C.1 Purpose of the Register
The Open Questions and Boundary Cases Register preserves the unresolved issues identified during DAP #0A and prevents them from being absorbed prematurely into normative assumptions.

Paper #8 establishes a substantial physical–digital cultural architecture, but it does not claim complete resolution of every cultural-object case.

This Register therefore records:

• unresolved theoretical questions;
• Protocol-critical uncertainties;
• implementation questions;
• scope limitations;
• future Boundary DAP candidates.

C.2 Register Fields
Each Open Question is recorded through the following structure:

OQ ID
Research Family
Open Question
Affected Architecture
Reason Unresolved
Preliminary v1.0 Criticality
Recommended Treatment
Future DAP Candidate

The preliminary criticality categories are:

BLOCKING
Likely requires resolution before CDA Protocol v1.0 can operate coherently in its intended Core scope.

NON-BLOCKING
May remain explicitly unresolved or out of scope without preventing CDA Protocol v1.0 publication.

EXTENSION
Likely belongs to a later domain-specific Protocol profile or extension.

BOUNDARY RESEARCH
Requires dedicated DAP investigation because the case may materially challenge current ontology, authority, qualification, governance, or continuity assumptions.

The classifications below remain provisional until Comparative DAP Analysis.

RESEARCH FAMILY A
PCO Qualification Threshold and Decision Architecture
OQ-001 — What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence for PCO Qualification?

Open Question
What constitutes a sufficient structured evidentiary basis for moving an object from:

PCO Candidate
↓
PCO

without reducing qualification to arbitrary expert opinion or numerical voting?

Affected Architecture

• PCO Qualification;
• Evidence;
• Qualification Authority;
• Conformity.

OQ-002 — Should Independent Recognition Be Mandatory?

Open Question
Must an active PCO qualification include at least one independent Recognition source outside:

• the artist;
• owner;
• gallery;
• estate;
• financially interested entity?

OQ-003 — Can PCO Qualification Be Self-Initiated and Self-Completed by an Artist?

Open Question

Can the artist be:

Qualification Initiator
+
Evidence Provider
+
Qualification Authority

for the same object?

Affected Architecture
Qualification Authority / Conflict of Interest / Recognition.

Reason Unresolved
Artist authority is legitimate in authorial matters, but the degree to which it can extend to final formal PCO qualification remains unresolved.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

Recommended Treatment
Determine whether roles may coexist under disclosed conditions or must be separated.

OQ-004 — Should Qualification Threshold Vary by Recognition Scope?

Open Question
Should PCO qualification for:

• community;
• local;
• institutional;
• national;
• international;

OQ-005 — Can Cultural Significance in One Strong Domain Be Sufficient?

Open Question
Can an object qualify as PCO where:

Community Significance:
Very Strong

Museum Recognition:
None

Market Recognition:
None

or equivalent asymmetrical configurations?

Affected Architecture
Cultural Significance / Qualification.

Reason Unresolved
The study rejects weighted universal scoring but does not establish operational sufficiency across heterogeneous significance domains.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-006 — Should PCO Qualification Require a Minimum Number of Significance Domains?

Open Question
Must qualification involve multiple Cultural Significance domains, or can one strongly evidenced domain suffice?

Affected Architecture
PCO Qualification / Cultural Significance.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A establishes multidimensionality but not mandatory dimensional breadth.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

RESEARCH FAMILY B
Qualification Authority and Institutional Mandate
OQ-007 — Who Is Eligible to Act as a PCO Qualification Authority?

Open Question
Which persons or entities may legitimately issue:

• “This object is qualified as PCO under CDA Protocol.”

• competence;
• mandate;
• transparency;
• accountability;

OQ-008 — Can an Individual Act as a Qualification Authority?

Open Question
Must Qualification Authority be institutional, or can an appropriately qualified individual act independently?

Affected Architecture
Authority / Governance / Conformity.

Reason Unresolved
Individual scholars, curators, conservators, and specialists may possess substantial expertise, but institutional accountability differs from personal expertise.
Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-009 — What Minimum Competence Is Required?

Open Question
Should qualification require expertise in:

• art history;
• provenance;
• curatorship;
• cultural studies;
• conservation;
• the relevant cultural community;
• or another domain?

OQ-010 — Must Qualification Authorities Be Independent of Object Ownership?

Open Question
Can:

• owner;
• gallery;
• estate;
• auction house;

OQ-011 — Is Accreditation Necessary?

Open Question
Should CDA Standards Organization accredit PCO Qualification Authorities?

Affected Architecture
Institutional Governance / Conformity / Standards Stewardship.

Reason Unresolved
Accreditation could improve consistency but might centralize cultural authority and create structural dependence on the standards body.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: NON-BLOCKING

Recommended Treatment
Do not assume accreditation in v1.0.
Investigate later institutional models.

OQ-012 — Should Independent Conformity Bodies Exist?

Open Question
Should Protocol Conformity be assessed by independent bodies distinct from:

• Qualification Authorities;
• Record Custodians;
• CDA Standards Organization?

OQ-013 — Is Certification Necessary?

Open Question
Should a PCO or CDA receive a formal:

• certificate;
• conformity mark;
• certification seal;

RESEARCH FAMILY C
Digital Qualification and Candidate Architecture
OQ-014 — Should “CDA Candidate” Become an Official Term?

Open Question
Should the transitional digital qualification state formally be called:

• CDA Candidate

OQ-015 — Should Digital Candidate Status Mirror PCO Candidate Exactly?

Open Question
Should:

• PCO Candidate

• CDA Candidate

• creation states;
• versioning;
• issuance;
• technical integrity;
• governance;

OQ-016 — Does Every CDA Require a Formal Candidate Stage?

Open Question
Can some CDA qualifications occur directly where evidence is already complete, or must every object formally pass through Candidate state?

Affected Architecture
Digital Qualification Procedure.

Reason Unresolved
Candidate may be conceptually useful but procedurally unnecessary in some cases.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

RESEARCH FAMILY D
Outer Boundary of Physical Cultural Objects
OQ-017 — Does Every PCO Need a PAO Precursor?

Open Question
Can an object qualify as PCO without ever being a Physical Artistic Object?

Examples:

• archaeological artifact;
• ceremonial object;
• historical instrument;
• culturally important everyday object.

OQ-018 — What Is the Full Ontological Boundary of PCO?

Open Question
Which physical entities may ultimately fall within PCO ontology?

Affected Architecture
Physical Cultural Layer.

Reason Unresolved
The current research is intentionally scope-bounded.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-019 — Can Natural Objects Become PCO?

Open Question
Can a natural object acquire PCO status through:

• ritual;
• history;
• artistic incorporation;
• collective memory?

RESEARCH FAMILY E
Archaeological and Historical Objects
OQ-020 — How Should Archaeological Objects Be Qualified?

Open Question
How does PCO qualification operate where:

• creator is unknown;
• artistic intention is irrelevant;
• excavation context is qualification-critical;
• state law is dominant?

OQ-021 — Can Archaeological Context Be Part of Object Identity?

Open Question
Should removal from archaeological context affect PCO identity or only provenance?

Affected Architecture
Identity / Provenance.

Reason Unresolved
For archaeological material, location and context may be constitutive rather than merely historical.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-022 — How Should Objects with Unknown Creators Be Governed?

Open Question
Where artist/creator authority does not exist, which actors legitimately assume:

• interpretation;
• qualification;
• custodianship?

RESEARCH FAMILY F
Sacred Objects and Community Cultural Authority
OQ-023 — Can Sacred Objects Be Qualified Without Community Consent?

Open Question
Can an external institution legitimately qualify a sacred object as PCO without consent from the community for whom it is sacred?

Affected Architecture
Recognition Authority / Qualification Authority / Governance.

Reason Unresolved
Museum-style authority may be structurally inappropriate in sacred cultural contexts.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH
Future DAP Candidate: Strong candidate.

OQ-024 — Can PCO Records Contain Restricted Cultural Information?

Open Question
Should some cultural records include data that is:

• non-public;
• community-restricted;
• sacred;
• gender-restricted;
• seasonally restricted?

OQ-025 — Can Interoperability Conflict with Cultural Restrictions?

Open Question
What happens where broad data interoperability would itself violate cultural rules?

Affected Architecture
Interoperability / Community Authority.

Reason Unresolved
Current CDA architecture values openness and interoperability but must not erase legitimate access restrictions.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

RESEARCH FAMILY G
Indigenous Cultural Authority
OQ-026 — Is Generic “Community Recognition” Sufficient for Indigenous Authority?

Open Question
Can Indigenous Cultural Authority be represented merely as one type of Community Recognition?

Affected Architecture
Recognition / Governance / Qualification.

Reason Unresolved
Indigenous cultural authority may involve:

• customary law;
• collective rights;
• restricted knowledge;
• sovereign or quasi-sovereign cultural mandates.

OQ-027 — How Should Customary Authority Be Represented?

Open Question
Can CDA Protocol structurally represent authority that does not derive from:

• state law;
• corporate structure;
• museum mandate?

OQ-028 — How Should Conflicts Between State and Indigenous Authority Be Represented?

Open Question
Where a state claims legal authority and an Indigenous community claims cultural authority, how should both claims coexist in the record?

Affected Architecture
Conflict / Legal Status / Cultural Authority.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY H
Contested Heritage, Restitution, and Cultural Claims
OQ-029 — How Should Contested Heritage Be Represented?

Open Question
Can multiple competing claims by:

• states;
• museums;
• communities;
• descendants;
• religious bodies;

OQ-030 — How Should Exclusive National Claims Be Represented?

Open Question
What happens where two states each claim exclusive national significance?

Affected Architecture
Territorial Recognition / Conflict.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-031 — Can PCO Qualification Affect Restitution Claims?

Open Question
Should PCO qualification ever influence restitution proceedings?

Affected Architecture
Qualification / Legal Non-Substitution.

Reason Unresolved
PCO qualification may create new documentation but must not appear to determine legal or ethical ownership.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: NON-BLOCKING

Recommended Treatment
Explicitly exclude restitution adjudication from Protocol Core.

OQ-032 — How Should Restitution Disputes Be Recorded?

Open Question
Should restitution claims appear as:

• Legal Status;
• Dispute Record;
• Provenance Event;
• Governance restriction;
• separate claim structure?

OQ-033 — What Is Cultural Ownership?

Open Question
How should the framework distinguish:
Legal Ownership
Cultural Stewardship
Cultural Claim
Collective Cultural Rights
Symbolic Ownership

Affected Architecture
Governance / Rights / Cultural Affiliation.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A deliberately avoids equating recognition with ownership but does not establish a theory of Cultural Ownership.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY I
Anonymous, Disputed, and Collective Authorship
OQ-034 — Can Anonymous Works Qualify as PCO?

Open Question
Can an object with unknown creator receive full PCO qualification?

Affected Architecture
Authorship / Qualification / Governance.

Reason Unresolved
Nothing in the current ontology necessarily prevents it, but author-centered governance models become incomplete.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-035 — How Does Disputed Attribution Affect PCO Qualification?

Open Question
Where attribution states include:

Artist A
Workshop of Artist A

Artist B
Unknown

when does uncertainty require qualification reassessment?

Affected Architecture
Attribution / Qualification-Critical Claims.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-036 — Can Qualification Remain Active Under Attribution Uncertainty?

Open Question
If cultural significance remains strong regardless of authorship, should PCO status survive attribution dispute?

Affected Architecture
Qualification Review.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-037 — How Should Collective Authorship Be Governed?

Open Question
How should:

• artist collectives;
• workshops;
• collaborative teams;
• anonymous groups;

OQ-038 — What Happens When a Collective Dissolves?

Open Question
Who assumes:

• governance;
• interpretation;
• record maintenance;

RESEARCH FAMILY J
Unauthorized Derivatives and Legal–Cultural Independence
OQ-039 — Can an Unauthorized Digital Derivative Qualify as CDA?

Open Question
Can an unauthorized digital derivative possess independent Cultural Significance sufficient for CDA qualification?

Affected Architecture
CDA Qualification / Relationship Authorization / Legal Status.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A establishes:

Legal Status
≠
Cultural Qualification

but this principle requires boundary testing.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH
Future DAP Candidate: Strong candidate.

OQ-040 — Does Lack of Authorization Invalidate the Relationship or Only Affect Its Status?

Open Question
Can a relationship be historically true but unauthorized?

Affected Architecture
Relationship Architecture / Authorization / Provenance.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-041 — Can an Illegal Object Be Culturally Significant?

Open Question
Can a legally prohibited or unlawfully created digital object retain independent historical or cultural significance?

Affected Architecture
Legal Non-Substitution / Qualification.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-042 — How Can Qualification Avoid Appearing to Legitimize Unlawful Conduct?

Open Question
How should the Protocol distinguish:

Cultural Significance
from:
Legal Legitimacy

in problematic cases?

Affected Architecture
Qualification / Disclosure / Legal Status.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

RESEARCH FAMILY K
AI-Generated and AI-Assisted Cultural Objects
OQ-043 — Who Is the Creator of an AI-Generated Digital Image?

Open Question
Potential candidates include:

• prompting artist;
• AI model;
• model developer;
• platform operator;
• multiple contributors;
• no conventional author.

OQ-044 — How Much Human Creative Contribution Is Sufficient?

Open Question
Should CDA qualification distinguish:

one short prompt
from:
hundreds of iterations
+
selection
+
editing
+
manual intervention

Affected Architecture
Authorship / Creative Contribution / Qualification.

Future DAP Candidate: DAP #8.

OQ-045 — Is AI Co-Authorship Structurally Meaningful?

Open Question
Should AI be represented as:

• tool;
• agent;
• collaborator;
• co-creator;
• technical system;

OQ-046 — What Is the Original in AI Generation?

Open Question
Potential candidates include:

• prompt;
• first generation;
• selected output;
• final edited file;
• generation sequence.

RESEARCH FAMILY L
AI Physical–Digital Artworks and Hybrid Systems
OQ-047 — What Is the Original When an AI Digital Image Is Materialized Physically?

Open Question
Potential candidates:

• Prompt
• First Generation
• Selected File
• Final Digital File
• Physical Artwork
• Entire Creation Chain

OQ-048 — Does Physical Materialization Create a New PAO?

Open Question

When an AI-generated digital image becomes:

• print;
• oil painting;
• mixed-media object;

OQ-049 — Which Relationship Type Best Describes AI Physical–Digital Works?

Open Question
Should such relationships be:

• Derived;
• Parallel;
• Hybrid;
• another type?

OQ-050 — Can Physical and Digital Components Form a Composite Cultural System?

Open Question

Can:

PCO
+
CDA
+
Integrated Operation

become a higher-order cultural entity?

Affected Architecture
Relational Cultural Layer / Cultural Object Ontology.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A supports Hybrid Relationship but not Composite Cultural Objecthood.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH
Future DAP Candidate: DAP #9.

OQ-051 — Would Composite Systems Require Separate Qualification?

Open Question
If PCO and CDA are already independently qualified, does the integrated system need an additional qualification event?

Affected Architecture
Qualification / Relationship.

Future DAP Candidate: DAP #9.

OQ-053 — How Is Object Identity Defined in Continuously Generating Systems?

Open Question
If a system generates outputs indefinitely, what constitutes:

• one work;
• one edition;
• one CDA;
• one collection?

OQ-054 — Can an Evolving Object Retain One Qualification Identity?

Open Question
How much structural change may occur before an evolving digital or physical object becomes a new object?

Affected Architecture
Identity Continuity / Qualification Continuity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY N
Mass Production, Editions, and Reproduction
OQ-055 — Can Mass-Produced Objects Become PCO?

Open Question
If a culturally significant poster exists in one million copies:

• Which entity qualifies?

OQ-056 — Does Every Copy Receive Separate PCO Qualification?

Open Question
Should each physical instance have independent PCO identity?

Affected Architecture
Identity / Qualification.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-057 — Can an Edition Be Qualified at Series or Corpus Level?

Open Question
Can a physical edition possess a higher-order qualification without every individual copy receiving identical PCO status?

Affected Architecture
Recognition Scope / Qualification Scope.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-058 — Can a Reproduction Become an Independent PCO?

Open Question
Under what conditions does a reproduction acquire independent Cultural Significance rather than remain merely a representation?

Affected Architecture
PCO Ontology / Derived Relationships.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY O
Reconstructions, Posthumous Production, and Identity
OQ-059 — Is a Reconstruction the Same PCO?

Open Question
When a destroyed work is reconstructed from documentation or instructions, is the reconstruction:

• same object;
• new PAO;
• new PCO Candidate;
• linked reconstruction?

OQ-060 — Can PCO Status Be Inherited by a Reconstruction?

Open Question
Does historical PCO qualification transfer to the reconstructed object?

Affected Architecture
Independent Qualification / Identity.

Reason Unresolved
The non-inheritance principle suggests caution.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-061 — How Should Posthumous Casts or Editions Be Classified?

Open Question
What is the object status of a work materially produced after the artist's death under authorized instructions?

Affected Architecture
PAO / Authorship / Governance / Provenance.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-062 — Can an Estate Complete an Unfinished Work?

Open Question
Who has authority to determine whether a posthumously completed object belongs to the artist's corpus?

Affected Architecture
Governance / Corpus / Attribution.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY P
Lost, Destroyed, and Documented Objects
OQ-063 — Can a Lost or Destroyed Object First Become PCO Posthumously?

Open Question
Can an object destroyed decades earlier later receive PCO qualification based on surviving documentation?

Affected Architecture
PCO Identity / Qualification / Continuity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-064 — What Is Being Qualified When the Physical Object No Longer Exists?

Open Question
Potential referents include:

• historical physical object;
• documented historical identity;
• surviving documentation.

OQ-065 — Can Documentation Alone Establish Sufficient Object Identity?

Open Question
When a physical object is known only through photographs and archival descriptions, when is identity sufficiently stable for qualification?

Affected Architecture
Identity / Evidence / Qualification.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY Q
Performance, Ephemeral, Biological, and Process-Based Art
OQ-066 — How Does PCO Apply to Performance Art?

Open Question
If the primary artwork is an event, what physical elements, if any, qualify as PCO?

Affected Architecture
PCO Ontology / Documentation / CDA relationships.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-067 — Are Props, Costumes, and Documentation Independent PCO Candidates?

Open Question
Can physical remnants of performance gain independent cultural status?

Affected Architecture
Object Identity / Relationship.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-068 — How Does Identity Continuity Work for Living Biological Artworks?

Open Question
What constitutes the same object where material continuously:

• grows;
• mutates;
• reproduces;
• dies?

OQ-069 — Can Instructions Be More Identity-Critical Than Material Substance?

Open Question
For conceptual or process-based physical artworks, can the work's persistent identity depend primarily on instructions or rules?

Affected Architecture
Identity / Governance / Provenance.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY R
Conservation, Material Change, and Identity Threshold
OQ-070 — How Much Material Change Can a PCO Sustain?

Open Question
No universal rule such as:

10% replacement
50% replacement
90% replacement

appears culturally defensible.
How should identity thresholds be assessed?

Affected Architecture
Material Continuity / Identity Continuity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-071 — Who Determines Whether Restoration Preserves Identity?

Open Question
Which authority decides whether a conservation intervention has altered the object's identity?

Affected Architecture
Governance / Conservation / Identity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-072 — Can Material Continuity End While PCO Identity Persists?

Open Question
At what point does the historical object cease materially while remaining culturally and documentarily continuous?

Affected Architecture
Continuity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

RESEARCH FAMILY S
Public Recognition and Digital Attention
OQ-073 — How Is Public Cultural Recognition Demonstrated?

Open Question
What evidence distinguishes durable public cultural recognition from transient visibility?

Affected Architecture
Recognition / Evidence.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A rejects simplistic attention metrics but does not establish a universal evidence methodology.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: NON-BLOCKING

OQ-074 — How Should Internet-Native Cultural Recognition Be Evaluated?

Open Question
How should the framework distinguish:

virality
from:
lasting cultural memory

where the cultural environment exists primarily online?

Affected Architecture
Public Recognition / Digital Culture.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-075 — Can Anonymous Online Communities Produce Legitimate Recognition?

Open Question
How is authority established when recognition originates from a diffuse or anonymous digital community?

Affected Architecture
Recognition Authority.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH FAMILY T
Market Manipulation and Economic Evidence
OQ-076 — How Should Manipulated Market Activity Be Treated?

Open Question
Can:

• wash sales;
• related-party transactions;
• artificial auction activity;

OQ-077 — When Does Market History Become Cultural History?

Open Question
When does a sale cease being merely economic data and become historically significant evidence?

Affected Architecture
Economic Context / Cultural Significance.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: NON-BLOCKING

RESEARCH FAMILY U
Registry, Identity, and Interoperability
OQ-078 — How Should Federated PCO/CDA Registries Interoperate?

Open Question
How should independent systems exchange records without requiring one global database?

Affected Architecture
Interoperability / Institutional Continuity.

Reason Unresolved
DAP #0A establishes portability and implementation neutrality but not technical federation architecture.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-079 — How Is Canonical Object Identity Established Across Registries?

Open Question
When several registries describe the same physical object, how is equivalence established?

Affected Architecture
Identifiers / Object Identity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-080 — How Should Duplicate Records Be Resolved?

Open Question
Should systems support:

• Merge
• Split
• Identity Reconciliation
• Supersession

OQ-081 — Can Multiple Qualification Records for the Same Object Coexist?

Open Question
May separate Qualification Authorities issue independent PCO qualifications for the same physical object?

Affected Architecture
Qualification / Federation / Conflict.

Reason Unresolved
Distributed authority suggests this may be necessary, but canonical status semantics are unresolved.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-082 — Is There Ever a Single Canonical PCO Record?

Open Question
Should one record become authoritative, or should the architecture remain federated and claim-based?

Affected Architecture
Registry / Governance / Qualification.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

RESEARCH FAMILY V
Continuity Requirements and Custodial Failure
OQ-083 — What Are the Minimum Continuity Requirements for Protocol Conformity?

Open Question
Which of the seven continuity domains must be present for a record or qualification to be fully conformant?

Affected Architecture
Continuity / Conformity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-084 — Can a PCO Be Qualified Without Long-Term Governance Continuity?

Open Question
If no successor, custodian, or continuity mechanism exists, does this affect:

• qualification;
• conformity;
• only risk profile?

OQ-085 — What Happens When All Designated Custodians Fail?

Open Question
What continuity architecture applies where:

• Artist unavailable
• Successor unavailable
• ALR unavailable
• Institutional Custodian dissolved

OQ-086 — Should a Fallback Custodian Exist?

Open Question
Should the Protocol define mechanisms for emergency or successor custodianship?

Affected Architecture
Governance Continuity.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

OQ-087 — Should Continuity Risk Be Formally Assessed?

Open Question
Should the Protocol support:

• Continuity Risk Assessment

• qualitative;
• categorical;
• quantitative?

RESEARCH FAMILY W
Posthumous Interpretation and Governance Conflict
OQ-088 — Who Has Interpretive Authority After the Artist's Death?

Open Question
How should the framework distinguish the authority of:

• Successor;
• ALR;
• estate;
• museum;
• scholar;
• community?

OQ-089 — Can an Estate Override Earlier Artist Statements?

Open Question
What happens where posthumous governance conflicts with documented artist intention?

Affected Architecture
Interpretive Provenance / Governance.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BOUNDARY RESEARCH

OQ-090 — How Are Conflicting Governance Authorities Resolved?

Open Question
Example:

Successor:
Decision A

ALR:
Decision B

Museum:
Decision C

Which conflicts can CDA Protocol structure, and which must remain outside the Protocol?

Affected Architecture
Governance / Conflict Resolution.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: EXTENSION

RESEARCH FAMILY X
Sensitive Data, Privacy, and Access Governance
OQ-091 — Must Every PCO/CDA Record Be Public?

Open Question
Can a record remain valid while parts of it are:

• private;
• institution-only;
• owner-only;
• community-restricted?

OQ-092 — How Should Sensitive Ownership and Location Data Be Protected?

Open Question
How should cultural traceability coexist with:

• privacy;
• theft risk;
• collection security?

OQ-093 — Can Historical Integrity Conflict with Required Data Removal?

Open Question
How should append-preserving historical records coexist with:

• privacy law;
• ethical restriction;
• required correction;
• suppression of restricted cultural information?

RESEARCH FAMILY Y
External Standards and Mapping
OQ-094 — How Should CDA Protocol Map to Existing Museum Standards?

Open Question
Which PCO/CDA fields should map to existing systems rather than duplicate them?

Affected Architecture
Interoperability.

Reason Unresolved
Paper #8 defines new qualification and relational structures but does not perform full standards mapping.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

OQ-095 — Which Existing Provenance Standards Should Be Reused?

Open Question
How should:

• Physical Provenance;
• Digital Provenance;
• Relational Provenance;
• Qualification Provenance;

OQ-096 — Should CDA Protocol Define Core Ontology Plus Extension Profiles?

Open Question
Should the standards architecture become:

CDA PROTOCOL CORE
+
PCO PROFILE
+
CDA PROFILE
+
RELATIONAL PROFILE
+
future domain extensions

rather than one monolithic specification?

Affected Architecture
Protocol Architecture.

Reason Unresolved
The number of boundary domains exposed by DAP #0A suggests this may be more sustainable.

Preliminary v1.0 Criticality: BLOCKING

RESEARCH FAMILY Z
Protocol Scope and Institutional Governance
OQ-097 — How Broad Should CDA Protocol v1.0 Be?

Open Question
Should v1.0 attempt to cover:

• PCO;
• CDA;
• Relational Layer;
• all boundary cases;

OQ-098 — Which Areas Must Be Explicitly Out of Scope?

Open Question
Which domains should CDA Protocol v1.0 identify as:

• not yet covered

OQ-099 — How Should Known Limitations Be Preserved Across Protocol Versions?

Open Question
Should each Protocol version include a formal:

• Known Limitations Register?

OQ-100 — How Are Future Boundary Findings Incorporated?

Open Question
What institutional procedure should translate future DAP findings into:

• Protocol amendment;
• extension;
• new profile;
• deferred research?

C.3 Open Questions by Preliminary Criticality

The 100 questions can now be provisionally grouped into four research-treatment categories.

BLOCKING — likely relevant before CDA Protocol v1.0 Core is frozen

Principal areas include:

PCO qualification threshold
Independent Recognition
Qualification Authority eligibility
CDA Candidate terminology
Qualification lifecycle
Registry federation
Canonical identity
Multiple qualification records
Minimum continuity
Access governance
External standards mapping
Core vs Extension architecture
Protocol v1.0 scope

These are not necessarily separate research papers.

Many should be resolved through:

DAP #8 / DAP #9
+
Comparative DAP Analysis
+
SKM
+
AFM v2.0
+
AFF

NON-BLOCKING

Examples include:

• accreditation;
• certification;
• detailed public-recognition methodology;
• market manipulation guidance;
• Continuity Risk Assessment;
• detailed Standards Organization incorporation procedures.

EXTENSION

Examples include:

• archaeological PCO profiles;
• restricted cultural records;
• conservation identity;
• restitution claim structures;
• posthumous interpretive governance;
• continuity fallback mechanisms.

BOUNDARY RESEARCH

Strong future DAP families include:
Sacred Objects
Indigenous Cultural Authority
Contested Heritage
Archaeological Objects
Anonymous / Collective Authorship
Unauthorized Derivatives
AI-Generated Objects
AI Physical–Digital Artworks
Autonomous Creative Systems
Mass-Produced Objects
Reconstructions
Performance / Biological Works

C.4 Immediate Boundary Research Sequence

Within the already approved research roadmap, two Boundary DAPs are immediate.

DAP #8
AI-Generated Digital Image Created Through Artist Prompting

Primary Open Questions:

OQ-043
OQ-044
OQ-045
OQ-046

DAP #8 should test:

• authorship;
• creator identity;
• originality;
• contribution;
• CDA qualification;
• governance;
• provenance.

DAP #9
AI-Generated Physical–Digital Artwork

Primary Open Questions:

OQ-047
OQ-048
OQ-049
OQ-050
OQ-051

DAP #9 becomes the first deliberate stress test of:

• PAO ontology;
• PCO/CDA qualification independence;
• Hybrid Relationship;
• Relational Provenance;
• Composite Cultural System hypothesis.

C.5 Future Boundary DAP Families

After CDA Protocol v1.0, or where necessary before later versions, the unresolved cases can develop into several research families.

Cultural Authority Boundary DAPs
Indigenous Cultural Authority
Sacred Cultural Objects
Contested Heritage
Inter-State Cultural Claims
Restitution and Cultural Claims

Authorship Boundary DAPs
Anonymous Works
Disputed Attribution
Collective Authorship
Autonomous Creative Systems

Physical Object Boundary DAPs
Archaeological Objects
Mass-Produced Cultural Objects
Physical Editions
Reconstructions
Posthumous Production
Performance Objects
Biological Art

Physical–Digital Boundary DAPs
Unauthorized Derivatives
AI-Generated Digital Objects
AI Physical–Digital Artworks
Hybrid Systems
Composite Cultural Systems

Governance and Continuity Boundary DAPs
Custodian Failure
Posthumous Interpretive Authority
Conflicting Governance Mandates
Sensitive Cultural Data
Long-Term Registry Failure

C.6 Boundary DAP Selection Criterion
Not every unresolved issue should become a DAP.

A Boundary DAP should be initiated where a case may materially challenge one or more existing structural assumptions concerning:

Objecthood
Qualification
Authorship
Authority
Relationship
Provenance
Governance
Continuity

The threshold is therefore:

• Does the unresolved case have the potential to alter the architecture itself?

• implementation guidance;
• technical specification;
• institutional procedure;
• later Protocol drafting.

C.7 Relationship to Appendix A and Appendix B

The three Appendices now perform different functions.

APPENDIX A
Detailed Research Findings Register
F-001 → F-126

asks:

What has DAP #0A established?
APPENDIX B
Protocol Implications Register
PI-001 → PI-090

asks:

What might those findings require
from the future standard?
APPENDIX C
Open Questions and Boundary Cases Register
OQ-001 → OQ-100

asks:

What has not yet been sufficiently resolved?

Together they form:

CONFIRMED KNOWLEDGE
+
PROTOCOL DIRECTION
+
RESEARCH UNCERTAINTY

This is a much stronger research architecture than a paper that only records conclusions.

C.8 Relationship to Comparative DAP Analysis
The Open Questions Register should later become one input to the Comparative DAP Analysis.

Each OQ can then be tested against evidence from:

DAP #0
DAP #0A
DAP #1
DAP #2
DAP #3
DAP #4
DAP #5
DAP #6
DAP #7
DAP #8
DAP #9

Some questions may be resolved indirectly.
Others may become more complex.
Some may disappear because their assumptions prove unnecessary.
Others may become critical enough to require a new Boundary DAP.

Therefore:

Open Question
≠
Permanent research problem

It is a versioned research condition.

C.9 Relationship to the Structural Knowledge Matrix
The SKM should eventually add another level to each Open Question:

OQ ID
↓
Affected Structural Principle
↓
Affected DAPs
↓
Cross-DAP Evidence
↓
Resolution Status

Possible future resolution states:

RESOLVED
PARTIALLY RESOLVED
DEFERRED
EXTENSION
BOUNDARY DAP REQUIRED
OUT OF PROTOCOL SCOPE

This will make open research as traceable as confirmed findings.

C.10 Research Integrity Principle
Appendix C establishes an important methodological rule:

• A standards-oriented research program should preserve uncertainty with the same discipline with which it preserves findings.

C.11 Protocol Scope Principle
A second major principle follows:

• The absence of Protocol coverage does not imply the absence of cultural significance.

• the current Protocol architecture has not yet been sufficiently validated for those domains.

• those objects are not culturally significant.

C.12 Versioning Principle
Open Questions should remain versioned.

For example:

OQ-014
CDA Candidate terminology
Status at Paper #8:
OPEN

may later become:

Status after Comparative DAP Analysis:
RESOLVED

with the original question preserved historically.

The same research integrity principle that governs:

• Qualification Provenance;
• Relational Provenance;
• Recognition history;

C.13 Final Register Statement
The Open Questions and Boundary Cases Register records 100 unresolved questions produced or exposed through DAP #0A.

These questions demonstrate that Paper #8 does not merely introduce:

PAO
PCO Candidate
PCO

It exposes a much larger research frontier involving:

• qualification sufficiency;
• cultural authority;
• institutional legitimacy;
• plural recognition;
• contested culture;
• indigenous and sacred authority;
• authorship;
• AI;
• unauthorized derivatives;
• hybrid cultural systems;
• physical editions;
• destruction and reconstruction;
• evolving objects;
• registry federation;
• continuity failure;
• privacy;
• interoperability;
• Protocol scope.

D.1 Purpose of the Appendix
The purpose of this Appendix is to consolidate the principal structural models developed through DAP #0A into a coherent visual architecture.

The diagrams do not constitute independent findings. They provide visual representations of relationships, distinctions, processes, and governance structures established in the main research and consolidated in Appendices A–C.

Accordingly:

Research
↓
Findings
↓
Structural Model
↓
Visual Representation

A diagram must therefore represent an already established structural proposition rather than introduce a new theoretical claim.

The visual models serve four functions:

Conceptual clarification — making distinctions between PAO, PCO Candidate, PCO, Digital Object, CDA and their relationships immediately visible.

Protocol preparation — identifying structures that may later become schemas, records, fields, workflows, or normative models within CDA Protocol v1.0.

Cross-document consistency — providing reusable canonical models for the ANDRBEL Research Program, CDA Protocol and future CDA Standards Organization publications.

Institutional communication — translating complex research structures into forms usable by museums, galleries, archives, artists, estates, researchers, collectors, cultural organizations and other potential users of the standard.

D.2 Diagram Architecture

Paper #8 requires a relatively small number of canonical diagrams, not a visual representation of every finding.

I would divide them into four families:

I. ONTOLOGY
What are the objects?

II. QUALIFICATION
How does cultural qualification occur?

III. RELATIONSHIP
How do physical and digital cultural objects relate?

IV. CONTINUITY AND STANDARDIZATION
How are those structures preserved and governed?

This gives us a coherent visual narrative rather than a collection of unrelated illustrations.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 1
The Physical Cultural Qualification Path
Model
PHYSICAL OBJECT
│
▼
Physical Artistic Object
PAO
│
│ qualification process initiated
▼
PCO Candidate
│
│ evidence
│ recognition
│ significance
│ scope
│ authority
│ provenance
▼
Physical Cultural Object
PCO

Structural Meaning
The model distinguishes three states that must not be conflated:

PAO identifies the object as a physical artistic object.
PCO Candidate identifies an object undergoing structured cultural qualification.
PCO identifies an object that has successfully completed qualification under the applicable Protocol procedure.

The fundamental rule is:

PAO
≠
PCO

and

PCO Candidate
≠
PCO

Artistic objecthood does not automatically establish cultural qualification.

Protocol Relevance
This model becomes the foundational workflow for the Physical Cultural Layer.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 2
Cultural Qualification Is Not Cultural Ranking

This diagram should be particularly important because it prevents one of the most dangerous misinterpretations of PCO.

Model
                        Recognition
                                │
                                │
  Evidence ─── PCO ─── Scope
                               │
                               │
            Cultural Significance
                               │
                               │
                       Continuity

with surrounding contextual domains:
Market Recognition
Economic Value
Public Recognition
Territorial Recognition
Institutional Recognition
Research Recognition
Community Recognition
Legal Status

These do not form a ladder.

Incorrect Model
Level 5 ─── Masterpiece
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level 0

REJECTED

Accepted Model
PCO QUALIFICATION
+
MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROFILE

Structural Meaning
DAP #0A rejects the proposition that cultural objects should be ranked through a universal linear cultural hierarchy.
Two PCOs may therefore possess radically different profiles without one being structurally classified as a “higher PCO.”

For example:

PCO A
Strong Community Recognition
Strong Territorial Significance
Low Market Value
Limited Institutional Recognition

and:

PCO B
Strong Museum Recognition
International Market History
Strong Research Recognition
Limited Community Recognition

Both may legitimately be PCOs.

Protocol Relevance
The Protocol should standardize qualification and description, not cultural superiority.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 3
Recognition Authority ≠ Qualification Authority

This should become one of the central institutional diagrams of Paper #8.

Model
CULTURAL ACTORS

Artist
Museum
Gallery
Curator
Research Body
Community
Collector
Archive
University
Municipality
State Institution
Other Cultural Entity
│
▼
CULTURAL RECOGNITION
│
▼
Recognition Records
│
▼
PCO QUALIFICATION AUTHORITY
│
▼
PCO Qualification Record
│
▼
RECORD CUSTODIAN
│
▼
PROTOCOL CONFORMITY

Separate from this chain:

CDA Standards Organization
│
▼
maintains the common standard

not:

CDA Standards Organization
↓
selects culturally important artworks

Structural Meaning
This visualizes the separation established through Parts VI, XXII and related findings:

Recognition
≠
Qualification
≠
Record Custodianship
≠
Conformity
≠
Standards Stewardship

Protocol Relevance
This is probably one of the diagrams that should eventually migrate almost directly into CDA Protocol v1.0.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 4
Recognition Scope Architecture
Model

Rather than a hierarchy, this should be drawn as multiple intersecting scopes:

OBJECT
│
├── Object-Level
├── Series-Level
├── Corpus-Level
└── Practice-Level


CULTURAL CONTEXT
│
├── Community
├── Institutional
├── Territorial
├── Municipal
├── Regional
├── National
├── Transnational
└── International


LEGAL CONTEXT
│
└── Separate Legal Scope

Structural Principle
Scope
≠
Rank

International Recognition is not structurally “more true” than Community Recognition.

It describes a different scope.

Protocol Relevance
Every attributable Recognition Record should identify its applicable scope.

Thus:

• “This object is recognized”

• “This object has documented community cultural recognition within [specified community/context]”

STRUCTURAL MODEL 5
Plural Recognition and Conflict Architecture
Model
                                   OBJECT
                                         │
┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
│                                      │                                      │
▼                                    ▼                                     ▼

Institution A          Institution B               Community C

RECOGNIZED      NOT RECOGNIZED               RECOGNIZED

Scope A                     Scope B                            Scope C
Date A                       Date B                              Date C
Evidence A               Evidence B                       Evidence C
Authority A              Authority B                      Authority C
│                                      │                                      │
└──────────────┼──────────────┘
                                        ▼
                     RECOGNITION HISTORY

Structural Meaning
Different recognition records do not automatically constitute logical contradiction.

The first analytical question is:
Same object?
Same claim?
Same scope?
Same time?
Same authority domain?

Only after these conditions are compared can genuine conflict be identified.

Protocol Relevance
The Protocol should preserve attributable plural recognition rather than force all cultural judgments into one universal status field.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 6
Independent PCO–CDA Qualification

This is the core ontology discovered through DAP #0A.

Model
PHYSICAL DOMAIN                    DIGITAL DOMAIN

PAO                                                 Digital Object
 │                                                                 │
▼                                                                ▼
PCO Candidate                            CDA Candidate*
 │                                                                │
▼                                                               ▼
PCO                                                        CDA
│                                                                  │
└──────── Relationship ───────┘

* CDA Candidate remains subject to confirmation through Comparative DAP Analysis.

The crucial element is that the vertical qualification processes are independent.

Therefore
All of the following are structurally possible:

PAO + no CDA
PAO + CDA
PCO + no CDA
PCO + CDA
CDA without PCO

and critically:

PAO
│
│
├──────────────► CDA QUALIFIED
│
▼
PCO QUALIFIED LATER

Structural Principle
Relationship
≠
Qualification Dependency

The existence of a physical source does not automatically transfer PCO qualification to the digital object.
Likewise, CDA qualification does not automatically transform the associated PAO into a PCO.
This is perhaps the single most important ontological diagram in Paper #8.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 7
Physical–Digital Relationship Typology

The six relationship models established in the research should be represented together.

1. Derived Relationship
PCO / PAO
│
▼
Digital Object / CDA

The digital object derives from the physical object.

2. Representational Relationship
Physical Object
│
│ represented by
▼
Digital Representation

The digital object represents the physical object but does not constitute it.

3. Parallel Relationship
Physical Object          Digital Object
│                                              │
└──── Common ──────┘
                Concept

Neither object necessarily derives from the other.

4. Reciprocal Relationship
PCO ⇄ CDA

Each object may influence the cultural context, documentation, visibility or interpretation of the other without automatic qualification transfer.

5. Hybrid Relationship
      CULTURAL WORK
                    / \
                /       \
       Physical Digital
Component Component
              \          /
                 \ /
Integrated System

Physical and digital components participate in one integrated work or cultural system.

6. Independent Relationship
PCO                                          CDA
│                                                    │
└──── contextual ───────┘
             relationship

Both possess independent qualification and identity even where a cultural relationship exists.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 8
Four-Dimensional Relationship Analysis

This is needed because “relationship” alone is insufficient.

Model
PCO / PAO
│
│
▼
CDA / Digital Object

The connection is analyzed through four independent questions:

1. SOURCE RELATIONSHIP
Did one object originate from the other?

2. CULTURAL DEPENDENCY
Does cultural meaning or function depend upon the other?

3. QUALIFICATION DEPENDENCY
Does qualification of one legally/structurally require
qualification of the other?

4. COMPOSITE SYSTEM
Do the objects operate together
as a larger cultural structure?

Critical Finding
The third dimension frequently yields:

Qualification Dependency = NO

even where:

Source Relationship = YES

This distinction is essential.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 9
PCO–CDA Relationship Record

Here we move from theory toward Protocol architecture.

Model
PCO RECORD
PCO-ID: PCO-XXXX
                  │
                  │
                 ▼
PCO–CDA RELATIONSHIP RECORD
Relationship ID
Physical Object ID
Digital Object ID
Relationship Type
Source Relationship
Authorization
Creation Event
Rights
Evidence
Relationship Provenance
Version
Governance Authority
             │
             ▼
CDA RECORD
CDA-ID: CDA-XXXX

Structural Meaning
The relationship itself becomes a first-class record.
It should not exist merely as free text inside either object record.
This is one of the most important Protocol-ready structures produced by Paper #8.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 10
Four Provenance Domains
Model
                        CULTURAL OBJECT SYSTEM
                                                 │
┌─────────────────┼─────────────────┐
│                                              │                                               │
▼                                            ▼                                              ▼
PHYSICAL                           DIGITAL                               RELATIONAL
PROVENANCE                 PROVENANCE                      PROVENANCE
│                                              │                                               │
└─────────────────┼─────────────────┘
                                                 │
                                                 ▼
                                  QUALIFICATION
                                      PROVENANCE

More precisely:

Physical Provenance
Physical Object
↓
Creation
↓
Ownership
↓
Transfer
↓
Exhibition
↓
Conservation
↓
Custodianship

Digital Provenance
Digital Object
↓
Creation
↓
File / Version
↓
Issuance
↓
Transfer
↓
Technical Events

Relational Provenance
Physical Object
↓
Relationship Creation
↓
Authorization
↓
Digital Creation Event
↓
Link Establishment
↓
Relationship Changes

Qualification Provenance
Candidate
↓
Evidence
↓
Recognition
↓
Authority
↓
Qualification Decision
↓
Review
↓
Revision / Withdrawal

Protocol Relevance
This model substantially expands the traditional meaning of provenance.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 11
Governance Separation
Model
CREATION AUTHORITY
Artist / Creator
│
▼
QUALIFICATION GOVERNANCE
Qualification Authority
│
▼
RECORD GOVERNANCE
Record Custodian
│
▼
CONTINUITY GOVERNANCE
Successor
│
▼
Artistic Legacy Representative
│
▼
Institutional Custodian

External authorities may intersect:
Museum
Archive
Research Institution
Community Authority
State Authority
Legal Authority

Structural Meaning
Governance is distributed.
No single actor automatically possesses authority over:
authorship
qualification
ownership
interpretation
record modification
custodianship
legal status

simultaneously.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 12
Seven Domains of Cultural Continuity

This is the principal bridge to Artistic Continuity Infrastructure.

Model

At the center:

CULTURAL OBJECT
CONTINUITY

surrounded by:
Material Continuity
Identity Continuity
Provenance Continuity
Interpretive Continuity
Governance Continuity
Qualification Continuity
Institutional Continuity

Expanded logic
Material
│
Identity
│
Provenance
│
Interpretation
│
Governance
│
Qualification
│
Institution
│
▼
LONG-TERM CULTURAL CONTINUITY

But visually I would not make it a simple ladder because none of these dimensions is merely a stage after another.
A circular/radial model would better communicate their interdependence.

Structural Principle
Preservation of matter alone does not constitute preservation of cultural continuity.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 13
The Bridge Between Artistic Continuity Infrastructure and ADAS

This is probably the most important program-level diagram.

Model
ARTISTIC PRACTICE
│
▼
PAO
│
▼
PCO
│
│
├───────────────┐
│                                         │
▼                                        ▼
ARTISTIC                PHYSICAL–DIGITAL
CONTINUITY            RELATIONSHIP
INFRASTRUCTURE                   │
│                                                ▼
│                                              CDA
│                                              │
└────────┬────────┘
                        ▼
        CULTURAL CONTINUITY
             INFRASTRUCTURE

Or at the research-program level:

Artist Legacy Infrastructure
│
▼
Artistic Continuity Infrastructure
│
│
DAP #0A
│
▼
PCO ↔ CDA
│
▼
ADAS
│
▼
CDA Protocol v1.0

Structural Meaning
DAP #0A establishes that the two research trajectories are not parallel independent projects.
They intersect at the preservation and governance of the relationship between physical and digital cultural objects.
This is one of Paper #8's most consequential research-program findings.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 14
Physical / Relational / Digital Cultural Architecture

This should become the final architectural diagram of Paper #8.

Model
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PHYSICAL CULTURAL LAYER                                                             │
│                                                                                                               │
│ Physical Object                                                                                   │
│ ↓                                                                                                            │
│ PAO                                                                                                      │
│ ↓                                                                                                             │
│ PCO Candidate                                                                                    │
│ ↓                                                                                                             │
│ PCO                                                                                                       │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                                                    │
                                                    │
                                                    ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RELATIONAL CULTURAL LAYER                                                        │
│                                                                                                                │
│ PCO–CDA Relationship                                                                       │
│ Relationship Type                                                                               │
│ Relational Provenance                                                                       │
│ Authorization                                                                                      │
│ Rights                                                                                                    │
│ Governance                                                                                         │
│ Continuity                                                                                            │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                                                    │
                                                    │
                                                   ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ DIGITAL CULTURAL LAYER                                                                │
│                                                                                                               │
│ Digital Object                                                                                      │
│ ↓                                                                                                            │
│ CDA Candidate*                                                                                 │
│ ↓                                                                                                            │
│ CDA                                                                                                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Again:

• CDA Candidate* remains provisional pending Comparative DAP Analysis.

STRUCTURAL MODEL 15
CDA Standards Organization — Standards Stewardship Boundary

The final institutional diagram should make the limitation of the Organization visually unmistakable.

Model
CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM

Artists
Museums
Galleries
Archives
Collectors
Estates
Universities
Communities
Foundations
Municipalities
States
Registries
Platforms

│
│ voluntary adoption
▼

┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│ CDA PROTOCOL                                                                 │
│                                                                                               │
│ Physical Cultural Layer                                                      │
│ Relational Cultural Layer                                                   │
│ Digital Cultural Layer                                                         │
└───────────────────────────────────┘
▲
│
Standards Stewardship
│
┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│ CDA STANDARDS ORGANIZATION                                  │
└───────────────────────────────────┘

Beside it:

CDA Standards Organization

DOES:

• maintain terminology
• maintain Protocol
• manage versions
• define conformity structures
• support interoperability
• coordinate standards development
• 
  
• DOES NOT:
• select great art
• determine artistic quality
• rank cultures
• replace museums
• replace communities
• replace states
• replace cultural heritage law

D.3 Main-Body Diagrams vs Appendix Diagrams
I would not place all 15 diagrams in the main body of Paper #8.
That would make the Paper visually heavy and weaken the hierarchy.

The main body should contain approximately 7 canonical figures:

These seven tell the complete argument of Paper #8 visually.
The remaining models can reside in Appendix D as supporting structural diagrams.

D.4 Proposed Appendix D Figure Register

The complete register can therefore be:

D-01 — Physical Cultural Qualification Path
PAO → PCO Candidate → PCO

D-02 — Cultural Qualification vs Cultural Ranking
Binary Qualification + Multidimensional Profile

D-03 — Cultural Recognition and Qualification Authority Architecture

D-04 — Recognition Scope Architecture

D-05 — Plural and Conflicting Recognition Model

D-06 — Independent PCO–CDA Qualification Model

D-07 — Physical–Digital Relationship Typology

D-08 — Four-Dimensional Relationship Analysis

D-09 — PCO–CDA Relationship Record

D-10 — Four Provenance Domains

D-11 — Governance Separation Model

D-12 — Seven Domains of Cultural Continuity

D-13 — Artistic Continuity Infrastructure ↔ ADAS Bridge

D-14 — Physical / Relational / Digital Cultural Architecture

D-15 — CDA Standards Organization Standards Stewardship Boundary

This is enough. I would deliberately stop at 15.

D.5 Canonical Visual Vocabulary

Because these models will later migrate from the Research Program into CDA Protocol and CDA Standards Organization documents, we should already establish a consistent visual vocabulary.

For example:

RECTANGLE
= object / record / institutional entity

CIRCLE
= status / qualification state

ARROW ↓
= process / transition

ARROW →
= directional relationship

ARROW ↔
= reciprocal relationship

DASHED LINE
= contextual / non-dependent relationship

SOLID LINE
= structurally established relationship

CONTAINER
= layer / domain / institutional boundary

This will eventually become part of the CDA Standards Organization visual/documentation system rather than being reinvented for every paper.

D.6 Critical Diagrammatic Distinctions

Several distinctions must remain visually consistent throughout all future diagrams.

1. Qualification and Recognition

Never visualize:

Recognition
↓
PCO

as an automatic transformation.

Instead:

Recognition
│
▼
Qualification Evidence
│
▼
Qualification Process
│
▼
PCO

2. PCO and CDA
Never visualize:

PCO
↓
CDA

as the universal model.

Instead:

PCO CDA
│ │
└───↔─────┘

with independent qualification.

3. Economic Value

Never visually position:

Price
↓
PCO

Economic data must appear as contextual evidence outside the qualification core.

4. Legal Status

Never visualize:

PCO
=
Protected Cultural Property

Instead:

PCO Qualification Legal Cultural Status
│ │
└──── may coexist ────────┘

5. CDA Standards Organization

Never visualize:

CDA Standards Organization
↓
PCO Qualification

Instead:

CDA Standards Organization
↓
CDA Protocol
↓
Qualification Framework

Independent / Mandated Actors
↓
Qualification Decision

That distinction should remain invariant across every future institutional publication.

D.7 Structural Evolution Produced by DAP #0A

Appendix D also allows us to see visually what Paper #8 has actually changed.

Before DAP #0A

The simplified conceptual architecture was:

Physical Artwork
│
▼
Digital Representation
│
▼
CDA

That model is now insufficient.

After DAP #0A

The architecture becomes:

PHYSICAL DOMAIN

Physical Object
↓
PAO
↓
PCO Candidate
↓
PCO

↕

RELATIONAL DOMAIN

Relationship
Relationship Type
Authorization
Relational Provenance
Governance
Continuity

↕

DIGITAL DOMAIN

Digital Object
↓
CDA Candidate*
↓
CDA

with:

Independent Qualification
+
Attributable Recognition
+
Explicit Scope
+
Four Provenance Domains
+
Distributed Governance
+
Seven Continuity Domains

This is a fundamentally richer architecture than the one with which DAP #0A began.

D.8 Relationship to CDA Protocol v1.0

The diagrams should not automatically become Protocol diagrams.

Their trajectory is:

Paper #8 Structural Model
↓
Comparative DAP Analysis
↓
Structural Knowledge Matrix
↓
AFM v2.0
↓
ADAS Foundation Framework
↓
Protocol-Ready Findings Register
↓
CDA Protocol v1.0

At each stage, a model may be:

CONFIRMED

MODIFIED

MERGED

SPLIT

RESEARCH-ONLY

PROTOCOL-READY

This preserves the distinction between research architecture and normative standards architecture.

D.9 Final Structural Synthesis

Taken together, the diagrams establish a single integrated model:

               CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM
                                 │
                                ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ PHYSICAL LAYER                           │
│                                                         │
│ PAO                                                │
│ ↓                                                      │
│ PCO Candidate                             │
│ ↓                                                      │
│ PCO                                                │
└──────────┬──────────┘
                              │
                               ↕
┌─────────────────────┐
│ RELATIONAL LAYER                      │
│                                                         │
│ Relationship                                  │
│ Provenance                                   │
│ Authorization                                 │
│ Governance                                   │
│ Continuity                                      │
└──────────┬──────────┘
                              │
                              ↕
┌─────────────────────┐
│ DIGITAL LAYER                              │
│                                                         │
│ Digital Object                                │
│ ↓                                                      │
│ CDA Candidate*                           │
│ ↓                                                       │
│ CDA                                                │
└─────────────────────┘
                            │
                           ▼
           CDA PROTOCOL v1.0
                            │
                            ▼
 CDA STANDARDS ORGANIZATION
       Standards Stewardship

And surrounding the complete system:

Recognition
Evidence
Scope
Qualification
Provenance
Governance
Continuity
Interoperability
Versioning
Conformity

This, in my view, is the master structural model produced by Paper #8.

D.10 Final Appendix Statement
Appendix D demonstrates that the principal contribution of DAP #0A is not merely the introduction of the term Physical Cultural Object (PCO).

The deeper result is the emergence of a three-layer cultural infrastructure architecture:

• Physical Cultural Layer ↔ Relational Cultural Layer ↔ Digital Cultural Layer

• PAO and PCO are distinguished;
• cultural recognition and formal qualification are separated;
• PCO and CDA are independently qualified;
• physical–digital relationships become explicit structural objects;
• provenance expands into physical, digital, relational and qualification provenance;
• governance becomes distributed and attributable;
• continuity extends beyond material preservation;
• CDA Standards Organization maintains the common framework without becoming the authority that determines cultural value.

E.1 Purpose of the Register
The Terminology Status Register identifies the epistemic and developmental status of the principal terms used in Paper #8.

Its purpose is to prevent three different categories from being confused:

• terms that DAP #0A has sufficiently established as research vocabulary;
• terms that remain provisional and require comparative validation;
• terms that are explanatory or hypothetical and should not yet enter CDA Protocol terminology.

• What is this term now, and where should it go next?

E.2 Status Categories

For Paper #8, the following status categories are used.

Established Research Term
A term sufficiently defined and structurally supported within DAP #0A to function as stable research vocabulary.
This does not yet make it a final CDA Protocol definition.

Established Research Category
A classification or structural category sufficiently supported within the investigated scope, but potentially requiring additional boundary testing before normative standardization.

Protocol Candidate
A term or category whose function appears sufficiently important to be considered for normative inclusion in CDA Protocol after comparative validation.

Provisional
A term whose structural function appears necessary, but whose terminology, scope, or exact definition remains unresolved.

Scope-Bounded
A term or definition established within the validated physical-artistic-object scope of DAP #0A but not yet generalized to all cultural heritage domains.

Explanatory Only
A concept useful for theoretical discussion but not intended to become an independent normative field or status.

Hypothesis
A concept generated by the research but not sufficiently validated to be treated as an established category.

Rejected / Replaced
An exploratory term found to be structurally misleading or unnecessary and replaced by a more precise formulation.

E.3 Core Object and Qualification Terms

E.3.1 Interpretation

The most significant terminology result of DAP #0A is the stabilization of:

PAO
↓
PCO Candidate
↓
PCO

as a coherent physical-artistic qualification pathway.

CDA Candidate, by contrast, should not yet be treated as equally established.

Its functional need is supported, but its final name and lifecycle relationship to CDA remain subject to DAP #1–#9 comparative analysis.

E.4 Cultural Recognition and Qualification Concepts

E.4.1 Cultural Status
Cultural Status should remain deliberately outside the normative core.

The term is too broad and risks overlapping with:

• PCO Qualification Status;
• Recognition Status;
• Legal Status;
• institutional status.

• Use precise operational statuses rather than one generic Cultural Status field.

E.5 Physical–Digital Relationship Terms

E.6 Clarification of the Relationship Typology
A particularly important terminology correction occurred during Paper #8.

The exploratory model initially included:

• Independent Relationship

• Representational;
• Derived;
• Parallel;
• Reciprocal;
• Hybrid.

E.7 Provenance Terms

E.7.1 Relational Provenance
Among all terms introduced by DAP #0A, Relational Provenance should be treated as one of the most significant.

It identifies a distinct historical domain that cannot be collapsed into:

• Physical Provenance;
• Digital Provenance.

• how a particular physical and digital object became related and how that relationship changed over time.

E.8 Governance Terms

E.9 Continuity Terms

E.10 Cultural Layer Terms

E.10.1 Preferred Standards Terminology
For future CDA Protocol work, Layer should probably be preferred over Domain when referring to the three primary standards structures:

Physical Cultural Layer
Relational Cultural Layer
Digital Cultural Layer

Domain can remain useful analytically for areas such as:

• provenance domains;
• significance domains;
• continuity domains.

E.11 Standards and Conformity Terms

E.12 Principles Established by DAP #0A
Several concepts are better treated as principles than as object definitions.

  
 
 
  

 

 

These principles should later be compared with the findings from the full DAP corpus before determining whether they become named normative principles in CDA Protocol v1.0 or remain embedded in requirements.

E.13 Terms Requiring Boundary Validation

The following terms are sufficiently meaningful to retain in the research, but should not yet be stabilized normatively.

E.14 Composite Cultural System
This term deserves particular caution.

DAP #0A established that a physical and digital component may form a:

• Hybrid Relationship

E.15 Terms Deliberately Excluded from Normative-Core Status
Several concepts should remain outside the normative vocabulary unless later research establishes a need.

Cultural Potential
Useful for theoretical explanation but too indeterminate for qualification.

Cultural Objecthood
Useful as a broad conceptual category but unnecessary as an additional Protocol status.

Cultural Status
Too broad to function as a precise operational field.

Cultural Ownership
Conceptually unresolved and potentially confusable with legal property rights.

Artistic Quality
Not a legitimate standards field.

Cultural Superiority
Explicitly outside the standardization mandate.

Aesthetic Merit
Not subject to CDA Protocol standardization.

These exclusions are themselves important because they protect the future standard from category proliferation and institutional overreach.

E.16 Rejected or Corrected Terminology

Paper #8 also produced several useful terminological corrections.

Independent Relationship

Status: Rejected as Relationship Type.

Replacement:

• Independent Objects / No Qualifying Relationship

• Recognition Records;
• Recognition Scope;
• PCO Qualification Status;
• Legal Status;
• Conformity Status;
• other domain-specific statuses.

Status: Rejected ontology.

CDA is an independently qualified digital cultural asset, not automatically the digital copy of a qualified physical object.

E.17 Terminology by Epistemic Status

The full vocabulary can now be summarized in four principal groups.

Group I — Established / Strong Protocol Candidates

PAO
PCO Candidate
PCO
PCO Qualification
PCO Qualification Claim
PCO Qualification Record
PCO Qualification Authority
Recognition Record
Recognition Scope
Cultural Relevance
Cultural Significance
Cultural Recognition
Physical–Digital Relationship
Physical–Digital Relationship Record
Source Relationship
Cultural Dependency
Qualification Dependency
Governance Dependency
Physical Provenance
Digital Provenance
Relational Provenance
Qualification Provenance
Record Custodian
Protocol Conformity
Conformity Scope
Physical Cultural Layer
Relational Cultural Layer
Digital Cultural Layer

Group II — Established Research Terms Requiring Normative Refinement
Recognition Profile
Qualification-Critical Claim
Qualification Mandate
Distributed Governance
Cultural Continuity
Seven Continuity Domains
Relationship Status
PCO Qualification Status
Protocol Conformity Authority
Institutional Non-Substitution Principle
Standards Steward

Group III — Provisional / Boundary Validation Required
CDA Candidate
Hybrid Relationship
Presumption of Cultural Relevance
Continuity Risk Assessment
Self-Declared Conformity
Independently Reviewed Conformity

Group IV — Research-Only / Hypothetical / Rejected
Cultural Objecthood
Cultural Potential
Cultural Status
Cultural Ownership
Composite Cultural System
Composite Cultural Object
Composite Qualification
Independent Relationship
PCO Levels
Universal Cultural Status

E.18 Terminology Migration Path
The Register establishes that different terms now follow different paths.

Example 1 — PCO
DAP #0A
Established Research Term
↓
Comparative DAP Analysis
↓
Protocol-Ready Definition
↓
CDA Protocol v1.0
↓
CDA Standards Organization
Institutional Vocabulary

Example 2 — CDA Candidate
DAP #0A
Provisional Functional Term
↓
DAP #1–#9 Comparison
↓
Confirm / Rename / Reject
↓
Possible Protocol Definition

Example 3 — Composite Cultural System
DAP #0A
Hypothesis
↓
DAP #9
↓
Boundary Validation
↓
Confirm / Modify / Reject

Example 4 — Cultural Status
DAP #0A
Explanatory Concept
↓
Research Use Only

No independent
Protocol Status planned

This makes the epistemic architecture transparent.

E.19 Relationship to the ADAS Glossary
Paper #8 should not silently overwrite the existing ADAS Glossary.

Instead, terminology generated here should enter a later glossary revision through explicit versioning.

The correct sequence is:

ADAS Glossary
current version
↓
Paper #8 Terminology Register
↓
DAP #8 / DAP #9
↓
Comparative DAP Analysis
↓
Terminology Consolidation
↓
ADAS Glossary
future version

This preserves research chronology.

Terms introduced by DAP #0A should remain attributable to DAP #0A until consolidated across the research program.

E.20 Relationship to CDA Protocol v1.0
Similarly, Appendix E is not the future CDA Protocol glossary.

Its purpose is to tell Protocol development:
Stable enough to consider

versus:
Still provisional

versus:
Research-only

The later Protocol terminology process should therefore be:

Paper Definitions
+
Terminology Status Register
+
Comparative DAP Analysis
↓
Protocol Terminology Candidate Set
↓
Normative Definition Review
↓
CDA Protocol v1.0 Glossary

This prevents the final standard from inheriting every experimental research term.

E.21 Relationship to CDA Standards Organization
Several terms are strong enough that, after comparative validation and Protocol adoption, they could become part of CDA Standards Organization's official vocabulary.

The highest-priority candidates are:

Physical Artistic Object (PAO)
PCO Candidate
Physical Cultural Object (PCO)
Physical Cultural Layer
Relational Cultural Layer
Digital Cultural Layer
Relational Provenance
Qualification Provenance
Physical–Digital Relationship Record
Independent Qualification Principle

But the Organization should adopt them through the institutional standards lifecycle, not merely because they were introduced in one research paper.

This preserves the separation:

Research
↓
Standards Development
↓
Institutional Adoption

E.22 Terminology Status Summary

The principal result of Appendix E can be summarized as:

This Register prevents the reader from assuming that every capitalized concept in Paper #8 possesses identical theoretical or normative status.

E.23 Final Terminology Architecture

After DAP #0A, the principal terminology architecture is:

PHYSICAL CULTURAL LAYER

Physical Object
↓
Physical Artistic Object (PAO)
↓
PCO Candidate
↓
Physical Cultural Object (PCO)

↕

RELATIONAL CULTURAL LAYER

Physical–Digital Relationship
Relationship Type
Source Relationship
Cultural Dependency
Qualification Dependency
Governance Dependency
Relational Provenance
Relationship Governance

↕

DIGITAL CULTURAL LAYER

Digital Object
↓
[CDA Candidate — provisional]
↓
Cultural Digital Asset (CDA)

Across all three layers operate:

Cultural Recognition
Recognition Scope
Evidence
Provenance
Governance
Continuity
Versioning
Conformity

And outside the normative cultural-ranking function remain:

Artistic Quality
Aesthetic Merit
Cultural Superiority
Market Prestige
Universal Cultural Meaning

E.24 Final Appendix Statement
The Terminology Status Register demonstrates that DAP #0A has generated more than a glossary.
It has produced a differentiated terminology architecture in which each concept carries an explicit epistemic status.

The central terms:

• PAO, PCO Candidate, PCO, Relational Provenance, Physical–Digital Relationship, and the Physical / Relational / Digital Cultural Layers

• CDA Candidate, Hybrid Relationship, and Presumption of Cultural Relevance

• Composite Cultural System

• Cultural Status, Cultural Objecthood, and Cultural Potential

Support independent artistic research in Cognitive Structuralism, conceptual painting, and long-term cultural infrastructure development.

[Support Research]

This publication forms part of the Demonstration and Validation Project (DAP) Research Series within the ANDRBEL Research Program.

The DAP Research Series provides the research and validation foundation for the development of the CDA Protocol and the future standards of the CDA Standards Organization.

All research models, validation methodologies, ontological classifications, diagrams, conceptual systems, terminologies, and written materials presented herein form part of the intellectual work of AndrBel.

© AndrBel, 2025–Present. All rights reserved.

For academic reference, citation is permitted with proper attribution.

Commercial implementation, derivative standards, or commercial reuse of the presented research requires prior written permission.