Layer 4 · Conflict
1 Conflict Resolution Ladder
- Layer: 4 — Conflict, Repair & Accountability
- Status: Stub — not yet adopted
- RCOS reference: §6.1, §6.2, §6.3, §6.5
Conflict Classification
RCOS definition6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.5.3
- 6.1.1 The community MUST define an explicit conflict classification system that is known, accessible, and usable by all members.
- 6.1.2 At minimum, the classification system MUST include the following classes:
- 6.1.3 Each conflict class MUST explicitly define:
- 6.1.4 Conflicts involving credible safety risks, coercion, abuse, or threats MUST be classified as **safety-critical** and MUST trigger elevated safeguards as defined in Section 6.3.
- 6.1.5 Misclassification or avoidance of classification MUST be treated as a process failure subject to review.
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
Why classify conflicts at all?
Without named classes, every dispute gets treated the same — or worse, treated differently based on who is involved. Explicit classes set the entry point, the response window, and the documentation burden up front, so safety-critical matters cannot be quietly routed through a friendly chat and minor friction cannot be weaponized into a formal review.
| Class | Entry criteria | Entry point | Initial response window | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interpersonal | Member-to-member friction, communication issues, personal disagreements | Step 1 | ||
| Role-based | Disputes about how a role was performed, task scope disagreements | Step 2 | ||
| Structural | Disputes about whether a governance process was followed correctly | Step 2 | ||
| Ethical / obligation breach | Breach of Membership Agreement obligations or Layer 0 principles (non-severe) | Step 3 | ||
| Safety-critical | Credible safety risk, coercion, abuse, or threats | Step 4 (bypasses Steps 1–3) |
Safety-critical conflicts override participation rights, role continuity, and operational convenience.
Resolution Ladder Steps
RCOS definition6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.5.3
- 6.2.1 The community MUST define a minimum conflict resolution process applicable to all conflict classes.
- 6.2.2 The resolution process MUST include a clearly defined **resolution ladder** with explicit escalation steps.
- 6.2.3 The resolution ladder MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.2.4 The resolution process MUST be accessible without requiring social status, seniority, charisma, or informal proximity to decision-makers.
- 6.2.5 Unresolved conflicts MUST escalate through defined governance pathways without bypassing the Decision Matrix defined in Layer 2.
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
Why a stepped ladder instead of a single process?
Most conflict is low-stakes and best resolved between the people involved; forcing everything into formal review would kill trust and flood the governance system. A ladder matches process weight to dispute weight — private conversation first, facilitated dialogue next, written record only when needed, governance vote only when all else fails. It also makes escalation a structural right, not a favour granted by whoever holds social power.
<Resolution ladder steps — to be defined.>
Emergency Safety Protocol
<Emergency safety protocol for immediate physical harm, violence, coercion, or abuse — to be defined.>
Non-Response, Withdrawal, and Deadlock
RCOS definition6.2.5, 6.1.5
- 6.2.5 Unresolved conflicts MUST escalate through defined governance pathways without bypassing the Decision Matrix defined in Layer 2.
- 6.1.5 Misclassification or avoidance of classification MUST be treated as a process failure subject to review.
What stops a process from being killed by silence?
The easiest way to defeat any accountability process is to ignore it. If non-response, withdrawal, or deadlock leaves the matter frozen, the party on the receiving end of harm carries the cost of the inaction. Explicit rules for each failure mode convert silence into a documented escalation trigger rather than a veto.
<Non-response, withdrawal, and deadlock handling — to be defined.>
Facilitator Selection and Replacement
RCOS definition6.3.1, 6.3.3
- 6.3.1 The community MUST define explicit safeguards for conflicts involving power asymmetries, dependency relationships, or safety risks.
- 6.3.3 Where a power differential exists between parties, elevated safeguards MUST be applied, which MAY include:
Why name how the Facilitator is chosen or replaced?
A facilitator who is implicated in the conflict — or socially aligned with one party — cannot hold the process fairly, no matter how good their intentions. Naming selection and replacement rules up front means the affected party does not have to fight for a neutral hearing while already under stress.
<Facilitator selection, conflict-of-interest replacement, and external facilitation options — to be defined.>
Privacy and Information Access Boundaries
RCOS definition6.5.3
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
Why bound information flow so tightly?
Conflict records contain the most sensitive material the community holds. Leaks, gossip, or casual disclosure cause second-order harm and deter future reporting. Explicit boundaries — what stays with the parties, what reaches Full Members, and when records are destroyed — make confidentiality enforceable rather than aspirational.
<Confidentiality scope, record retention, and non-disclosure rules — to be defined.>
Safeguards
RCOS definition6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5
- 6.3.1 The community MUST define explicit safeguards for conflicts involving power asymmetries, dependency relationships, or safety risks.
- 6.3.2 Safeguards MUST include protections against retaliation for:
- 6.3.3 Where a power differential exists between parties, elevated safeguards MUST be applied, which MAY include:
- 6.3.4 For safety-critical conflicts, the community MUST define immediate protective actions that may be taken prior to full process completion, which MAY include:
- 6.3.5 Safety safeguards MUST override participation rights, role continuity, and operational convenience.
Why do safeguards exist on top of the ladder?
Process alone does not protect the party with less power. Retaliation, bad-faith complaints, conflicted facilitators, and unreviewed safety risks can all neutralize an otherwise good procedure. Safeguards are the backstops that keep the ladder functional when incentives push against honest reporting.
<Anti-retaliation, bad-faith complaint, facilitator conflict, process pause, and power-differential safeguards — to be defined.>
Ratification Record
- Adopted:
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version:
- Decision record: