P113 — AIEP — User-Initiated Evidence Challenge Record

applicant: Neil Grassby inventor: Neil Grassby status: review — to file classification: Patent Application — Confidential priority: Claims priority from GB2519711.2 filed 20 November 2025

Field of the Invention

[0001] The present invention relates to human oversight mechanisms in governed reasoning substrates.

[0002] More particularly, the invention relates to a mechanism within an AIEP substrate by which an authorised user may register a challenge against a specific Evidence Ledger artefact, causing a governed ChallengeDiscountFactor to be applied to that artefact’s evidence weight contribution across all branches that reference it, without deleting the artefact, without editorial override of the substrate’s reasoning, and with full immutable lineage of the challenge and its resolution preserved in the Evidence Ledger.

Background

[0003] AIEP governed reasoning substrates admit evidence artefacts through a deterministic admission pipeline and weight them by provenance, corroboration, recency, and schema validity. Once admitted, artefacts contribute to branch evidence weights without user-modifiable intervention.

[0004] In regulated sector deployments — clinical decision support, legal research, financial analysis — domain professionals frequently possess knowledge that a specific admitted artefact is unreliable: a clinical study subsequently found to have methodological errors, a legal authority overturned on appeal, a financial model using incorrect base assumptions. The substrate’s admission pipeline does not have access to this professional knowledge at admission time.

[0005] Regulatory frameworks including EU AI Act Article 14 (human oversight) and UK NHS AI governance requirements mandate that human professionals retain the ability to intervene in AI reasoning processes. Deletion or suppression of evidence would violate constitutional governance principles. A governed challenge mechanism that reduces weight pending resolution while preserving full lineage satisfies both the regulatory requirement and the constitutional constraint.

[0006] Existing systems do not provide: a user-initiated evidence weight challenge mechanism operating within constitutional governance bounds; immutable EvidenceChallengeRecord preserving challenge provenance; ChallengeDiscountFactor application across all branches referencing the challenged artefact; or governed resolution with full lineage of challenge and resolution appended to the Evidence Ledger.

Summary of the Invention

[0007] An authorised user registers a challenge against a specific evidence artefact by submitting a ChallengeDeclaration comprising:

(a) TargetArtefactHash — the EvidenceHash of the challenged artefact; (b) ChallengeGrounds — a structured classification from a schema-defined ChallengeGroundsRegistry (e.g., methodological_error, subsequent_retraction, jurisdictional_inapplicability, factual_inaccuracy); (c) ChallengeEvidence — optional EvidenceHash references to artefacts supporting the challenge; and (d) ChallengeDeclarantId — the authorised user identifier.

[0008] An EvidenceChallengeRecord is generated and appended to the Evidence Ledger comprising:

(a) ChallengeId — deterministic identifier; (b) TargetArtefactHash; (c) ChallengeGrounds; (d) ChallengeEvidenceHashes; (e) ChallengeDeclarantId; (f) ChallengeHash = H(TargetArtefactHash ‖ ChallengeGrounds ‖ ChallengeDeclarantId ‖ SchemaVersionId); and (g) challenge timestamp.

[0009] Upon EvidenceChallengeRecord commitment, a ChallengeDiscountFactor is applied to the TargetArtefact’s evidence weight contribution across all branches that reference it:

ChallengedWeight = BaseEvidenceWeight × (1 - ChallengeDiscountFactor)

where ChallengeDiscountFactor is a schema-defined version-bound parameter in (0, 1).

[0010] The TargetArtefact is never deleted from the Evidence Ledger. Its CanonicalForm and all prior ledger entries remain intact and immutable. Only its weight contribution is adjusted.

[0011] Challenge resolution occurs through one of three deterministic paths:

(a) Evidence-driven confirmation — new evidence artefacts admitted after the challenge accumulate weight supporting the ChallengeGrounds, causing a ChallengeConfirmationRecord to be appended and the ChallengeDiscountFactor to be made permanent; (b) Evidence-driven refutation — new evidence artefacts admitted after the challenge contradict the ChallengeGrounds with sufficient weight, causing a ChallengeRefutationRecord to be appended and the ChallengeDiscountFactor to be removed; or (c) Governance review — an authorised governance reviewer resolves the challenge through authenticated governance review, appending a GovernanceResolutionRecord.

[0012] All challenge and resolution records are append-only and immutable once committed. The complete challenge lineage — declaration, discount application, and resolution — is preserved in the Evidence Ledger and included in any ComplianceCertificate (P92) generated for outputs influenced by the challenged artefact.

Claims

1. A user-initiated evidence challenge system within an AIEP governed reasoning substrate, the system configured to: receive a ChallengeDeclaration from an authorised user specifying a TargetArtefactHash, ChallengeGrounds, and ChallengeDeclarantId; generate an EvidenceChallengeRecord appended to the Evidence Ledger binding the challenge by ChallengeHash; apply a schema-defined ChallengeDiscountFactor to the TargetArtefact’s evidence weight contribution across all branches referencing it without deleting the artefact or its ledger entries; and resolve the challenge through evidence-driven confirmation, evidence-driven refutation, or governance review, with a resolution record appended to the Evidence Ledger.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein ChallengeDiscountFactor is applied as a multiplicative discount to BaseEvidenceWeight and is reversible upon evidence-driven refutation.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein the TargetArtefact’s CanonicalForm and all prior Evidence Ledger entries are preserved immutably regardless of challenge outcome.

4. The system of claim 1 wherein ChallengeGrounds are classified from a schema-defined ChallengeGroundsRegistry, making the grounds of challenge deterministically replayable.

5. The system of claim 1 wherein ComplianceCertificates generated for outputs influenced by a challenged artefact include the complete EvidenceChallengeRecord lineage.

6. The system of claim 1 wherein ChallengeHash is computed as a cryptographic hash over the TargetArtefactHash, ChallengeGrounds, ChallengeDeclarantId, and schema version identifier.

7. A method for user-initiated evidence challenge in a governed reasoning substrate comprising: receiving a ChallengeDeclaration; generating and appending an EvidenceChallengeRecord; applying ChallengeDiscountFactor to the target artefact’s weight contribution; and resolving through evidence accumulation or governance review with immutable resolution records.

8. A computing system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions which, when executed, perform the method of claim 7.

Drawings

FIG. 1 — Architecture diagram (see filed application for figures)

Figure 1 — EvidenceChallengeRecord Generation

User ChallengeDeclaration
  target_artefact_hash
  ChallengeGrounds (from ChallengeGroundsRegistry)
  ChallengeDeclarantId
     │
     ▼
EvidenceChallengeRecord generated
ChallengeHash = H(TargetArtefactHash + ChallengeGrounds
                  + ChallengeDeclarantId + schema_version)
     │
     ▼ appended to Evidence Ledger (immutable)

Figure 2 — ChallengeDiscountFactor Application

Target Artefact evidence weight W
     │
     ▼ ChallengeDiscountFactor applied
Effective weight = W x (1 - ChallengeDiscountFactor)
applied across all referencing branches
WITHOUT deleting artefact
WITHOUT modifying immutable ledger entries

Figure 3 — Resolution Paths (Three Outcomes)

EvidenceChallengeRecord active
     │
     ├── Evidence-driven confirmation  ──►  ConfirmationRecord
     │   (further evidence supports)        weight restored
     │
     ├── Evidence-driven refutation   ──►  RefutationRecord
     │   (further evidence contradicts)     weight reduced further
     │
     └── Governance review           ──►  GovernanceResolutionRecord
         (authenticated reviewer)         outcome applied
All three: immutable records, lineage preserved

Figure 4 — ComplianceCertificate Challenge Lineage Inclusion

Output artefact influenced by
challenged evidence artefact
     │
     ▼
ComplianceCertificate includes:
EvidenceChallengeRecord lineage
(all ChallengeRecords, resolutions,
 weight adjustment history)
EU AI Act Article 14 human oversight requirement satisfied

Abstract

A user-initiated evidence challenge system is disclosed for AIEP governed reasoning substrates. An authorised user submits a ChallengeDeclaration against a specific Evidence Ledger artefact, specifying ChallengeGrounds from a schema-defined registry. An EvidenceChallengeRecord is generated and appended to the Evidence Ledger. A ChallengeDiscountFactor is applied to the target artefact’s evidence weight contribution across all referencing branches without deleting the artefact or modifying its immutable ledger entries. Resolution occurs through evidence-driven confirmation, evidence-driven refutation, or governance review, each producing an immutable resolution record. The complete challenge lineage is included in ComplianceCertificates for affected outputs. The mechanism satisfies EU AI Act Article 14 human oversight requirements within constitutional governance bounds.