PUBLIC INQUIRY & CONSULTATION PROTOCOLS

Document Class: Interaction, Submission, and Engagement Policy

Version: v0.1 (Draft – Controlled Circulation)

I. Purpose of This Protocol

The purpose of this document is to establish a neutral, formal, and non-commercial mechanism through which external parties may:

• request clarification
  
  

• submit academic or institutional commentary
  
  

• offer research, evidence, or critique
  
  

• inquire regarding doctrine interpretation
  
  

• express future interest in participation
  
  

These channels exist solely to protect neutrality, preserve rigor, and maintain procedural order during doctrine evolution.

II. General Engagement Principle

Engagement with the Veritas Ledger Foundation is governed by the following ethos:

“Access exists for contribution, not influence; for clarity, not persuasion.”

Engagement is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Engagement must be constructive, not directional.

Engagement must support durability, not expediency.

III. Categories of Authorized Contact

External communication falls into three accepted classes:

Category

Purpose

Eligible Parties

Class A

Contextual clarification inquiries

Institutions, courts, regulators, researchers

Class B

Evidence-based commentary or critique

Academics, evidentiary experts, legal scholars

Class C

Expression of readiness for future consultation

Qualifying public-interest institutions

No channel exists for:

• sales outreach
  
  

• political advocacy
  
  

• commercial partnership
  
  

• vendor influence
  
  

• media or publicity requests
  
  

Such inquiries will not be acknowledged.

IV. Submission Requirements

All communication must adhere to the following minimum requirements:

1. Full institutional identification
   
   

2. Purpose of inquiry
   
   

3. Relevance to doctrine
   
   

4. Evidentiary or academic basis
   
   

5. Statement of neutrality and non-commercial intent
   
   

Submissions must be composed in formal written format.

Informal, unsolicited, or speculative messaging may not be reviewed.

V. Confidentiality & Attribution Policy

Submissions may be classified as:

• Publicly Attributable
  
  

• Privately Attributable
  
  

• Non-Attributable (Confidential)
  
  

• Non-Archivable (Upon Request)
  
  

Selection is made by the submitter at the time of submission, not afterward.

The Foundation reserves the right to refuse classification where it conflicts with doctrine integrity or historical record requirements.

VI. Review & Response Protocol

All valid submissions will be processed through the following workflow:

1. Intake & classification
   
   

2. Relevance screening
   
   

3. Custodial review
   
   

4. Determination of action
   
   

5. Archive, registry, or dismissal
   
   

The Foundation does not guarantee response, timeline, or future engagement.

Silence does not imply acceptance, rejection, endorsement, or objection.

VII. Advisory & Commentary Standards

Commentary must comply with:

• evidence-supported reasoning
  
  

• non-prescriptive tone
  
  

• jurisdictional neutrality
  
  

• non-vendor dependency
  
  

• logical coherence
  
  

• documented scholarly, legal, or empirical basis
  
  

Unsubstantiated opinion does not qualify as accepted commentary.

VIII. Consultation Access Phases

Engagement availability depends on doctrine maturity:

Phase

Status

Engagement Level

Phase 0

Private Drafting

No external consultation

Phase 1

Controlled Expert Review

Invitation-only

Phase 2

Institutional Commentary Period

Application-based

Phase 3

Publication & Standards Iteration

Open but structured

The Foundation alone determines phase transitions.

IX. Prohibited Contact Categories

The following will be disregarded or rejected without review:

• commercial solicitation
  
  

• media interview or publicity requests
  
  

• investment or sponsorship offers
  
  

• attempts to claim co-ownership
  
  

• influence proposals tied to funding
  
  

• speculative ideation without evidentiary basis
  
  

Attempts to leverage status, threat, influence, reputation, funding, or authority are permanently disqualifying.

X. Digital Communication Policy

No official doctrinal discussion may occur over platforms that do not preserve:

• complete metadata
  
  

• timestamp integrity
  
  

• end-to-end record continuity
  
  

• demonstrable chain-of-custody
  
  

Acceptable channels will be announced only at and after Phase 2.

XI. Status Statement

This protocol is a preliminary custodial draft and may evolve prior to institutional governance oversight.

Version: v0.1 — Not for citation or institutional reliance.