Relational Transition Geometry
Status
Canonical source repository: Admissible-Existence/RTG
Wiki state: watching
Detail status: corrected public-safe canonical detail page
Definition
Relational Transition Geometry is the foundational RTG formalism for describing the geometry of a transition before it is reduced into table cells, proof paths, runtime checks, or commit-time outcomes.
It models the relationships among actor, target, authority, boundary, context, evidence, recoverability, inference window, coherency horizon, and point of irreversibility.
Source Boundary
Admissible-Existence defines the formalism. Publisher publishes papers and public exposition. The Admissibility Wiki mirrors, relates, crosswalks, and discovers relationships.
The wiki is not the source authority for this formalism.
Correction Note
Earlier public-safe wiki language used RTG as Runtime Transition Governance. That language is now narrowed.
RTG is corrected to mean Relational Transition Geometry at the foundation layer. Runtime governance remains a later execution-facing application of the transition geometry, but it is not the primary RTG expansion.
Scope
Relational Transition Geometry applies where a proposed or observed transition must be examined as a relationship rather than as a single approval, execution, state change, or result label.
Purpose
The purpose of Relational Transition Geometry is to prevent transition governance from collapsing into one-dimensional labels such as approved, visible, executed, reviewed, or continuous.
It preserves the structural question first: what relationship is changing, under what authority, across which boundary, with what evidence, within what horizon, and at what distance from irreversible consequence?
Core Constructs
| Construct | Role |
|---|---|
| Actor | Entity or process attempting, proposing, reviewing, or carrying a transition. |
| Target | Entity, state, artifact, boundary, or system affected by the transition. |
| Relationship | The governed relation between actor, target, authority, evidence, context, and consequence. |
| Transition vector | Direction and class of proposed state movement. |
| Authority relation | Whether the actor has standing relative to the target and requested transition. |
| Boundary relation | Whether the transition remains inside the required governance, scope, recoverability, or consent boundary. |
| Evidence relation | Whether evidence is sufficient, fresh, relevant, and reconstructable for the attempted transition. |
| Coherency horizon | The information boundary beyond which no additional information can be obtained from within a stabilized coherent state, even though existence may continue inside that boundary. |
| Inference window | The region in which authority, evidence, policy, context, delegation, and memory remain usable for standing determination. |
| Point of irreversibility | The point after which the transition cannot be fully recalled, reversed, re-bound, or restored without a new recovery or remediation process. |
| Recoverability profile | Whether the transition can be paused, reversed, reconstructed, remediated, or fail-closed. |
Relationship to the Transition Table
The Transition Table is the operational bridge from Relational Transition Geometry into discrete governance cells.
Relational Transition Geometry defines the shape. The Transition Table classifies that shape into reviewable and testable transition postures. Commit-Time Admissibility then asks whether the classified transition still has standing when consequence would bind.
Relational Transition Geometry -> Transition Table -> Commit-Time Admissibility -> Runtime governance
Relationship to Runtime Governance
Runtime governance is the execution-facing application of the geometry. It evaluates the current transition posture at or near the moment an action, publication, denial, escalation, refusal, deferral, or fail-closed result would occur.
Runtime governance must not inherit authority merely because a prior geometric, table, or review record exists.
Related Canonical Formalisms
| Related Formalism | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Coherency Horizon | Defines the knowability boundary inside the transition geometry. |
| Transition Table | Operationalizes relational geometry as discrete transition cells. |
| Commit-Time Admissibility | Determines whether the proposed transition still has standing at commitment. |
| Governance-Centered and Boundary-Centered Admissibility Testing | Supplies governance and boundary tests over the relational geometry. |
| Boundary Conditions | Defines required boundary satisfaction inside the geometry. |
| State Transition Continuity Model | Supports continuity analysis across state changes. |
| Decision Continuity | Supports persistence or loss of decision standing. |
| Continuity Handoff Formalism | Preserves context when a transition crosses sessions, systems, or actors. |
Mathematical Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Potential variables should describe relationships rather than only states, including actor-target relation, authority distance, boundary distance, evidence sufficiency, inference distance, irreversibility distance, recoverability, and coherency horizon.
Proof Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Proof candidates should show that the Transition Table is a discretized operational representation of Relational Transition Geometry, not an independent origin for the geometry.
Validation Candidates
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction from canonical source or publication artifacts.
Validation candidates should include changed-authority, changed-target, boundary-drift, stale-evidence, horizon-loss, non-recoverable-transition, and point-of-irreversibility cases when public-safe source artifacts are available.
Publication Artifacts
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction.
Reference Implementations
Status: pending source-confirmed extraction.
External Crosswalk Targets
| External Framework | Relationship |
|---|---|
| GLM | May help declare pre-transition claims, non-claims, and boundary frame. |
| EVIDE | May help preserve post-transition evidence for reconstruction. |
These are crosswalk targets only. They do not replace canonical formalism definition.
Open Questions
Which exact Admissible-Existence source file defines Relational Transition Geometry?
Which variables are canonical versus explanatory?
Which artifacts establish the earliest preserved transition-geometry discussion?
Which proof path shows the Transition Table as the operational form of the geometry?
Which tests validate loss beyond the coherency horizon?
Non-Claims
This wiki page does not define, prove, or validate the formalism. External framework mappings are crosswalk candidates, not equivalence decisions. A listed relationship does not imply accepted formal equivalence. Runtime governance remains a related execution layer, not the corrected foundation meaning of RTG.