User Journey: John's Story

Authority is never absolute. It is always contextual, revisable, and audited.

Onboarding

John joins a PAAS-governed protocol project. He declares his Curiosities (interest signals) and begins building his competence profile.

Week 1: John completes W_H verification — his academic credentials and professional certifications are vetted by a Vetting xSTF. His W_H score settles at 1,200 (moderate, based on relevant but limited credentials).

Week 2: John joins a Cell (open deliberation space) discussing a protocol upgrade. He contributes actively, and his contributions are scored by peers. His W_S begins accumulating.

Building Competence

Month 1: John's participation in the Protocol Circle earns him endorsements from established members. His W_S rises to 800. Combined with his W_H, his W_Effective reaches 1,600 — enough to vote on protocol decisions but not yet enough for critical circle entry.

Month 3: John leads a successful xSTF (executive task force) delivering a documentation update. His W_S jumps to 1,400. He's now invited to join the Security Circle as an advisor.

Month 6: John's W_H has increased to 1,800 after completing additional certifications. His W_S is now 2,000 based on consistent high-quality contributions. W_Effective reaches 3,200 — he can now serve on judicial xSTFs.

Circle Leadership

Month 9: John is elected to lead the Protocol Circle. His W_H (2,000) meets the critical circle entry threshold. His W_S (2,200) demonstrates sustained competence. His W_Effective (3,600) gives him significant voting weight — but it's proportional, not absolute.

Month 12: John makes a controversial protocol decision. An aSTF conducts a post-hoc audit. The audit finds the decision was technically sound but lacked community input. The aSTF issues a "Approve with recommendation" — John's decision stands, but he's flagged for improved community engagement.

The Key Insight

At no point did John's authority become absolute. His influence grew proportionally with demonstrated competence, and every decision was subject to independent audit. When he fell short, the system corrected without blame — the audit produced learning, not punishment.

Authority is never absolute. It is always contextual, revisable, and audited.

Also see: Dual Competence | Autonomy-Audit Cycle | PAAS Framework