Bad-Actor Attribution Framework
The shared bad-actor intelligence layer is the platform's most consequential reusable asset. It is also the most sensitive. This framework documents how inclusions are proposed, evidenced, contested, voted on, anchored, and sunsetted - with FCPA-grade accuracy controls and explicit due-process protections.
1. Three inclusion levels
| Level | Visibility | Default duration | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Watch | Internal flag, not public | 12 months | Verdict Engine surfaces the prior incident in narrative analysis; no automatic block |
| Restricted | Visible to participating foundations only | 36 months | Cannot receive new grants from any participating foundation; pending grants halted pending review |
| Excluded | Public on the platform registry | 60 months | Cannot receive new grants and is barred from the platform; existing grants revoked |
2. Inclusion grounds (Doc 01 Section 8.3)
Inclusion is permitted only on one of seven grounds. Subjective judgments about "fit" or "alignment" are insufficient. Each ground has a documented evidence threshold below.
- Substantiated fraudagainst any platform participant - established by court finding, settlement, or admission
- Material misrepresentation in an application or milestone - false statements to obtain or retain funds
- Misappropriationof grant funds - diversion to non-charitable use
- Beneficial-owner sanctions match- a beneficial owner appears on OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK HM Treasury list, or UN Security Council Consolidated List post-grant
- Pattern of governance failure- multiple grants from multiple foundations closed prematurely for governance reasons within a 24-month window
- Audit refusal- refusal to provide audit access or evidence following a credible request supported by verifiable concerns
- Court findingsof fraud, embezzlement, or related misconduct against the entity or a key principal
3. Due-process workflow
- Submission.Any participating foundation, JIL Operator, or Council member may submit an inclusion request with supporting evidence.
- Evidence assembly.JIL Operations team assembles a complete evidence file including original source documents, links to court records where applicable, prior grant timelines, and beneficial-owner traces. The submitter's identity is not disclosed to the entity at this stage.
- 30-day notice.The entity is notified in writing of the proposed inclusion, the level proposed, the grounds, and the evidence summary. The entity has 30 days to respond.
- Entity response window. The entity may submit a written rebuttal, additional evidence, or a request for a council hearing. Failure to respond does not auto-confirm inclusion; the council still votes.
- Optional council hearing.Either party may request a council hearing, which is conducted in writing or via video conference. Hearings are recorded and transcripts are made available to council members.
- Council vote.A 5-of-7 supermajority of the Cross-Foundation Council is required to approve any Restricted or Excluded inclusion. Watch-level inclusions require a simple majority of operations review.
- CourtChain anchor.The vote, evidence file, hearing transcript, and inclusion record are anchored to CourtChain.
- Public listingif Excluded.
4. Evidence threshold
Inclusion requires evidence that would meet or exceed the standard for "reasonable belief" in a regulatory referral context. Specifically:
- For court-finding-based inclusion:a final or settled judgment, indictment, or regulatory action
- For misappropriation or fraud:a verdict-record-anchored event with disbursement evidence and outcome verification, or external substantiation by audit, regulator, or court
- For governance-pattern inclusion:at least three grants closed for governance reasons across at least two foundations within 24 months, each with milestone evidence
- For sanctions match: a verified match in two or more authoritative lists (OFAC, EU, UK, UN) or a regulator-confirmed designation
5. Sunset and reinstatement
Default durations expire automatically. An entity may petition for early reinstatement after demonstrating remediation: governance changes, replacement of named individuals, third-party audit attestation, or other evidence proportionate to the inclusion grounds. Reinstatement requires a separate council vote.
6. FCPA-style accuracy controls
False or negligent inclusion creates significant legal exposure to the platform and to inclusion submitters. The framework borrows three structural controls from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance discipline:
- Mandatory contemporaneous documentation.Every fact in the evidence summary must be linked to a primary source. Inferences are flagged as inferences.
- Anti-retaliation protection.Submitters who present a good-faith inclusion request are protected from civil claims by the entity, even if inclusion is ultimately not approved, provided the submission was made in good faith with available evidence.
- Annual review of the registry.The Cross-Foundation Council reviews the registry annually for stale entries, evidence-quality drift, and inclusions where the underlying evidence has been superseded.
7. What is not in the registry
The registry intentionally excludes:
- Entities that have failed a single application or had a single grant declined for capacity reasons
- Entities that have under-performed against milestones absent material misuse or misrepresentation
- Entities flagged on the basis of political or ideological alignment
- Entities flagged solely on the basis of jurisdiction-of-origin without specific findings
- Entities subject to ongoing investigation but with no resolved finding (these may be at Watch, not Restricted or Excluded)