Snapshot
GitLab SHA and applicable source/evidence snapshot.
One method · different cases · human decisions
Public application registryOne methodology.
Many matters.
Por Derecho is developing The Second Pair of Eyes as a reusable method for reconstructing records, separating fact from inference, surfacing contradiction and making the next human decision visible. The method can be applied to a live matter without becoming an accusation engine, and institutions can test it without handing over confidential files.
SourceAuthorityPerimeterContradictionConsequenceReversibility
Application packet
Minimum contract for every application
A review record should survive the chat, the AI provider and a change of team.
Denominator
What universe was reviewed and which gaps remain open.
Evidence
IDs, hashes/locators, access and OCR/manual-verification state.
States
Fact, allegation, inference, contrary and correction kept separate.
Method
Six checks, cross-controls and deterministic rules used.
AI, if any
Exact model/configuration/policy; its prose is not evidence.
Responsible human
Competence, decision, reasons and dissent.
Expiry
Review date plus evidence/event that changes or reopens it.
Sharing methodology never transfers evidence between matters. READ → PROPOSE → WORKTREE/BRANCH → PUBLISH/ACT are separate authorities.
Application ladder
Separate application, pilot and adoption
Readiness is never presented as institutional endorsement. Each level needs different evidence.
Internal reference application
A founder-related public matter provides an internal development example, with uncertainty, counter-evidence and institutional limits visible. It is not an independent evaluation or official adoption.
Next live-case application
The same pre-existing method is applied experimentally to a second founder-related matter. This explores reuse; it does not establish independent validity or institutional acceptance.
Synthetic institutional pilot
A Bar or Council can test the workflow on a wholly fictional scenario, without importing real confidential files or delegating human judgment.
Institutional adoption
Use, commissioning, a pilot and adoption are recorded as separate states, each requiring the institution’s express confirmation of that exact milestone. A confirmed pilot is not adoption.
Application registry
From ICALPA 80 to a transferable methodology
Cases remain separate. Sharing methodology never means sharing evidence across files.
First live reference case
The Living Casebook turns eleven material modules into verifiable questions, an evidence atlas, reverse chronology, decision tree, temporal controls, contradiction and human gates. The next methodology step is to expose the full Second Pair sequence inside every module.
Rule: registration, opening or concern do not equal guilt. A response not located in the public corpus does not equal official silence or admission.
Focal reuse test
The application must remain act-specific: representation made, source, verification, contrary information available at the material date and professional explanation. It will not import the longitudinal DIP 80 model or move evidence between cases without a human relevance decision.
Synthetic pilot, not a real file
The proposed objective is to let a deontological team test the method on a wholly fictional case: file integrity, competence, hearing, temporal analysis, contradiction, reasons and human review. No collaboration, approval or participation by ICAM is claimed.
Council layer: review without competence drift
The future proposition focuses on appeal traceability, reasoning consistency and clarity about what reaches the Council, what remains with the Bar and what neither body may decide. No adoption or institutional engagement is claimed.
Ways to collaborate
Six modes, from observation to institutional pilot
None requires an institution to accept Por Derecho's conclusions.
Observe
Inspect the public method without participation or institutional identification.
Correct
Identify factual, procedural, temporal or competence error for versioned correction.
Red-team
Search for false positives, bias, missing counter-evidence and stronger alternative explanations.
Synthetic pilot
Test a wholly fictional case without real-case personal data.
Live application
Apply public pre-existing rules to a real matter with enhanced privacy and no substitution of roles.
Institutional pilot
A future institutional pilot requires express acceptance, an agreed scope and the institution’s own governance. A real-matter institutional pilot additionally requires the independent synthetic review and the safeguards in the research protocol.
Methodological contract
“Do not trust our conclusion. Test our method.”
An institution, professional or affected person can improve the model by correcting a proposition, completing an unknown state, supplying documented contradiction or raising a competence objection. Every accepted correction should preserve the prior version, date, reason and source.
Reusable standard
What every application must be able to answer
The tool fails if it merely makes an accusation look more sophisticated.
1 · What we know
Sources, versions, evidence states and facts already verified.
2 · What is alleged
Separated from established facts and inference.
3 · What is missing
Material unknowns, who could certify them and what follows if they remain unavailable.
4 · What contradicts it
The strongest contrary explanation and potentially exculpatory material.
5 · Who decides
Competence and the next human gate, without institutional drift.
6 · What would change the view
The evidence or decision that would resolve, weaken, strengthen or close the point.