Permitted Reference Language for TA-14

Purpose of This Page

This page establishes the permitted public language for referencing TA-14 in external materials, including advisory work, audit-readiness discussions, compliance preparation, academic writing, system architecture descriptions, professional presentations, client proposals, and public commentary.

TA-14 may be referenced publicly, but it must be referenced accurately.

The purpose of this page is to make that accuracy easy. It provides approved wording, explains the boundaries of public reference, and clarifies what may not be implied when TA-14 is cited by third parties.

This matters because TA-14 is not merely a general idea about governance, AI safety, compliance, monitoring, or auditability. TA-14 is a specific proof-bound governance architecture created and architected by Greggory Don Butler. It defines a record-first execution model centered on append-only evidence, admissibility, continuity, and non-bypassable commit-time execution boundaries.

Because TA-14 may be relevant to high-consequence environments, including AI governance, financial systems, insurance workflows, environmental integrity, building systems, automated decision-making, and EU AI Act readiness discussions, public references must avoid ambiguity.

A reference to TA-14 must not create the impression that a product, service, audit, advisory framework, report, client engagement, legal opinion, software system, compliance process, or external organization has been certified, endorsed, licensed, partnered with, approved, co-developed, or formally affiliated with TA-14 unless that relationship has been separately established in writing.

The correct public posture is simple:

TA-14 may be referenced as an informing governance architecture.

TA-14 may not be represented as a certification, endorsement, partnership, license, approval, or affiliation unless explicitly authorized.

Core Approved Reference Language

The following language may be used verbatim in public materials:

“TA-14 is a proof-bound governance architecture created and architected by Greggory Don Butler. It defines a record-first execution model using append-only evidence, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries. In this context, it supports traceability of automated or AI-assisted actions to admissible records before execution.”

This wording is intentionally precise.

It identifies TA-14 as an architecture, not a product certification.

It identifies Greggory Don Butler as the creator and architect.

It describes the relevant architectural components without overstating the relationship between TA-14 and any third-party use.

It allows third parties to reference TA-14 while preserving authorship, scope, and legal clarity.

Expanded Approved Reference Language

Where a longer explanation is appropriate, the following version may be used:

“TA-14, created and architected by Greggory Don Butler, is a proof-bound governance architecture that defines a record-first execution model. It centers on append-only evidence, continuity, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries. TA-14 may inform discussions of AI governance, automated decision-making, compliance readiness, and high-consequence system design by helping distinguish between information that is merely available and evidence that is admissible enough to support action before execution occurs.”

This expanded language may be useful in client proposals, advisory notes, educational material, audit-readiness documentation, and public explanations.

Short Reference Language

For shorter mentions, the following language may be used:

“Informed by TA-14’s proof-bound governance architecture, created and architected by Greggory Don Butler.”

or:

“Referencing TA-14 as an informing architecture for append-only evidence, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time execution boundaries.”

Short references should still preserve the core boundaries:

TA-14 is an informing architecture.

TA-14 was created and architected by Greggory Don Butler.

The reference does not imply certification, endorsement, partnership, licensing, approval, or affiliation.

Permitted Descriptive Phrases

The following phrases are generally acceptable when used accurately and with proper attribution:

“informed by TA-14’s proof-bound governance architecture”

“referencing TA-14 as an informing execution-governance architecture”

“aligned with TA-14 principles of append-only evidence and admissibility”

“drawing from TA-14’s record-first execution model”

“using TA-14 as an architectural reference point”

“informed by TA-14’s distinction between records, admissibility, and execution”

“guided by TA-14’s emphasis on admissible evidence before action”

“referencing TA-14’s non-bypassable commit-time boundary model”

“informed by TA-14’s proof-bound approach to execution integrity”

These phrases are acceptable only when they do not imply a formal relationship that does not exist.

Required Attribution

All public references to TA-14 should preserve clear authorship.

The preferred attribution is:

“TA-14 was created and architected by Greggory Don Butler.”

This attribution should not be removed, buried, or rewritten in a way that obscures authorship.

TA-14 should not be described as having been created, co-created, co-developed, originated, certified, endorsed, sponsored, licensed, approved, or formally adopted by any outside organization unless that relationship has been separately confirmed in writing by Greggory Don Butler.

This includes, but is not limited to, references involving certification bodies, audit firms, advisory firms, compliance providers, software vendors, academic institutions, trade associations, government entities, law firms, or regulatory consultants.

Required Boundary Statement

When TA-14 is referenced in professional, advisory, compliance, audit-readiness, or client-facing materials, the following boundary statement should be included where practical:

“TA-14 is referenced as an informing governance architecture. This reference does not imply certification, endorsement, partnership, licensing, approval, or formal affiliation.”

This statement is especially important when TA-14 is mentioned in connection with:

EU AI Act readiness

GDPR compliance

AI risk assessments

audit preparation

TÜV, ISO, or certification-related discussions

client proposals

compliance reports

legal advisory materials

software governance offerings

risk snapshot products

vendor-facing documentation

public marketing

The boundary statement protects both TA-14 and the third party referencing it.

Prohibited Language

The following language is not permitted unless a separate written agreement exists:

“Certified by TA-14”

“TA-14 certified”

“TA-14 approved”

“Approved under TA-14”

“TA-14 compliant”

“TA-14 licensed”

“Licensed by TA-14”

“TA-14 endorsed”

“Endorsed by TA-14”

“TA-14 partner”

“Partnered with TA-14”

“Built with TA-14”

“Powered by TA-14”

“TA-14 verified”

“Verified by TA-14”

“TA-14 audited”

“Audited by TA-14”

“Co-created with TA-14”

“Co-developed with TA-14”

“Jointly developed with TA-14”

“Created in partnership with TA-14”

“TA-14 implementation partner”

“TA-14 authorized provider”

“Official TA-14 provider”

“TA-14 compliance product”

“TA-14 certification pathway provider”

“TA-14 audit-ready certified”

These phrases create the appearance of formal authority, affiliation, endorsement, or certification. They should not be used unless explicitly authorized in writing.

Prohibited Certification and Affiliation Claims

TA-14 must not be described as certified by, affiliated with, partnered with, endorsed by, approved by, licensed by, co-created with, or co-developed with any other certification body, audit authority, regulator, law firm, consulting firm, vendor, institution, or third-party organization unless such a relationship has been formally established in writing.

A third party may describe its own work as informed by TA-14 only if the wording remains clear that TA-14 is being referenced as an architecture, not as an external validation, audit approval, or certification mark.

For example, this is not acceptable:

“Our AI audit process is TA-14 approved.”

This is acceptable:

“Our AI audit-readiness methodology is informed by TA-14’s proof-bound governance architecture, which emphasizes append-only evidence, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries.”

The difference is important.

The first statement implies authority granted by TA-14.

The second statement identifies TA-14 as an informing architecture.

Use in EU AI Act Readiness Contexts

TA-14 may be referenced in EU AI Act readiness discussions as an informing governance architecture for proof-bound execution, append-only evidence, admissibility, traceability, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries.

However, TA-14 does not itself constitute legal advice, regulatory certification, audit approval, or proof of EU AI Act compliance.

Its relevance is architectural.

TA-14 helps frame questions such as:

What record does an automated or AI-assisted action rely on?

Was the relevant evidence captured before interpretation?

Was the record preserved in a continuity-respecting form?

Is the evidence admissible for the specific action being considered?

Is the action bound to that admissible state before execution?

Does the system have a non-bypassable boundary at the moment consequence becomes real?

Does the system allow, block, or escalate when admissibility fails?

These questions may support readiness thinking, audit preparation, system design, governance analysis, and risk evaluation.

But referencing TA-14 does not replace legal analysis, regulatory interpretation, formal audit, certification, or compliance determination.

Use in Client Proposals and Advisory Materials

Third parties may reference TA-14 in client proposals and advisory materials if the reference is accurate, attributed, and bounded.

A suitable formulation is:

“This work is informed by TA-14’s proof-bound governance architecture, created and architected by Greggory Don Butler. TA-14 defines a record-first execution model using append-only evidence, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries. TA-14 is referenced here as an informing architecture only and does not imply certification, endorsement, partnership, licensing, approval, or formal affiliation.”

This language may be used where a consultant, lawyer, advisor, auditor, software architect, governance professional, or compliance-readiness provider wants to explain that TA-14 informs their thinking without implying formal authorization.

Use in Academic, Educational, and Research Contexts

TA-14 may be referenced in academic, educational, and research contexts as a governance architecture concerned with admissible execution, record-first evidence, continuity, and non-bypassable commit-time enforcement.

Researchers, educators, students, and public commentators may discuss TA-14, quote public TA-14 materials, and analyze its relevance to AI governance, environmental integrity, building systems, execution control, financial execution integrity, insurance execution integrity, and high-consequence decision systems.

Attribution should remain clear.

TA-14 should not be generalized into vague phrases such as “execution governance” or “runtime control” without preserving the specific TA-14 structure.

The core TA-14 chain is:

Reality → Record → Continuity → Admissibility → Commit Enforcement → Execution → Outcome

This chain should not be reduced to “AI governance,” “auditability,” “monitoring,” or “compliance” alone.

Why Reference Accuracy Matters

TA-14 addresses high-consequence systems where action may create legal, financial, operational, environmental, institutional, or human impact.

In those contexts, language matters.

If TA-14 is misrepresented as a certification, a product endorsement, a regulatory approval, or a formal partnership, the result can create confusion for clients, auditors, regulators, advisors, and affected parties.

Accurate language preserves the central distinction:

TA-14 is an architecture for making admissible truth a condition of action.

It is not a marketing badge.

It is not a compliance shortcut.

It is not a certification mark.

It is not a substitute for legal or regulatory advice.

It is not an endorsement of a third-party product, service, platform, audit, legal opinion, or advisory framework.

Where TA-14 informs external work, the reference should remain precise and bounded.

The Correct Public Position

The correct public position is:

TA-14 may inform external work.

TA-14 may be studied and cited.

TA-14 may be referenced in discussions of AI governance, compliance readiness, environmental integrity, execution integrity, and high-consequence system design.

But TA-14 should not be used to imply authority, approval, certification, endorsement, affiliation, licensing, or partnership unless such a relationship has been formally established.

The safest public framing is:

“Informed by TA-14.”

Not:

“Certified by TA-14.”

Not:

“Approved by TA-14.”

Not:

“In partnership with TA-14.”

Not:

“Co-developed with TA-14.”

Summary

TA-14 can be referenced publicly when the reference is accurate, attributed, and bounded.

The preferred language is:

“TA-14 is a proof-bound governance architecture created and architected by Greggory Don Butler. It defines a record-first execution model using append-only evidence, admissibility, and non-bypassable commit-time boundaries. In this context, it supports traceability of automated or AI-assisted actions to admissible records before execution.”

All public references should preserve three principles:

First, authorship must remain clear.

Second, TA-14 must be described as an informing governance architecture unless a formal relationship exists.

Third, no certification, endorsement, partnership, licensing, approval, or affiliation may be implied without written authorization.

TA-14 exists to make truth a condition of action.

Public references should preserve that integrity.