.js"
],
"waveregister_block": "0x1234abcd...",
"feedback_count": 3,
"success_rate": 0.94,
"avg_generation_time": "42s"
}
Benefits:
Workflow Example:
1. Wave Surfer® creates PA-AUTH-003-CODE v1.0
→ Recorded in PromptRegister®
→ Hash stored in WaveRegister®
2. AI Agent generates code
→ Deliverable linked to prompt in registry
3. Negative feedback received
→ Wave Surfer® improves prompt → v1.1
→ New version recorded with link to feedback
4. After 3 iterations → v2.1 (optimal version)
→ Marked as "recommended template"
→ Reusable for other similar Feature Blocks®
Definition: FeedbackRegister® centralizes all feedback (business, users, technical, QA) and feeds the framework’s continuous improvement loop.
Feedback Types:
| Type | Source | Impact on |
|---|---|---|
| Business Feedback | Product Owners, stakeholders | BVS®, prioritization |
| User Feedback | End users, beta testers | UI/UX, ergonomics |
| Technical Feedback | Developers, architects | Code quality, architecture |
| QA Feedback | Testers, Peace Guardians® | Bugs, vulnerabilities |
| AI Feedback | AI Agents themselves | Prompt optimization |
Feedback Structure:
{
"id": "FB-2025-234",
"type": "Technical",
"severity": "High",
"feature_block": "FB_AUTH_001",
"prompt_action": "PA-AUTH-003-CODE-v2.0",
"title": "MFA code expires too soon",
"description": "SMS code should expire after 5min but expires after 2min in production",
"reported_by": "bob.martin@example.com",
"reported_at": "2025-10-08T16:45:22Z",
"status": "In Progress",
"assigned_to": "Wave Surfer Alice",
"linked_to_prompt_version": "PA-AUTH-003-CODE-v2.1",
"resolution": "Prompt improved with explicit 300s timeout",
"waveregister_block": "0x5678efgh...",
"impact_on_bvs": -1,
"impact_on_ers": +0.2
}
Feedback Processing Process:
1. COLLECTION
Feedback reported via Workhub® or integrated tools
2. TRIAGE
Severity evaluated: Critical | High | Medium | Low
Assignment to appropriate role
3. ANALYSIS
Impact on BVS®, ERS®, PVS® evaluated
Decision: Prompt to improve? Feature Block to review?
4. ACTION
Wave Surfer® creates new prompt version
Or: New Wave® planned for correction
5. VALIDATION
New generation tested
Feedback marked "Resolved"
6. ARCHIVING
Blockchain recording in WaveRegister®
Updated statistics
FeedbackRegister® Benefits:
Definition (Methodological View): WaveRegister® is the cryptographic traceability infrastructure that immutably records all D-POAF® project activities, decisions, and deliverables.
Role in Methodological Process:
What is recorded in WaveRegister®?
| Element | Example |
|---|---|
| Feature Blocks® | FB-AUTH-001 created, scored BVS=9, prioritized PVS=45 |
| Prompt Actions® | PA-AUTH-003-CODE v2.1 created, hashed, linked to FB-AUTH-001 |
| Generated deliverables | src/auth/mfa/enableMFA.js generated, hash: a3f5b2c8… |
| Feedbacks | FB-2025-234: “MFA timeout bug”, severity High |
| Votes and decisions | PoV® Vote: Feature Block A validated with 78% (12 voters) |
| Dynamic Laws® | DL-2025-008: “Harden auth rules” voted and adopted (9/12 votes) |
| Completed Waves® | Wave #23 completed: 3 FB delivered, PE®=8.5, QL®=92% |
Benefits for Different Roles:
For Wave Captain®:
For Community Members®:
For Peace Guardians®:
For External Auditors:
Simplified Process View:
1. Action performed (e.g., Feature Block® creation)
↓
2. Data hashed (SHA-256 or equivalent)
↓
3. Hash recorded in WaveRegister® block
↓
4. Block cryptographically linked to previous block (chain)
↓
5. Impossible to modify without breaking chain
↓
6. Traceability and integrity guaranteed ✓
Important Note: Technical details of blockchain implementation (cryptographic algorithms, distributed architecture, consensus mechanisms, etc.) are covered in the D-POAF® Technical Architecture Guide. This methodological guide focuses on WaveRegister® benefits and uses in the work process.
Living Governance® is the beating heart of D-POAF®. It embodies living, decentralized, and evolving governance where decisions emerge from collective intelligence rather than hierarchical authority.
Principle #1: Equality of Voice Each participant (human or qualified AI) has an equal voice in collective decisions. No role holds unilateral power.
Principle #2: Evidence-Based Decisions All important decisions rely on objective data: metrics (BVS®, ERS®, PVS®), feedback, Wave® results.
Principle #3: Total Transparency Every proposal, vote, and decision is immutably recorded in WaveRegister®, accessible to all members.
Principle #4: Continuous Evolution Project rules (Dynamic Laws®) are not fixed. They evolve in real-time according to needs and learnings.
Principle #5: Collective Responsibility Decisions are made collectively, responsibility is shared. Successes and failures belong to the entire team.
Fundamental Difference with Traditional Approaches:
| Criteria | Traditional Approach | Living Governance® D-POAF® |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-making | Product Owner / Manager decides | Collective vote |
| Prioritization | Subjective, PO opinion | Objective, PVS® algorithm |
| Project rules | Fixed, difficult to change | Evolving Dynamic Laws® |
| Transparency | Limited, untraced decisions | Total, immutable blockchain |
| Responsibility | Individual (PO assumes) | Collective (team assumes) |
| Adaptation | Slow, requires reorganization | Fast, self-adjustment |
Definition: Dynamic Laws® are project governance rules, collectively voted on and immutably recorded in WaveRegister®. They govern project operation and can evolve at any time.
Types of Dynamic Laws®:
1. Process Laws Define how work is organized.
Examples:
2. Quality Laws Establish quality standards.
Examples:
3. Security Laws Reinforce security and compliance.
Examples:
4. Governance Laws Regulate the decision-making process itself.
Examples:
5. Technical Laws Impose technical constraints.
Examples:
Who can propose a Dynamic Law®? Any project member (Community Members®), regardless of role.
Proposal Process:
Step 1: DRAFTING The proposer drafts the Dynamic Law® according to standard template:
ID: DL-2025-008
Title: Harden Authentication Rules
Type: Security Law
Proposed by: bob.martin@example.com (Peace Guardian®)
Date: 2025-10-08
CONTEXT:
Following 3 security incidents detected this week (brute-force
attempts), it is necessary to strengthen authentication rules.
PROPOSAL:
1. Enable strict rate limiting: 5 attempts/IP/hour (currently 10)
2. Automatically block IPs after 5 failures (currently warning)
3. Require MFA for all admin users (currently optional)
IMPACT:
- BVS®: +2 (strengthened security)
- ERS®: +0.3 (low implementation effort)
- Implementation deadline: 1 MicroWave® (2-3 hours)
JUSTIFICATION:
- Incident SEC-2025-034: 240 brute-force attempts detected
- Incident SEC-2025-036: Admin account compromised without MFA
- ISO 27001 compliance: hardening recommendation
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
- Alternative 1: Captcha after 3 failures (rejected: bad UX)
- Alternative 2: Mandatory MFA for everyone (rejected: too constraining)
REQUIRED VOTE:
Threshold: 70% (strategic security decision)
Vote duration: 48 hours
Step 2: PUBLICATION Proposal is published in Workhub® and all Community Members® are notified.
Step 3: DISCUSSION Open discussion period (24-72h depending on urgency) where members can:
Step 4: AMENDMENTS (optional) If amendments are proposed and reach consensus, Dynamic Law® is updated before vote.
Who votes? All project Community Members® + qualified AI (if enabled for this vote type).
Voting Mechanism:
Voting uses weighted points system:
Distribution Modes (recall Section 11.3):
Mode is defined by Dynamic Law® or specified in proposal.
Result Calculation:
For each proposed Dynamic Law®, score is calculated as:
Score_DL = Σ (Points allocated by each voter)
If Score_DL ≥ Required_threshold → ADOPTED
Otherwise → REJECTED
Validation Thresholds:
Real Vote Example:
Dynamic Law: DL-2025-008 (Harden auth rules)
Required threshold: 70% of maximum
Duration: 48h
Voters: 12 Community Members
RESULTS:
Voter 1 (Alice - Wave Surfer®): 8 points → For
Voter 2 (Bob - Peace Guardian®): 10 points → For
Voter 3 (Carol - RAGer®): 7 points → For
Voter 4 (David - Developer): 5 points → For
Voter 5 (Emma - PO): 4 points → For
Voter 6 (Frank - Developer): 6 points → For
Voter 7 (Grace - QA): 7 points → For
Voter 8 (Henry - DevOps): 3 points → For
Voter 9 (Iris - Designer): 2 points → Abstention (unused points)
Voter 10 (Jack - Developer): 8 points → For
Voter 11 (Kate - Architect): 9 points → For
Voter 12 (Leo - Manager): 6 points → For
Total Points Allocated: 75 points
Maximum Possible: 12 × 10 = 120 points
Score Obtained: 75 / 120 = 62.5%
Required Threshold: 70%
Result: ❌ REJECTED (insufficient score)
Comments:
- Proposal did not reach required 70% threshold
- Many favorable voters BUT without strong conviction
- Recommendation: Amend and repropose with more clarification
After the Vote:
If ADOPTED:
If REJECTED:
Everything is Recorded:
Each Dynamic Law®, whether adopted or rejected, is recorded in WaveRegister® with:
{
"id": "DL-2025-008",
"title": "Harden authentication rules",
"type": "Security Law",
"proposed_by": "bob.martin@example.com",
"proposed_at": "2025-10-08T09:30:00Z",
"vote_opened_at": "2025-10-08T10:00:00Z",
"vote_closed_at": "2025-10-10T10:00:00Z",
"threshold_required": 0.70,
"votes": [
{"voter": "alice@...", "points": 8},
{"voter": "bob@...", "points": 10},
...
],
"total_points": 75,
"max_possible": 120,
"score": 0.625,
"status": "REJECTED",
"reason": "Score 62.5% < threshold 70%",
"waveregister_block": "0x9abc1234...",
"immutable_hash": "e8d3a7f2b9c4d1e5f8a3b7c2d9e4f1a8"
}
Benefits of This Traceability:
✅ Total Transparency: Impossible to deny or modify past decision
✅ Collective Learning: Analysis of Dynamic Laws® that succeeded or failed
✅ Facilitated Audit: Auditors can verify rules are respected
✅ Conflict Resolution: In case of disagreement, return to voted decisions
✅ Regulatory Compliance: Proof of formal governance for regulators
Scenario: “Production Performance Crisis”
CONTEXT: Mobile banking application experiences significant production slowdowns. API response time increased from 150ms (p95) to 850ms, impacting 30% of users.
DAY 1 - DETECTION:
09:00 - Peace Guardians® detect anomaly via monitoring
09:15 - Incident created: INC-2025-042 “API performance degradation”
09:30 - Wave Captain® convenes emergency meeting (all roles)
DAY 1 - ANALYSIS:
10:00 - Collective analysis:
11:00 - Wave Captain® proposes emergency MicroWave®:
DAY 1 - GOVERNANCE ACTIVATED:
11:30 - Proposal for temporary Dynamic Law®:
ID: DL-2025-009 (EMERGENCY)
Title: Authorize critical MicroWave® without prior vote
Type: Process Law (temporary, 7 days)
PROPOSAL:
In case of critical incident (impact > 25% users), authorize
Wave Captain® to launch immediate correction MicroWave® WITHOUT
prior PoV® vote.
CONDITIONS:
- Mandatory retrospective validation within 24h
- If retrospective vote rejects → immediate rollback
- Applicable only for critical security or performance hotfix
- Dynamic Law® expires automatically after 7 days
JUSTIFICATION:
Incident INC-2025-042: 30% users impacted, business urgency
12:00 - Express vote opened (duration: 6 hours, constrained mode)
18:00 - Vote closed:
DAY 1 - ACTION:
18:30 - MicroWave® FB-PERF-001 launched under DL-2025-009
19:00 - AI Agents generate optimized queries
19:45 - Automated tests pass (85% coverage)
20:00 - Production deployment
20:15 - Monitoring confirms: Response time returned to 180ms (p95)
DAY 2 - RETROSPECTIVE VALIDATION:
10:00 - Wave Feedback®: Collective experience feedback
11:00 - Retrospective PoV® vote on MicroWave®:
DAY 2 - CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:
14:00 - Feedback added to FeedbackRegister®:
15:00 - New permanent Dynamic Law® proposed:
DL-2025-010: Mandatory performance audit before each Wave®
- Any Feature Block® touching DB must pass profiling
- Slow queries (> 100ms) block validation
- Peace Guardians® responsible for check
DAY 7 - CLOSURE:
10:00 - DL-2025-009 (temporary) expires automatically
10:00 - DL-2025-010 (permanent) voted and adopted (82% of votes)
11:00 - Incident INC-2025-042 officially closed
11:00 - Complete history recorded in WaveRegister® for future audit
Lessons from This Scenario:
✅ Reactivity: Problem detected and resolved in < 12 hours
✅ Flexible governance: Temporary Dynamic Law® enables urgency
✅ Collective validation: Retrospective vote ensures legitimacy
✅ Continuous improvement: New permanent rule prevents recurrence
✅ Total traceability: Every decision recorded and verifiable
✅ Shared responsibility: Entire team involved, no single “boss”