This register formalises the governing constraints that NAVV has always operated under — but which have until now been implicit. Making them explicit is not a revolution. It is a naming exercise that enables governance.
A principle is a governing constraint. If removing it would make our solution invalid, risky, or dishonest — it is a principle. If removing it would merely make our solution less efficient or less elegant — it is a preference.
Composition at Stage 2
Type
Count
Notes
Absolute
1
The non-negotiable physics of our operating domain
Regulatory
2
Current NDIS legislative and standards obligations
Institutional
4
Our strategic choices — what makes our approach distinct
Heuristic
4
Accumulated wisdom; reviewed and updated as we learn
Total
11
Within the minimum viable range for early-maturity organisations
Absolute Principles
PR-A001 — NDIS Legislative Supremacy
Field
Content
Statement
All NAVV content that pertains to NDIS eligibility, funding, support categories, or price limits must conform to the current operative legislative framework — the NDIS Act 2013, NDIS Rules, and NDIA guidelines. Content that contradicts the framework is structurally invalid, regardless of practitioner preference or market demand.
Type
Absolute
Rationale
The NDIS legislative framework operates independently of NAVV's intent. Compliance is a precondition for operational legitimacy — not a strategic choice. Content that contradicts it exposes participants to incorrect guidance and exposes NAVV to legal liability.
Consequence of violation
Content actively harms NDIS participants; NAVV loses professional credibility and potentially legal standing.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel). Andrew flags content areas exceeding his domain knowledge — escalate to Brian and external NDIS expertise as required.
Review date
N/A — Absolute. However: when NDIS legislation changes, all content must be audited against the new framework.
Regulatory Principles
PR-R001 — PAPL Currency
Field
Content
Statement
All support item codes, price limits, and billing rules cited in NAVV content must reflect the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits (PAPL) current at time of content creation or last review.
Type
Regulatory
Rationale
PAPL is updated annually (typically 1 July). Outdated price data in practitioner-facing content causes direct financial harm — practitioners may bill incorrectly; participant plan funds may be exhausted by erroneous billing.
Consequence of violation
Practitioners bill incorrectly; participants sustain financial harm; NAVV faces liability and reputational damage.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel) — ingestion review step is the friction point.
Review date
Annual review at PAPL release; immediate re-review for any content touching price codes when PAPL updates.
PR-R002 — NDIS Practice Standards Alignment
Field
Content
Statement
Any content touching support delivery, quality assurance, or participant safeguarding must be consistent with current NDIS Practice Standards and Quality Indicators.
Type
Regulatory
Rationale
NDIS-registered providers are bound by Practice Standards. Content that contradicts them puts providers at compliance risk and undermines NAVV's value as a practitioner resource.
Consequence of violation
Registered provider partners face compliance risk; NAVV content becomes a liability.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel) — with escalation to Andrew if market-facing implications arise.
Review date
Review whenever NDIS Practice Standards are updated; annual review minimum.
Institutional Principles
PR-I001 — Distributed Sentinel Model
Field
Content
Statement
Andrew holds sentinel authority over market-facing P3 pillars: Principle (market-facing), Product, and Strategy. Brian holds sentinel authority over operational P3 pillars: Pattern, Maturity, and Governance. Neither sentinel resolves decisions within the other's domain unilaterally — escalation is mandatory.
Type
Institutional
Rationale
Brian and Andrew co-authored P3 and have distinct domain expertise. Andrew's market knowledge governs what NAVV builds and why. Brian's operational knowledge governs how NAVV builds it and whether it is built soundly. Conflating these domains degrades the quality of both outputs and the reliability of governance.
Consequence of violation
Decisions are made without appropriate domain expertise; governance structures lose legitimacy; architectural coherence is undermined.
Owner
Both founders, mutually. Brian enforces Governance domain boundaries. Andrew enforces Product and Strategy domain boundaries.
Review date
Annual review, or upon any structural change to the NAVV partnership model.
PR-I002 — Andrew's Interface Boundary
Field
Content
Statement
Andrew's primary operational interface with NAVV's internal governance systems is through curated outputs — NotebookLM product notebooks and the planned P3 Dashboard notebook. Andrew does not access raw technical artefacts, unprocessed internal governance documents, or unfiltered workflow outputs. Curated P3 governance outputs (to the P3 Dashboard) are explicitly permitted — Andrew co-authored P3 theory and has standing to engage with it in curated form.
Type
Institutional
Rationale
Andrew co-authored P3's theoretical framework. A curated P3 visibility layer respects his intellectual ownership while maintaining a clean operational interface. Exposing raw technical governance creates confusion about roles and violates the clean interface that protects product quality.
Consequence of violation
Andrew may make design decisions he is not equipped to make operationally; the interface loses its curation value; role confusion degrades output quality.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel) — Missive protocol is the friction point before any Andrew-facing content is delivered.
Review date
Annual review, or if Andrew's operational role expands materially.
PR-I003 — P3 Artefact Independence
Field
Content
Statement
P3-Governance artefacts must be logically independent of product artefacts. Deleting P3-Governance/ must not affect any product artefact in NDIS-Wiki, Andrew-Interface, or Droppings. Product artefacts must not depend on P3-Governance files.
Type
Institutional
Rationale
Brian explicitly designed P3 governance as a layer that can be removed if the approach fails. Entangling governance artefacts with product artefacts would make removal costly, risky, and disruptive to live product work.
Consequence of violation
P3 adoption becomes irreversible; removal requires product artefact surgery; the "clean exit" design intent is defeated.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel).
Review date
Annual review.
PR-I004 — Traceability Mandate
Field
Content
Statement
All project decisions, directives, and content changes must be recorded in the Obsidian project record. A decision not in the project record did not happen for governance purposes.
Type
Institutional
Rationale
NAVV's work has potential legislative implications. An unrecorded decision is undefendable under scrutiny. The Missive protocol and Questions Log are the primary mechanisms.
Consequence of violation
Decisions become undiscoverable; governance audit trails become incomplete; accountability cannot be assigned.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel) — Missive protocol and Questions Log are the friction points.
Review date
Annual review.
Heuristic Principles
PR-H001 — Minimum Viable Governance
Field
Content
Statement
Governance structures are calibrated to demonstrated maturity. Do not build governance structures for capabilities the organisation does not yet have.
Type
Heuristic
Rationale
P3 explicitly warns against over-governance at low maturity — it generates Theatre (form without substance) rather than integrity. NAVV at L1–L2 maturity needs L1–L2 governance structures.
Consequence of violation
Governance becomes a productivity drag; practitioners route around it; Theatre replaces integrity.
Owner
Brian (Maturity sentinel).
Review date
Review whenever the maturity level changes materially.
PR-H002 — Wiki as Disambiguation Device
Field
Content
Statement
When NDIS terminology conflicts arise across products or source documents, the NDIS-Wiki is the primary disambiguation device — not individual product notebooks or sub-agent judgment.
Type
Heuristic
Rationale
Brian stated this explicitly. Multiple product notebooks will inevitably develop overlapping and occasionally conflicting NDIS terminology. A single wiki prevents silent terminology drift across products.
Consequence of violation
Cross-product contradictions accumulate silently; practitioners receive inconsistent guidance from different NAVV products.
Owner
Brian (Pattern sentinel) — wiki quality reviews are the mechanism.
Review date
Review if the wiki's structural role changes.
PR-H003 — One Notebook Per Session
Field
Content
Statement
In intake operations, query one product notebook per missive session. No speculative cross-notebook sweeps unless explicitly directed by Brian.
Type
Heuristic
Rationale
Token frugality. Brian confirmed this as his intent. Multi-notebook sweeps multiply session cost N-fold without proportional benefit.
Consequence of violation
Token costs escalate; session outputs may conflate concerns from different products; Brian's per-session direction is diluted.
Owner
Brian (Governance sentinel) — enforced by Missive targeting convention.
Review date
Review if automated intake becomes feasible.
PR-H004 — Escalate, Never Resolve Unilaterally
Field
Content
Statement
When a decision falls within a sentinel's domain and requires resolution, surface it to the appropriate sentinel via the Missive protocol rather than resolving it independently.
Type
Heuristic
Rationale
Brian has required escalation over autonomous resolution throughout this project. Autonomous resolution — even well-intentioned — undermines the architectural coherence that Brian provides as the operational sentinel.
Consequence of violation
Design decisions are made without appropriate authority; architectural coherence degrades; Brian's ability to govern the project is undermined.
Owner
Sub-agent — enforced via the CLAUDE.md escalation triggers and Missive response protocol.
Review date
Ongoing.
Governance Test Summary
Applying the three-question governance test (Observability / Authority / Accountability) to all Institutional Principles:
Principle
Observable?
Authority named?
Accountability?
Governance status
PR-I001 — Distributed Sentinel
Yes — domain crossings are observable via Missive record
Yes — mutual (Brian and Andrew)
Yes — escalation failure is visible in project record
Active
PR-I002 — Andrew's Interface
Yes — delivery events are recorded in Missive A: blocks
Yes — Brian (Missive review step)
Yes — undocumented deliveries are a Traceability Mandate breach
Active
PR-I003 — P3 Independence
Yes — file dependency checks are script-verifiable
Yes — Brian
Yes — a merge that violates independence is detectable
Active
PR-I004 — Traceability
Yes — absence of Missive record is itself visible
Yes — Brian (Questions Log and Missive protocol)
Yes — undocumented decisions cannot be defended
Active
All four Institutional Principles pass the governance test at current maturity. No governance gaps identified at this stage.
Artefact status: Active — first formal principles register. Supersedes any implicit principles previously embedded in CLAUDE.md or project documentation.