L0 — Observe
Read only approved context. Identify open work and uncertainty without modifying business records or making commitments.
AURYVETH Knowledge / Governance model
How could a business organism earn operational authority?
At AURYVETH, growing capability does not automatically grant a digital organism permission to act. The planned progression separates observing, recommending, preparing, approved execution and bounded autonomy. Advancement requires explicit authorization, current domain authority and evidence appropriate to the action’s risk.
Proposed operating model
Five authority levels, each with a different boundary.
L1 — Recommend
Present findings, options and rationale. A human decides what happens next.
L2 — Prepare
Create reviewable drafts or transaction proposals. Execution remains blocked until someone with authority approves.
L3 — Execute with approval
Perform a specific approved action within declared scope, preserving who authorized it and what changed.
L4 — Bounded autonomy
Execute an explicitly approved class of low-risk actions within policy, limits and monitoring. Out-of-bounds cases return to review.
No automatic promotion
A new skill, better model performance, historical trust or protocol compatibility is not itself an access grant. Authority remains revocable and can be reduced, paused or withdrawn.
Not a certification: L0–L4 are AURYVETH’s proposed design labels, not an externally recognized standard or proof of current product maturity.
What must be evaluated before changing a permission?
For each action class, AURYVETH intends to identify permitted systems and data, who grants approval, failure consequences, audit requirements, rollback or recovery options and escalation paths.
Reliability evidence should come from work comparable to the proposed scope. A persuasive demonstration, unrelated benchmark or successful draft alone is not enough.
Where authority must stop
Money movement, contracts, access-control changes, disclosure of confidential information and external commitments require their own explicit boundaries. The organism cannot infer permission from a related successful task, technical capability or temporary isolation.
Inter-company coordination requires both parties’ authorization; joining a network does not merge companies’ internal knowledge or permissions.
What does this mean in practice?
An organism might prepare a response to a request, show the underlying information and wait for approval. Later, after a defined review of accuracy and operational risk, an organization could approve a narrow recurring action. Exceptions and higher-impact decisions would remain gated.
This describes the intended governance framework, not a claim that AURYVETH has operationally validated all levels. Read the Ecosystem Constitution v0.1, the definition of governed autonomy, and the internal proving-ground plan.