Validation & Versioning
Validation and versioning keep participation durable
Protocol participation must remain valid, interpretable, and versioned clearly enough to stay compatible over time.
Validation
Protocol interaction must remain structurally checkable
Validation determines whether a participation act is complete, contextual, and conformant enough to count as protocol interaction.
What validation checks
Validation checks whether participation fits the protocol structure rather than whether a claim is true or whether a result is correct.
Why validation matters
Without validation, the system cannot reliably distinguish between interpretable participation and malformed activity.
Why this matters later
Registry can preserve record continuity and Relay can govern contested outcomes, but validation determines whether the participation act is structurally admissible before either layer takes over.
What validation enables
Validation makes participation attributable and checkable
Validation matters because it lets the system determine whether an interaction is complete, attributable, contextual, and compatible with the active rule model.
Completeness
A protocol message can be checked for whether it includes the required references and structural fields for participation.
References
Validation exists to determine whether the interaction points to recognizable participants, context, and protocol-relevant material.
Transitions
The system can determine whether the participation act fits the active lifecycle state and whether the attempted move is allowable.
Conformance
A structured interaction can be judged against protocol rules rather than treated as an unbounded local convention.
Versioning discipline
Rule changes need explicit publication and compatibility logic
Versioning keeps protocol change legible so participants can track what changed, what remains compatible, and what model is in force.
Schema remains legible
Protocol evolution needs explicit structure changes rather than silent drift in message shape or interpretation.
Compatibility stays intelligible
Participants need to know whether they are operating under compatible message forms, references, and transition rules.
Publication remains explicit
Rule changes should be published as identifiable releases rather than treated as invisible implementation details.