ADR 0023: CCL Institutional Process Language

Status

Proposed (2026-04-26). This ADR names a forward direction. It is not an accepted decision. Drafted so that later ADRs (federation agreements, conflict resolution processes, accessibility process steps) can reference a single concept rather than re-inventing it.

Context

CCL today encodes static rules: voting thresholds, allocation formulas, eligibility predicates. These are sufficient for charter constraints but insufficient for institutional life, which is mostly process: onboarding flows, grievance procedures, allocation reviews, deadline escalations, mediation steps.

Today these processes are either (a) implemented in Rust and bound to release cycles, (b) implemented as ad-hoc workflows in apps with no governance amendment path, or (c) not implemented at all. Each option fragments institutional design.

The forward direction is CCL as institutional process language: process definitions written in CCL, ratified through governance, executed by a process runner that reuses the CCL interpreter's safety properties.

Decision (proposed)

CCL grows a process layer with these properties:

1. Process step grammar. A Process is a directed acyclic graph of Step nodes. Each step has a kind (AutoStep, MemberStep, RoleStep, SignalStep), inputs, outputs, deadline, and escalation rule.
2. Deterministic step semantics. AutoStep evaluates as a CCL expression under ADR-0021 fuel and capability bounds. MemberStep and RoleStep halt the process pending member input, with deadline tracking.
3. Deadline as data, not as preemption. Deadlines do not interrupt; they trigger declared escalation. Escalation is itself a process step, expressible in CCL.
4. Process records as effects. A process completing produces an effect record (ADR-0025 territory) carrying the final state and provenance for every step.
5. Process ratification through governance. Process definitions live in charters or as charter amendments. Activating a new process is a governance decision, not an app deployment.
6. Process amendment without in-flight disruption. A new version of a process applies to processes started after activation; in-flight processes complete under the version they started under.

Out of scope (deliberate)

• Specific process libraries (mediation, allocation review, onboarding). Those are domain content, expressed by institutions in their own packages.
• Cross-process composition (one process triggering another). Defer to a follow-up ADR once the single-process semantics are stable.
• Real-time human collaboration (synchronous editing, presence). Out of scope for CCL.

Consequences

• Institutional processes become legible, governable, and amendable on the same surface as charter rules.
• The line between "rule" and "process" becomes a CCL surface concern, not a code-vs-rule concern.
• Trade-off: the process runner is a new runtime surface (likely a new actor in the supervisor) with its own persistence and replay semantics. Designing it well takes work.
• Trade-off: deadline-driven escalation is a behavioral change with accessibility implications (caregiving, time justice, language). ADR-0028 governs the floor.

Implementation status

Proposed. Nothing implemented under this ADR. Pre-existing pieces that this ADR plans to reuse:

• The CCL interpreter (ADR-0021).
• The schema bridge for compiling expressions (ADR-0022).
• The mandate/effect model (ADR-0014, ADR-0025) for binding process outcomes to authority.

Required follow-up issues (not yet open):

• Process step grammar specification.
• Deadline and escalation semantics specification.
• Process runner actor design (new crate icn-process or extension of icn-governance).
• Process amendment migration semantics.

Alternatives Considered

Notes

This ADR is a direction, not a decision. Modifying or refusing it is expected. Drafting it now means later ADRs do not have to invent a new term every time they reach for "we need processes here."