← All Specifications

UAM

A constitutional doctrine for building applications on ICore: application-first, capabilities optional, constitutional invariants never optional.

Doctrine — Universal Application Model 7 Invariants 81 Lines Doctrine

Universal Application Model — UAM v0.1.0

A constitutional doctrine for building applications on ICore: application-first, capabilities optional, constitutional invariants never optional.

Status: Doctrine Constitutional dependencies: USCP (six primitives) · USC · URS v0.1.0 (specs.initialcore.net/urs.html) · CORE-LD v0.1.0 (specs.initialcore.net/core-ld.html) Scope: All ICore applications — PWA, native, WASM, and any future runtime Registry prefix: UAM

1. The Doctrine

Application-first. The application is the unit of constitutional governance. Capabilities serve applications; applications never serve capabilities. A capability is adopted only when it advances the application's constitutional purpose, and replaced without ceremony when a better one appears. ICore does not chase technologies — it absorbs them.

The ladder. Every application element occupies exactly one rung, and every rung derives from the one above it:

RungDefinitionICore expression
TruthReality as the ground of all derivationThe six USCP primitives: Existence, Identity, Relationship, Constraint, Transformation, Verification
PrinciplesInvariant rules derived from TruthUSC; the derivation chains through UCE, UCM, UCC
ConstitutionThe governing contract, frozenURS v0.1.0 (23 invariants); CORE-LD foundational profile (23 invariants)
ArchitectureStructural layers instantiating the constitutionUWA, UCN, UAS layers; CORE-LD §6 composition rules
CapabilitiesEnvironmental provisions — always optionalPWA, WASM, WebGPU, native packaging, future runtimes
PreferencesCanonical defaults — opinionated, replaceable by constitutional processPWA manifest; CBOR-CORE-LD wire + JSON-CORE-LD human view; Ed25519Signature2020; IndexedDB sovereign-local storage
ImplementationsConcrete adapters of preferencesJSON-CORE-LD / CBOR-CORE-LD bindings; any future codec, transport, store

2. Invariants vs Capabilities — the Split

Constitutional invariants are never optional. Identity, trust, verification, and policy grounding are not features of an application — they are what the application is. An application without WebGPU degrades gracefully; an application without verifiable identity is a different entity. "Progressive everywhere" must never degenerate into "nothing guaranteed anywhere."

Capabilities are always optional. Every capability may be absent, degraded, or substituted, provided every constitutional invariant is preserved. The absence of a capability is a degraded experience, never a constitutional violation.

3. Canonical Defaults vs Compatible Alternatives

Canonical defaults are the opinionated choices of the ICore constitution — the current set:

DomainCanonical default
Application shellPWA manifest (offline-first, sovereign-local)
Wire / storage encodingCBOR-CORE-LD (deterministic, compact)
Human-readable encodingJSON-CORE-LD (audit, presentation)
Signature / proofEd25519Signature2020 (linked data proof)
Local persistenceIndexedDB (device-sovereign)

Compatible alternatives are conforming if and only if: (a) they preserve every UAM and CORE-LD invariant; (b) they declare their compatibility profile (CCA §4 interop rules); (c) the substitution is reversible. A default changes only by constitutional process — never by convenience.

4. The Triad

Strict about outcomes, opinionated about defaults, tolerant about compatible methods.

Outcomes are constitutional and strict: invariants hold or the application does not conform. Defaults are opinionated: the canonical choices above. Methods are tolerant: anything that preserves the invariants is a compatible method.

5. Invariants

#InvariantMechanical verification
UAM-1**Application primacy.** Every application element traces to a ladder rung; no element exists solely to serve a capability.Derivation table present in the application's constitutional record; each element mapped to a rung
UAM-2**Invariant preservation.** A conforming application preserves every CORE-LD invariant it touches.CORE-LD conformance suite passes on the application's data
UAM-3**Invariants never optional.** Identity, trust, verification, and policy grounding are present in every conforming application, in every environment.Attestation (TRUST-LD) required for the application identity; verification check present in the build
UAM-4**Capabilities always optional.** No capability may be a precondition for constitutional function.A capability-free execution path exists and satisfies UAM-2
UAM-5**Canonical defaults.** The §3 defaults are the reference choices; deviations are compatible alternatives, not new defaults.Defaults registry (this document) is the sole authority
UAM-6**Compatible alternatives.** A non-default choice is conforming iff it preserves all invariants, declares its profile, and is reversible.Compatibility profile declared (CCA §4); reversibility demonstrated
UAM-7**Absorbs, never chases.** Technology adoption is justified by application need and derivation, never by fashion.Adoption record traces each technology to the rung it serves

6. Four-Question Stress Test

Each doctrine claim is verified by the four constitutional questions before it enters force:

ClaimWhy constitutionalWhat invariantHow verifiedIf absent
Application-firstUSCP Verification — applications are the governed unit of constitutional computingUAM-1Ladder trace in the application recordApplications become vehicles for capabilities; governance inverts
Invariants never optionalUSCP Identity + Verification — unverifiable applications cannot be governedUAM-3TRUST-LD attestation required in every build"Progressive everywhere" degenerates into "nothing guaranteed anywhere"
Capabilities optionalUSCP Existence — the application exists independently of any environmentUAM-4Capability-free path testCapability adoption becomes a constitutional dependency
Canonical defaultsUSCP Constraint — opinionated defaults bound the solution spaceUAM-5Defaults registry is authoritativeChoice paralysis; fragmentation of the ecosystem
Tolerant methodsUSCP Transformation — governed processes admit many implementationsUAM-6Compatibility profile checkMethods become mandates; superset-over-replacement dies

Freeze gate: CORE-LD v0.1.0 flips Draft → Frozen upon this stress test passing (derivation chain complete: USCP → USC → UCE/UCM/UCC → URS → CORE-LD → UAM; conformance suite verified 250/250; doctrine claims all four questions answered).


End of UAM Doctrine v0.1.0 — July 31, 2026. Doctrine. Derives from USCP + CORE-LD v0.1.0.