Amendment to RFC-0250: The Guardianship Gradient

Amendment Version: 0.1.0 Amends: RFC-0250 v0.2.0 (Larval Identity Protocol) Companion to: RFC-0315-AMEND-0001 (Governance Altitude Doctrine) Status: PROPOSED Author: Markus Maiwald Date: 2026-04-04

The child does not belong to the Chapter. The Chapter belongs to the child. Guardianship tracks the vulnerable; not the institution. A chrysalis that cannot move is not developing. It is trapped.

1. The Problem

RFC-0250 defines the Larval Identity as a “chrysalis; a sovereign-in-formation with its own persistent existence.” The Hard Fork Escape Hatch provides emergency rescue when a Chapter becomes a prison.

Both are correct. Neither is sufficient.

The current architecture anchors guardianship to a Chapter. The CustodyConfig binds to a governing_chapter: ChapterId. Cross-Chapter migration requires a PolicyBridge that reconciles conflicting emancipation policies. The Hard Fork Escape Hatch is a last resort.

The gap: Between “everything is fine” and “we need a Hard Fork rescue” lies the entire spectrum of real childhood. A family moves. A parent takes a job in another Chapter. A teenager wants to apprentice across the federation. A community fractures and half the members migrate. None of these are emergencies. All require PolicyBridge negotiation.

The child is portable. The guardianship is not.

2. The Guardianship Gradient

2.1 Principle

Guardianship is a property of the relationship between guardian and child; not a property of the Chapter.

The Chapter provides services (education, healthcare, community oversight). The Chapter defines policy (emancipation age, competency tests). But the guardianship itself — the custodial bond, the key shards, the obligation to build exit capacity in a being that started with none — travels with the child.

2.2 The Altitude Metaphor

RFC-0315 established that governance mechanisms must match group scale. The Guardianship Gradient extends this vertically:

The current RFC-0250 conflates altitudes 2 and 3. This amendment separates them.

2.3 Scenario: The Apprentice

A fourteen-year-old in “Vienna Mutual” (protective; emancipation at 21) wants to apprentice in “Spartan Guild” (merit-based; emancipation at 14).

Current RFC-0250: The PolicyBridge must reconcile incompatible policies. Vienna prevails; the teenager is less free for having moved. The migration becomes a lock.

With Guardianship Gradient: The custodial bond stays with the guardian. The services the teenager receives shift to Sparta’s programs. The emancipation floor (21 or competency) travels with the child. The teenager gets Spartan training without losing protection. No Hard Fork. No negotiation. The child moved. The guardianship followed.

2.4 Scenario: The Fracture

A Chapter splits. Twelve members have children in custodial arrangements.

Current RFC-0250: Twelve LarvalMigration events. Twelve PolicyBridge negotiations. Children trapped in a Chapter their community abandoned — because the guardianship mechanism is coupled to the governance mechanism.

With Guardianship Gradient: The guardians leave. The children leave with them. The custodial bonds are continuous. The migration is as simple as the adult migration. The child is not a bureaucratic obstacle.

3. Mechanism Amendment

3.1 New: Guardianship Passport

struct GuardianshipPassport {
    subject: DID,
    custody: CustodyConfig,                    // continuous
    service_history: Vec<ServiceContext>,      // changes with migration
    protection_floor: ProtectionStandard,     // ratchets UP only
    emancipation_progress: EmancipationProgress,  // portable competencies
    anchor_chain: Vec<AnchorReceipt>,
}

struct CustodyConfig {
    shards: Vec<KeyShard>,
    threshold: u8,

    // REMOVED: governing_chapter: ChapterId
    // REPLACED WITH:
    service_chapter: ChapterId,    // altitude A2; changes with migration
    passport: GuardianshipPassport,  // altitude A3; portable
    custody_type: CustodyType,
    registered: u64,
}

3.2 Simplified Migration

struct LarvalMigration {
    larval_did: DID,
    from_chapter: ChapterId,
    to_chapter: ChapterId,

    // REMOVED: custodian_transfer: CustodianTransfer
    // REMOVED: policy_bridge: PolicyBridge

    service_transition: ServiceTransition,  // services change
    updated_passport: GuardianshipPassport, // custody continuous
    anchor: AnchorReceipt,
}

3.3 The Ratchet Rule

The protection floor only ratchets upward.

If a child has been subject to professional oversight in Vienna and migrates to Bitcoin Fortress (no mandatory oversight), the Passport records the prior standard. The guardian bears the obligation to maintain the floor. The Chapter provides services; the guardian provides protection.

Downward adjustment requires: guardian attestation + independent assessment + anchor receipt.

4. Kenya Rule Verification

5. Integration Points

6. Closing Axiom

The child is a chrysalis. The chrysalis moves. The obligation follows the child; not the institution. A guardianship that breaks at Chapter boundaries is a guardianship that was never real. It was a service contract dressed as love.

Companion Amendments

This amendment is one of three published in April 2026:

• RFC-0315-AMEND-0001 (Governance Altitude Doctrine) – The altitude stack A0–A4 that separates individual sovereignty from federation coordination. The Guardianship Gradient (altitude A2: Custodial Bond) fits within this stack.
• RFC-0300-AMEND-0001 (Three Derived Theorems) – Theorem Seven (Care as Exit Infrastructure) provides the philosophical grounding: the Guardianship Passport is not just protection — it is a contribution record for exit-infrastructure labor.

END AMENDMENT RFC-0250: Guardianship Gradient v0.1.0