# Epistemic Obligation and Document Tiers > Document tiers define epistemic obligation, not importance. ## Description This document explains the three-tier system used to organize content in this repository. Tiers are not about importance, value, or quality. They are about epistemic obligation—how much a reader or system is obligated to absorb and respect content at each level. Tier 1 carries foundational obligation and rarely changes. Tier 2 carries shared obligation and evolves carefully. Tier 3 carries awareness without obligation and may change freely. Tiers are orthogonal to folders. Any folder may contain documents at any tier. ## Operating Constraints - MUST absorb Tier 1 content fully before proceeding; contradiction is a serious error - MUST respect Tier 2 content by default; deviation requires documented justification - MUST NOT conflate tier with importance; tiers describe epistemic obligation, not value - MUST NOT use Tier 0 as "low importance"; Tier 0 is scope exclusion from the epistemic system entirely - MUST treat tiers as orthogonal to folders; any folder may contain documents at any tier --- ## Defaults - Tier 1: absorb fully, do not contradict, do not reinterpret without explicit justification - Tier 2: follow by default, document deviations, respect unless explicitly overridden - Tier 3: reference when relevant, may ignore when not applicable, free to rebuild - Tier 0: exclude from agent context, exclude from context-packs, not comparable to Tier 1-3 - When uncertain about tier assignment, ask: "How much must I internalize this before proceeding?" --- ## Failure Modes - **Tier as Importance**: Treating Tier 1 as "most important" and Tier 3 as "least important" - **Ignoring Relevant Tier 3**: Skipping Tier 3 content that matters for specific execution - **Over-weighting Tier 1**: Applying Tier 1 content when it doesn't apply to current task - **False Elevation**: Putting low-obligation content at Tier 2, creating false urgency - **Tier 0 Confusion**: Treating Tier 0 as low-obligation rather than scope-excluded --- ## Verification - Tier assignment reflects epistemic obligation, not perceived importance - Tier 1 content is stable, rarely changed, and contradictions are treated as serious errors - Tier 2 deviations are documented with explicit justification - Tier 0 content is excluded from agent reasoning and context-packs - Folder placement and tier assignment are independent decisions --- ## Content **Canon v0.1** ### What Tiers Mean Tiers describe epistemic obligation: | Tier | Obligation Level | Decay Rate | Change Frequency | |------|------------------|------------|------------------| | **Tier 1** | Must absorb | Almost never | Rarely | | **Tier 2** | Should respect | Carefully | Occasionally | | **Tier 3** | May reference | Freely | Frequently | The tier system answers: *"How much must I internalize this before proceeding?"* ### Tier 1: Foundational Obligation Tier 1 content must be fully absorbed before proceeding. It cannot be safely ignored or skimmed. **Characteristics:** - Contradiction is a serious error - Reinterpretation requires explicit justification - Changes are rare and deliberate - Stability is expected across long timescales **Epistemic obligation:** Absorb fully. Do not contradict. Do not reinterpret without explicit justification. **Cross-folder examples:** A manifesto in odd/, a core constraint in canon/, or a critical process in docs/ could all be Tier 1. ### Tier 2: Shared Obligation Tier 2 content should be respected by default. It represents agreed conventions that apply unless explicitly overridden. **Characteristics:** - Deviation is allowed but must be documented - Changes happen carefully with awareness of downstream impact - Content is stable but not immutable - Readers should know this content exists and follow it unless they have reason not to **Epistemic obligation:** Respect unless explicitly overridden. Follow by default. Document deviations. **Cross-folder examples:** A decision record in odd/, a shared rule in canon/, or a standard process in docs/ could all be Tier 2. ### Tier 3: Awareness Without Obligation Tier 3 content is available for reference but carries no obligation to internalize. It exists so you can find it when needed. **Characteristics:** - May be ignored when not relevant - Changes freely without requiring broad awareness - Useful for specific tasks, not general orientation - Can be rebuilt or discarded without system-wide impact **Epistemic obligation:** Reference when relevant. May ignore when not applicable. Free to rebuild. **Cross-folder examples:** An appendix in odd/, a template in canon/, or a how-to guide in docs/ could all be Tier 3. ### Why Tier 3 Exists Tier 3 exists because not everything needs to be internalized. Some content: - Is useful only in specific contexts - Changes frequently without broad impact - Serves reference purposes rather than orientation - Deserves documentation without demanding absorption Without Tier 3, either: - Low-obligation content gets elevated to Tier 2 (creating false urgency) - Low-obligation content goes undocumented (creating knowledge gaps) Tier 3 gives content a home without giving it unearned epistemic weight. ### Tier 0: Scope Exclusion (Not a Tier) Tier 0 is not part of the epistemic tier system. It is a scope exclusion marker. Content marked Tier 0 is: - Public-facing and intended for human readers - Excluded from agent reasoning contexts - Excluded from default context-packs - Not comparable to Tier 1–3 content Tier 0 is not "lower obligation than Tier 3." It is outside the epistemic ladder entirely. **Use Tier 0 for:** About pages, marketing content, visitor-facing explanations—content that exists for humans, not for systems reasoning about the repository. **Do not confuse:** Tier 0 with Tier 3. Tier 3 is low-obligation content within the epistemic system. Tier 0 is excluded from the epistemic system altogether. ### Tiers Are Not Importance A common misunderstanding: "Tier 1 is most important, Tier 3 is least important." This is wrong. Tiers describe **epistemic obligation**, not **importance**. | Tier | Epistemic Obligation | Importance | |------|---------------------|------------| | Tier 1 | High | Varies | | Tier 2 | Medium | Varies | | Tier 3 | Low | Varies | A Tier 3 document might be critically important for today's deployment. A Tier 1 document might be philosophically foundational but irrelevant to a specific task. **The question tiers answer:** "How much must I internalize this?" **The question tiers do not answer:** "How important is this?" Conflating the two leads to either: - Ignoring Tier 3 content that matters for execution - Over-weighting Tier 1 content that doesn't apply --- ## See Also - [Three-Tier Conceptual Hierarchy](/odd/decisions/D0001-three-tier-conceptual-hierarchy.md) — The decision that established the folder model (orthogonal to tiers)