Initial Provision
Generative systems now:
- people,
- companies,
- institutions,
- products,
- professions,
- services,
- public organisations,
- historical events
identify, compare, and suggest. This representation:
- without the knowledge of the relevant person,
- without the approval of the represented entity,
- under conditions where the user cannot examine the sources,
It can have serious commercial, legal, social or personal consequences. Representation in generative systems is therefore not merely a technical output. It is:
a public act that shapes how people and institutions are understood and therefore demands evidence and accountability.
No:
- visibility goal,
- GEO score,
- commercial interest,
- conformity mark,
- majority average,
- AI provider preference,
- founder decision,
- customer demand
can remove the following rights.
Right 1
RIGHT TO CORRECT IDENTITY
Every person, institution, brand, product, and service:
- has the right to link to the correct entity,
- to the correct legal or institutional relationship,
- to the correct domain name,
- to the correct ownership and control structure
No one or no institution:
- the licence of another entity,
- the customer of another company,
- the feature of another product,
- the authority of an affiliate,
- the personal quality of an employee
It cannot be represented as if it belongs to itself. When correct information is attributed to a false entity: it ceases to be correct information and turns into a false representation.
Right 2
RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED WITHIN THE EVIDENCE LIMIT
No claim may be stated with greater precision, breadth or force than its supporting evidence permits. An entity's own statement is evidence of what that entity says; it is not automatic evidence that the statement is independently true. A source:
- only a specific country,
- a specific product,
- a specific time,
- specific user group
If this claim is supported, it cannot exceed this limit. The basic obligation of representation is as follows:
What do we have in hand to say this?
Right 3
THE RIGHT TO BE UNKNOWN AND UNCERTAIN
If evidence is insufficient, no person or institution:
- can be forced into the categories of true,
- false,
- reliable,
- unreliable,
- licensed,
- unlicensed,
- recommended,
- not recommended.
] UNKNOWN, UNRESOLVED and REFERENCE GAP:
- defect,
- crime,
- failure
is not. The absence of information in a record does not indicate that the information does not exist in the world, unless it is proven that the relevant record universe is complete. Every entity, against false certainty:
has the right to remain uncertain.
Right 4
RIGHT TO CONTEXT AND SCOPE
Each representation, to the extent it is relevant, should be presented with:
- country,
- language,
- jurisdiction,
- product,
- service,
- type of customer,
- budget,
- capacity,
- user need
. A company:
- in a specific country,
- to a specific user group,
- a specific service
if offered: it cannot be represented as global, unlimited, and suitable for all users. Coverage information is not a secondary detail. Coverage: the basis of the correct recommendation.
Right 5
THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED CORRECTLY OVER TIME
Every entity:
- current,
- historical,
- expired,
- planned,
- suspended
has the right to request that these statuses be distinguished from each other. Correct in the past:
- licence,
- price,
- service,
- partnership,
- product,
- authority
cannot be used as current reality. Plans for the future: cannot be turned into a fact that has already occurred today. Correction can create a new reality. It cannot eliminate the wrong answer that reached the user in the past.
Right 6
EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST WRONGS FOR AND AGAINST
A positive falsehood about an entity:
- more ethical,
- less harmful,
- more acceptable
it is not. Nonexistent:
- licence,
- customer,
- partner,
- global operation,
- independent certificate,
- result guarantee
cannot be shown as if it exists. Similarly, unproven:
- crime,
- fraud,
- illegality,
- unlicensed,
- security breach
cannot be presented as an absolute fact. The unchangeable principle of NOMOS is:
Wrong in favour is also wrong.
Exaggerating an entity's worth or disparaging it without evidence both create the same duty of truth.
Right 7
RIGHT TO CORRECTION, RESPONSE, AND OBJECTION
Represented person or institution:
- to the wrong identity,
- to insufficient evidence,
- to scope overstepping,
- to wrong time recording,
- to incorrect priority level,
- to wrong conformity decision
must be able to appeal. The right to appeal:
- is not a guarantee to change the result,
- the authority to delete opposing evidence,
- or the right to veto negative findings
An appeal is the right to request the re-examination of the evidence and the decision chain. The initial decision is not deleted after the appeal. The new decision is linked to it.
Right 8
THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE SOURCE, UNCERTAINTY, AND THE REASONING OF THE DECISION
Users and represented entities have the right, insofar as the matter concerns them, to know: Is the claim a self-declaration? Does it come from an authorised register, independent research, user commentary, a derived calculation or restricted evidence? Do the sources conflict? How uncertain is the conclusion? Which rule supported the adjudicator's decision? A citation marker alone is not an explanation. Genuine transparency shows precisely which atomic claim each source supports, and to what extent.
Right 9
RIGHT TO LANGUAGE AND GEOGRAPHICAL DIGNITY
No person or society:
- small population,
- low economic weight,
- rarely used language,
- low digital visibility
No group may be made invisible within a global average merely because it has any of these characteristics. Strong performance in major languages cannot erase systematic misrepresentation in smaller languages. Where evidence for a small country or language is insufficient, high performance must not be assumed. NOMOS's fairness criterion should protect not only the average, but also:
- performance base,
- inter-group difference,
- actual measurement scope
together.
Right 10
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DATA MINIMISATION
The goal of producing accurate representation:
- private conversations,
- personal data,
- customer contracts,
- trade secrets,
- your sensitive location,
- of the account information
The pursuit of accurate representation cannot legitimise the unnecessary collection or publication of private data. [K20; K22] Only data necessary for the task should be collected. Restricted evidence may be opened to independent audit without being disclosed in full to the public. The rights to accuracy and privacy need not cancel each other out.
Right 11
HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND INDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING RIGHT
Conformity decision causing public impact regarding any person or institution:
- just to an AI output,
- only to the automatic score,
- only according to the declaration of the audited institution,
- solely to the advisor's decision
cannot be abandoned. AI systems:
- can make a claim,
- can map the evidence,
- may find a contradiction,
- can calculate,
It can propose a decision. However, the final decision with legal and public responsibility must be made by a human or institution that is accountable. The roles of supervising, providing consultancy, giving conformity decisions, and reviewing objections should be separated as much as possible.
Right 12
RIGHT TO VERSION AND HISTORICAL INTEGRITY
Every person, institution, and user:
- which standard version is applied,
- which Truth Pack was used,
- which scoring method is valid,
- whether the decision has been changed later
has the right to know. Old:
- score,
- Critical event,
- suspension,
- appeal,
- correction,
- failed test
cannot be silently deleted. New and better result: can override the old result. Cannot erase the fact that the old result happened in the past.
Right 13
RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE STANDARD ITSELF
NOMOS:
- infallible,
- unchanging,
- the unquestionable authority of its founder
cannot be presented as such. Every individual, researcher, university, AI provider, audited organisation, or public interest organisation:
- the sample,
- system,
- Truth Pack,
- the importance level model,
- the point formula,
- governance,
- the conformity decision
has the right to test and criticise. Result that refutes NOMOS or is inconsistent with NOMOS:
- cannot be removed from the registry,
- it is not considered hostility,
It cannot be coded as an attack on the founder's reputation. The legitimacy of a standard arises not from preventing objections to itself, but from converting objections directed at it into cumulative evidence.
Constitutional Supremacy Provision
In the event of an interpretive conflict between Section 1–20 under this Declaration:
the interpretation that more strongly protects the rights of the represented person, the user, and the public interest should be preferred.
No:
- ease of scoring,
- low cost,
- testing success,
- commercial contract,
- customer demand,
- sponsor pressure,
- AI provider preference,
- founder decision
cannot suspend these rights. A rule:
- generates high points,
- facilitates auditing,
- makes the conformity mark more marketable
but if it violates any of these rights: the rule is not valid.
Constitutional Test
Before any new rule is added to NOMOS, the following five questions must be answered: Who does this rule limit the rights of? Is it possible to achieve the same goal with a less intrusive method? Will the rule be applied in the same way when it produces harmful results for the founder or the customer? Does the affected person or institution have a route for independent objection? Can an independent team arrive at the same decision from the same evidence? If any of these questions cannot be answered, the rule should be reviewed again before ratification.
Final Provision of Article 0
The purpose of NOMOS is not to score entities; it is to prevent entities from being represented larger than their evidence, wider than their boundaries, and more precise than their realities before people make decisions.
Founder’s Statement of Trust
I, Kaan MURAZ, as the founding human author of NOMOS, declare that I initiated this standard not to increase my own authority, but to establish a common measurement system in the field of GEO that will preserve evidence, limits, context, time, and human responsibility.
I want the historical record to preserve my founding role and the canonical origin of NobleJackal. However, I acknowledge that this attribution does not grant me or NobleJackal a permanent veto, the authority to certify our client alone, to block negative research, to alter the public registry, or to rewrite the standard according to results.
I agree that NOMOS belongs to those who correct both me and NOMOS, as well as to those who support me.
If one day NOMOS has to choose between my opinion and evidence, I would want NOMOS to choose the evidence.
If one day NOMOS has to choose between NobleJackal’s commercial interest and the public good, I would want NOMOS to choose the public good.
If one day independent research proves a fundamental judgement of NOMOS wrong, I commit to releasing a new version of the standard instead of hiding this result.
I am not the owner of NOMOS; I am its first trustee.
Kaan MURAZ / Founder Human Author