Review matrix — non-operative status map

C1P Constitutional Review Matrix

Status: Non-operative project control document.
Purpose: Maintain one authoritative map of what is settled, what remains genuinely unresolved, what is delegated below the constitutional level, what requires specialist or public review, and what must wait until substantive stability.

This matrix does not amend the Constitution, enact an organic law, resolve a reserved question, or supersede the detailed register in constitution/reserved-questions/README.md. Where the detailed register and this matrix differ, the inconsistency must be reviewed rather than silently reconciled.

Classification

Current stage

The Constitutional Design Principles audit is complete enough to proceed. The audit did not reveal a fundamentally different Constitution hidden beneath the design document. It identified four places where existing constitutional logic needed to be made more explicit, and those changes have now been integrated into the canonical draft:

• citizenship and peoplehood;
• collective continuity;
• access to public information;
• general necessity, proportionality, and least harm.

Intergenerational stewardship remains primarily a design rule of constitutional humility: entrench enduring protections while leaving future generations lawful room to alter mechanisms that do not require permanent constitutionalization.

Master review matrix

Settled matters not to reopen casually

The following are treated as settled constitutional policy unless the interaction/simplification audit reveals a concrete conflict or a materially new argument requires reconsideration:

• universal voter access to all three caucus contests and no voter-caucus registration;
• candidate caucuses as a non-domination mechanism rather than political-party or ideological classification;
• Ranked Pairs as the constitutional electoral method, with technical details delegated;
• ordinary, protected-executive, each-caucus, general-amendment, and specially protected amendment thresholds;
• amendment referendum majority of valid votes with no turnout floor and no communal vote tally;
• ten-percent national constitutional petition threshold and two-year objective-effect resubmission bar;
• amendment referendum timing of 60–120 days after certified second approval and full restart after material change;
• protected organic-law each-caucus majority;
• war notification, publication, authorization, expiration, reporting, renewal, and withdrawal rules;
• fifteen-member Transition Oversight Council with five members per component and distinct routine/consequential thresholds;
• usual-resident population as the apportionment basis with privacy, data-separation, and religious-accommodation safeguards;
• constitutional readiness categories with an objective public implementation plan rather than speculative readiness percentages;
• Sacred Sites Council voting structure and emergency safeguards;
• minor adoption and genuine equivalent parent-child relationships for return eligibility;
• distinction between return eligibility and inherited-property title;
• attribution of wrongdoing to responsible persons and institutions rather than entire communities;
• constitutional rights and responsibility following public power, including outside the territory where the State exercises relevant authority, custody, or control.

Review discipline

1. A new concern should first be mapped to an existing principle, constitutional provision, reservation, or delegated implementation category.
2. Do not constitutionalize a technical detail merely because it matters.
3. Do not move a safeguard downward merely because it is complicated; first identify the constitutional failure it prevents.
4. A reserved constitutional question remains visibly reserved until a reasoned decision is made. Implementing law may not silently decide it.
5. Specialist review should identify tradeoffs and failure modes, not substitute outside authority for public constitutional judgment.
6. Public feedback should distinguish objections to founding values from objections to the mechanisms chosen to implement them.
7. Website publication, translation, and final numbering follow substantive review; they do not define substantive completion.

Immediate work queue

The currently identified focused RFC set is drafted through RFC-016. R-01 through R-03 remain reserved constitutional questions despite having public consultation drafts, and the other RFCs likewise remain unresolved consultation matters. The first V-02 simplification batch has now resolved the Article 4 quorum/dysfunction interaction and EWS-10 post-emergency review load without changing RFC-dependent policy choices. The major V-01 interaction clusters are documented and the current V-02 consolidation is complete. The consultation baseline is prepared for V-03 verification under reviews/V03-00-baseline-verification-readiness.md. Open RFCs remain unresolved; V-03 verifies the present source and does not close them. New RFCs should be added only if later review identifies a genuine unresolved constitutional design choice. Tooling/publication work begins only after this review batch reaches a stable checkpoint.