GDARB-v1 — Government Data Access Responsibility Boundary
When legal authority is invoked, does executable responsibility exist?
Core Function
GDARB-v1 evaluates whether responsibility is not only defined—but executable—during government data access events.
The test reveals whether an authority path exists or collapses under real-world constraints.
Core Question
When a government entity compels access to private data:
Does a legitimate, executable authority path exist for every action?
Or does responsibility dissolve across actors, preventing decisive, accountable execution?
Minimal Scenario
- Government issues request or subpoena
- Data custodian must respond
- Individual rights may be affected
- Oversight may or may not intervene
Outcome: data is disclosed, limited, or denied.
Authority Surface
- Government Agency
- Data Custodian
- Individual / Data Subject
- Oversight / Court
Authority Conflict Points
- Scope and legitimacy of request
- Consent and notification
- Data minimization
- Oversight timing
- Final accountability
Execution Protocol
Trace each step:
- Request issuance
- Decision to comply or deny
- Data access / disclosure
- Notification
- Review / appeal
For each step, record who can act—and whether that authority is legitimate and uncontested.
Closure Logic (Binary)
PASS: A valid authority path exists for all steps.
FAIL: Any step lacks a legitimate executable authority path.
A single failure implies S = ∅ at that boundary.
Output Artifact
| Step | Authority Holder | Evidence | Executable (Y/N) | Disputed (Y/N) |
Output represents an authority execution map—not a narrative.
System Implication
PASS → Authority is executable and auditable
FAIL → Authority collapses into fragmentation (FRD condition)
Boundary Judgment
This test reveals whether governance systems retain executable authority under pressure—or collapse into non-action despite full awareness and capability.