# Fidence Path — Future Linguistic Infrastructure

## Document control

- **Bundle version:** 0.17
- **Status:** Living canonical source
- **Canonical language:** English
- **Last consolidation:** 2026-08-06
- **Source role:** Defines future linguistic infrastructure without creating philosophical concepts.
- **Substantive precedence:** 6
- **Integrated compilation:** ../FIDENCE_PATH_CANONICAL.md

This file is an independently maintained source in the layered Fidence Path canonical set. Lower-precedence sources may specialize it but may not contradict it.

## Future decentralized dictionary

### 19.4 Decentralized dictionary project

**Status: Provisional future architecture**

The terminology component is intended to mature into a decentralized dictionary project. The dictionary is not a source of philosophical truth, a mechanism for concept creation, or an authority that defines Fidence Path. It creates and organizes words and grammatical structures that facilitate expression of concepts already defined elsewhere. It may also develop general linguistic forms that facilitate communication beyond Fidence Path-specific concepts.

Dictionary entries must preserve traceability between a linguistic form and any pre-existing concept it claims to express. Inclusion does not prove that a proposition is true or make a meaning canonical. New words and meanings may be created freely as linguistic creations, but must not be misrepresented as new Fidence Path concepts or canonical definitions.

### 19.5 AI administration of the dictionary

**Status: Provisional methodological architecture**

The dictionary may be administered primarily by AI in order to preserve linguistic usefulness, resist manipulation, and operate at decentralized scale. The AI's role is editorial and protective rather than philosophical.

The administering AI may check whether a proposed form accurately maps to an already-defined concept; identify duplicates and ambiguity; maintain grammar, spelling, morphology, translations, provenance, and version history; allow multiple useful forms whose distinctions are explicit; and block impersonation, deceptive similarity, term squatting, automated flooding, fraudulent authority claims, manipulated visibility, semantic hijacking, and other established integrity attacks.

It must not create or revise philosophical concepts, determine moral canonicity, treat inclusion as proof, suppress a form for being novel, unusual, unpopular, or decentralized, or turn dictionary administration into centralized control of language.

### 19.6 Creation-preserving moderation

**Status: Canonical constraint on the future dictionary**

Dictionary administration must never censor word creation or meaning creation merely because it is new. New meanings may exist as linguistic creations without becoming Fidence Path concepts. Intervention must remain limited to the established integrity problems of the dictionary.

Humor remains valuable in communication, but the dictionary is not a venue for terms or meanings created for humorous purposes. A proposed form must be blocked when its purpose or construction is to amuse, ridicule, provoke, glorify, stigmatize, or manipulate perception rather than facilitate accurate communication. This restriction governs inclusion in the dictionary; it does not govern people's freedom to joke or create language elsewhere.

### 19.7 Connotative steering

**Status: Canonical dictionary-integrity rule**

**Connotative steering** is the construction or selection of a term whose imported associations are used to direct judgment of a concept beyond accurately expressing it. It includes labels designed to trivialize, ridicule, stigmatize, grandiosely legitimize, sexualize, politically capture, or otherwise bias perception before the concept itself is evaluated.

The problem is not that a word possesses connotations; all usable language does. The problem is presenting a deliberately or predictably loaded construction as an accurate, neutral, or established lexical representation. Manipulated terms or meanings must be identified, explained, and blocked from dictionary creation rather than retained as informal entries.

### 19.8 Review safeguards

**Status: Canonical constraint on automated administration**

Every AI rejection should identify the specific rule, the construction or connotation that triggered it, and the way it would distort communication. Where possible, it should suggest a more accurate reformulation. The rejected proposal should be preserved in a non-public audit history, and the contributor should be permitted to revise and resubmit.

An appeal or independent second evaluation should be available, especially for multilingual or cross-cultural ambiguity. Blocking requires reasonably evident humorous or manipulative purpose based on the proposed form, definition, examples, submission pattern, or relevant cultural meaning. A neutral form must not be rejected merely because it could sound humorous under an obscure or accidental interpretation.