The standards moat begins when VRX-1 is written as a citable concept, not just a product feature. This outline turns PLENA’s vocabulary into a paper structure for preprint, workshop, journal, or standards engagement.
Generative AI makes content abundant while weakening confidence about who acted, who consented, who reviewed, who refused, and what evidence existed at the moment of decision. VRX-1 is proposed as a portable receipt grammar for human-accountability events: refusal, consent, review, provenance, delegation, routing, preservation, and appeal. Rather than replacing identity wallets, content credentials, notaries, or institutional records systems, VRX-1 defines a public-safe layer that lets humans and institutions verify narrow accountability claims without exposing private evidence.
| Section | Core question | PLENA example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Problem | What becomes unverifiable when AI can imitate documents, voice, and expertise? | Human-authorship and refusal receipts. |
| 2. Design principles | What should a receipt reveal publicly and keep private? | Public log plus private evidence binder. |
| 3. Receipt grammar | Which fields are required for accountability events? | VRX-1 ID, issuer, type, status, date, scope limit, evidence boundary. |
| 4. Use cases | Where does this help before full legal recognition? | Universities, publishers, HR, church records, NGOs, family archives. |
| 5. Governance | Who preserves records when products die? | Registry stewardship charter and 100-year commitment. |
| 6. Limits | What must VRX-1 refuse to claim? | No fake court admissibility, no government ID replacement, no automatic truth claim. |
AI governance workshop, digital identity forum, records management journal, legal technology review, or SSRN preprint with practitioner endorsements.
One lawyer, one records manager, one digital identity or cybersecurity reviewer, one editor/publisher if available.
Once cited, VRX-1 becomes a vocabulary competitors must respond to rather than silently copy.