Candidates by reference weight
| Concept | State | Priority | Referenced by | First introduced | Referencing terms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocom:Evaluation | Observed | High | 7 | Identity · META-IDENTITY-01 · 2026-07-20 | Identity, Metadata, Capability, Contract, Constraint, Ownership, Policy |
ocom:Governance | Observed | High | 6 | Identity · META-IDENTITY-01 · 2026-07-20 | Identity, Metadata, Reference, Classification, Constraint, Policy |
ocom:Lifecycle | Observed | Medium | 5 | Object · META-OBJECT-01 · 2026-07-20 | Object, Identity, Metadata, Constraint, Ownership |
ocom:Workflow | Observed | Medium | 3 | Capability · META-CAPABILITY-01 · 2026-07-20 | Capability, Contract, Constraint |
ocom:Agent | Observed | Low | 1 | Capability · META-CAPABILITY-01 · 2026-07-20 | Capability |
ocom:Memory | Observed | Low | 1 | Policy · META-POLICY-01 · 2026-07-23 | Policy |
ocom:Tool | Observed | Low | 1 | Capability · META-CAPABILITY-01 · 2026-07-20 | Capability |
Lifecycle: Observed → Review → Proposed → Accepted → Rejected. Everything here is Observed — found by the
graph. Nothing advances automatically; an architect promotes a concept deliberately, and only
Proposed corresponds to a real AO / Reference Case. Priority is derived purely from how many
terms depend on the concept (High ≥ 6 · Medium 3–5 · Low 1–2). Machine record:
governance-candidates.json.