Human Authority and Judgment

Purpose

The JellyLabs foundation protocols define formal processes for proposing, developing, and publishing work.

However, no protocol can anticipate every ambiguity, conflict, or novel circumstance.

This document defines the human authority fallback.

Principle

When protocols conflict, stall, or are underspecified, resolution is a human responsibility.

AI systems, automated processes, and formal protocols may inform decisions, but they do not replace human judgment.

When the Fallback Applies

Human authority MUST be exercised when:

  • Two protocols appear to conflict
  • A protocol does not cover a new situation
  • A process deadlocks due to ambiguity
  • Strict adherence would violate the system’s stated principles
  • A safety, ethical, or governance concern arises

What the Fallback Is Not

This fallback:

  • Does not override protocols casually
  • Does not grant blanket discretion
  • Does not permit silent deviation

Any use of the fallback SHOULD be:

  • Explicit
  • Documented
  • Traceable in rationale or decision logs

Rationale

Making human authority explicit prevents two common failure modes:

  1. Protocol absolutism (“the system says so”)
  2. Implicit discretion (undocumented exceptions)

By naming the fallback, judgment becomes visible rather than accidental.