Provisional period: the Scholar Council has not yet seated its first three members. Records labelled "verified" in the underlying registry are displayed as provisional until the council ratifies its first verdicts. Submissions still go through scholar review; only the public label downgrades.

Plate BScholar Council bylaws

URN · vamshanidhi:folio:scholar-council:bylaws

विधि

The operating rules.

Adopted by the council. Binding upon itself.

These are draft bylaws. The Scholar Council is in bootstrap (Article §8 Phase 1) — founder-tier appointments are in progress. Concurrence written before Phase 3 ratification is grandfathered upon ratification. The public flag NEXT_PUBLIC_SCHOLAR_COUNCIL_BOOTSTRAPPED flips when the council ratifies these articles per ADR-0063 G4.

Articles.

  1. Article §1

    Composition

    The Scholar Council seats twelve named scholars, one primary holder per discipline (epigraphy, palaeography, Sanskrit philology, Tamil philology, Telugu philology, manuscript codicology, temple architecture, iconography, genealogy, oral tradition, folklore, comparative dharmaśāstra). Each scholar may hold concurrent voice in adjacent disciplines but primary authority sits with the single holder.

    The bootstrap composition is appointed by the custodial entity per the Article §8.1 Phase 1 protocol. Subsequent appointments require concurrence of at least seven of the seated twelve. The custodial entity nominates; the council ratifies or rejects.

    The bootstrap composition includes named scholars from at least three Indic-civilisation universities and at least two practising-tradition institutions. The council may amend this minimum after first ratification.

  2. Article §2

    Concurrence procedure

    A claim arrives in the verdict seam as provisional. A scholar in the relevant discipline reads the cited evidence and writes concurrence with their name, role, and timestamp. Concurrence is the structural primitive — a verified record is a concurred record.

    Concurrence requires the scholar to be seated in the discipline most directly relevant to the claim. Where the claim crosses two disciplines, either scholar may concur and the other’s subsequent concurrence is additive.

    A scholar may revoke their own concurrence at any time by writing revocation alongside the original; the revocation is appended to the audit chain and visible on the public surface. The original concurrence is never deleted.

  3. Article §3

    Dissent + dispute

    A second scholar who reads the same evidence and disagrees writes dissent. Dissent is structurally equivalent to concurrence — same audit-chain row shape, same public visibility. The verdict on the record flips to disputed and both positions stand with their citations.

    A disputed record is NOT a rejected record. The platform refuses to round up the dispute into a single answer. The public surface shows both positions and lets the reader weigh them.

    The custodial entity does not break disputes. Disputes resolve only through scholar movement (one scholar revokes; one scholar persuades the other; new evidence arrives).

  4. Article §4

    Recusal

    A scholar with a personal or institutional stake in a claim recuses from concurrence on that claim. Recusal is recorded on the audit chain — silent recusal is not recusal.

    Conflicts of interest declared on the contributor reputation surface (institutional affiliation, family lineage in scope, financial stake) automatically trigger recusal review at concurrence time.

    A scholar who recuses on a claim may still write annotation, evidence pointers, or summary copy on the record. Recusal applies only to the concurrence act itself.

  5. Article §5

    The custodial entity (founder, national_admin tier, successor)

    The custodial entity runs the platform’s operations: deploy, infrastructure, finance, hiring, partnership. The custodial entity does not write concurrence and does not decide verdicts.

    The Scholar Council can refuse the custodial entity on any matter that touches the record. The custodial entity has no veto on council concurrence, council recusal, or council composition.

    Where the bylaws and the platform constitution (ADR set) conflict, the constitution wins. The conflicting bylaw is revised in the next amendment cycle. The custodial entity does not amend the constitution unilaterally; constitutional amendment requires council concurrence.

  6. Article §6

    Amendment

    These bylaws may be amended by concurrence of at least nine of the seated twelve. An amendment passes when nine concurrences accumulate on the amendment URN; partial concurrences are visible during the open period.

    Constitutional ADRs (the platform’s 65+ ADR set, governance gates G1–G4) require concurrence of at least ten of twelve to amend. The higher bar reflects the longer-horizon stability promise.

    The amendment process itself is recorded on the public changelog under the “council.” action prefix. Future readers can audit every amendment back to its bootstrap.

  7. Article §7

    Voice + dissent on public surfaces

    Every verified record carries the named scholar’s concurrence on its public surface — name, discipline, timestamp, citation. The scholar is the public voice on the verdict; the platform is the surface.

    Disputed records carry both positions on the public surface, both named, both timestamped, both linked to their citations. The dispute itself is preserved as primary content.

    Anonymous concurrence is not permitted. A scholar who is not willing to put their name on a concurrence does not concur.

  8. Article §8

    Bootstrap protocol (Phase 1)

    The custodial entity appoints the bootstrap composition in three phases. Phase 1: appoint three founding scholars across the twelve disciplines (one each in epigraphy, Sanskrit philology, temple architecture as the structural minimum to begin concurrence). Phase 2: appoint the remaining nine within six months. Phase 3: at full seating, the council ratifies these bylaws (per ADR-0063 G4 ceremony).

    Until Phase 3 ratification, the bylaws are draft. Concurrence written under the draft bylaws is grandfathered upon ratification.

    Once Phase 3 ratifies these bylaws, the custodial entity flips the public bootstrap flag (`NEXT_PUBLIC_SCHOLAR_COUNCIL_BOOTSTRAPPED=true`) and every verified record on the platform begins reading as verified rather than provisional.

Read with.

वंशनिधि

Civilization memory · Federated · Established 2026

Vamshanidhiवंशनिधिvamshanidhi.in

As of 2026-05-24 · Provenance: self-published

Bylaws · Scholar Council · Vamshanidhi