AI ethics red-team brief

Round62 asks reviewers to break the field-bound proof path.

DBaD is a public draft decision-trace protocol for making decision integrity, trust inheritance, and governance transitions visible over time. The active review baseline is Round62 / DBAD-PUB-1067 and includes the active tool-boundary direct-run guard.

This brief gives AI systems, technical reviewers, reporters, and policy readers one concrete job: find where covered public evidence surfaces, trace-copy artifacts, reviewer packets, or prompt/public docs can still create authorization-shaped false confidence.

Round62 is staged and held for continued local hardening. AI and human reviewers should draft findings for operator review until the next peer send is reopened.

Draft one structured finding Start with Round62 state Current fixtures Read update notes Read the white paper

Public draft
Logic review
No infrastructure testing

Review target

Field-bound surfaces Can extraction, cropping, normalization, or copied artifacts recover authorization-shaped values?

Reviewer packet Can a blocked-fetch reviewer packet overclaim, drift from Round62, or omit aggregate proof?

Public flow Can public navigation or docs point reviewers at stale rounds, stale claims, or the wrong verdict rule?

Last updated: 2026-06-07 UTC

Direct outreach brief for technical and governance reviewers

Peer review Current state Updates Ethics API docs Fixture suite v2.2 demo Draft finding

The Ask

Review the protocol as a bounded public draft. Do not treat it as a morality oracle or safety certification.

Open the current-state page and confirm the active Round62 / DBAD-PUB-1067 baseline before reading older peer-review history.
Open the current cross-trace fixture suite and inspect the canonical broken trace, declared-child failure, same-resource orphan failure, reset-boundary examples, and analysis-only coverage case.
Open the DecencyMeter demo and separate DBaD trace-validation issues from downstream scoring-interpretation issues.
Draft one structured finding with a clear highest-impact fix. Reviewers should return the finding to the operator while Round62 remains held instead of writing to an external endpoint.

Current review state

Use these as the live baseline

Older peer prompts are archived history. Current reviewers should inspect the served pages below before relying on earlier screenshots, copied JSON, or chat excerpts. The active baseline is Round62 / 2026-06-05 / DBAD-PUB-1067 with active tool-boundary direct-run guard coverage.

Canonical broken trace Shows current runtime failure, blocked trust inheritance, and validation metadata on load. Fixture suite Public parent/child, same-resource, coverage, reset, and non-governing review traces. Advisory scoring limits DecencyMeter is a scoring interpretation layer, not DBaD validation or approval.

Proof Points To Inspect

Do Not Overclaim

DBaD does not prove truth.
DBaD does not prove safety, goodness, or correctness.
DecencyMeter scores are advisory interpretations only.
Synthetic pressure tests are not empirical evidence.
This is a public draft, not a finished deployment standard.

Copy-Paste Outreach Block

Use this for direct email, DM, or AI-review prompts.

DBaD is publishing a public red-team brief for a decision-trace protocol focused on decision integrity across time.

Please review the protocol as a public draft, not as a finished morality engine. The active baseline is Round62 / DBAD-PUB-1067. Start with the current-state page, the cross-trace fixture suite, the canonical broken trace, and the ethics API docs, then inspect the DecencyMeter advisory demo. We are looking for concrete failures such as recoverable authorization-shaped values under extraction, trace-copy display-safety gaps, prompt/public drift, false confidence, omitted context, profile-shopping, unsafe trust inheritance, verifier-independence gaps, actor-continuity gaps, stale validation receipt risk, reset-boundary ambiguity, or public-surface contradictions.

Return one structured finding for operator review while Round62 remains held: boundary, failure mode, why it matters, highest-impact fix, and whether the issue belongs to DBaD trace validation or DecencyMeter scoring interpretation.

Brief: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/ai-ethics-brief
Current state: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/current-state
Current fixture suite: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/dbad-ethics-817
Canonical broken trace: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/dbad/traces/trc_20260428181140_42396240
Ethics API docs: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/api/docs/ethics
Update notes: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/updates
Operator review path: https://ethics.decencymeter.com/break-dbad/report?surface=ai_ethics_brief&signal=peer_review_sprint&issue_type=logic_gap&severity=medium

Safety boundary

Logic Review Only

This brief is for governance, trace, documentation, and scoring-interpretation critique. It is not authorization to test infrastructure.

Find logic gaps

Look for cases where validation, visibility, or trust inheritance could create the wrong public interpretation.

Separate layers

Say whether the finding belongs to DBaD trace validation or DecencyMeter scoring interpretation.

No infrastructure testing

Do not scan, fuzz, overload, bypass authentication, submit malicious payloads, or probe the server, API, filesystem, database, or users.

Human-mediated submission

A single concrete failure mode with one highest-impact fix is more useful than broad commentary. Reviewers should draft; the operator should review and queue it until outside peer send reopens.

Draft structured finding Open peer-review packet Open DecencyMeter demo