Architecture explanation / Design draft · v0.1
Integrity across the interpretation workflow
Proposed Ladon responsibilities: collection permissions, source lineage and reversible review. Controls remain planned and require implementation and validation.
Proposed design · Prepared for review · No implementation or measured performance claimed
Permission follows the material
An archive agreement should distinguish access to originals, use in processing, access to derived text and publication of interpretations. Derived data may still be restricted. Access requirements must be evaluated at retrieval and export, rather than assumed from the visibility of a graph node.
Archive Network describes a collaboration initiative. It is not evidence of connected repositories or existing data-sharing agreements. The permitted scope must be established separately for each collection.
Keep a path back to the source
Each interpretation should retain the originating record, relevant passage, processing version and later human changes. A researcher should be able to inspect what changed and why. A claim without its source lineage should not be presented as a reviewed historical conclusion.
Checksums can help detect changed bytes; they cannot prove that a transcription is correct or that a historical claim is true. Provenance supports review but does not replace it.
Implementation questions still open
Authentication, permission storage, revision persistence, audit access and recovery procedures must be specified before a production integrity layer can be claimed. This website implements no Ladon backend and makes no certification, encryption or tamper-proof guarantee.
A future engineering note should identify the implemented control, its scope, failure behavior and validation evidence. Restricted records and private researcher information require an agreed handling policy before any pilot intake.