Re: A Framework for Human-AI Collaboration in Standards Work

Manu

Thanks for the feedback, as usual, I really appreciate all of it.

@everyone.

I apologize for having hijacked the thread and including those
screenshots and so many links. I later regretted it even before Manu's
reply. No more LLM edited replies from me.

A bit of clarification:

- All the 7 points I shared, are all part of a single project. It is just
it is split into separate reusable components and repos.
- All ideas, direction, correction, alignment, is my output. I keep having
to implement CI scripts because LLM hooks and skills are not enough to keep
the LLM accurate. The LLM is used to CODE and EDIT, all my work but ALL the
ideas are mine, I am the one yelling the LLM "hey, we should in fact
separate this into a reusable component.", "Hey, what if we use a DID and
resolver to allow dynamic/programtic and automated resolution of CA trust
chains instead of having every single Adobe Reader user installing those
manually"?

@Christopher

I was reading the long proposal and it mentioned a signed off proposal
step. I had included something similar in the DID Method Explorer/Checklist
project ion a separate email. It is currently an optional step in the
Self-assessment form. This is a self assessment I think teams should do
before submitting a new DID method to see how their method aligns with use
cases, if the intended use case is already been covered by ither methods
and the overlaps, to help evaluate the need of a new DID method. The
optional sign off also included a demo of a wallet adapter UX ( User
Experience ), the goal there was to showcase that user experience approach
for browser based wallets, but it aligns with your proposed sign off. ( it
has its won thread )

Kind regards,


--
Eduardo Chongkan



On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 3:25 PM Christoph <christoph@christophdorn.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 19, 2026, at 4:04 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 12:05 PM Christoph <christoph@christophdorn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I want to apologize for spamming the list. That was not my intention.
> Thank you Manu for making this clear to me.
>
>
> Ashby’s law still holds: every amplifier needs matching attenuators. LLM
> vendors have no incentive to build them — the gradient runs the other way.
>
>
> Thank you for pointing to a general concept I can synthesize into my
> approach. I have been discovering many of these. They are very useful when
> modelling systems.
>
>
>
> So attenuation falls to us. About 80% of my time with these tools goes to
> compressing their output back into the principles worth keeping. The
> discipline is noticing what to leave out.
>
>
> What if structural rules can facilitate attenuation towards goals. That is
> what I am proposing.
>
> Define the collaboration interfaces and goals in detail and see what
> drifts to the top using rules.
>
> It is a completely different way of thinking but better aligned with how
> systems are going to be built. Systems will focus within for optimization
> in a specific domain and project out interfaces that facilitate exchange.
> These interfaces are negotiated by optimizing invariant properties.
>
> We must find our role as directors in a self-optimizing world-wide network
> of systems.
>
> We must find ways to surface to us what matters and the best approaches to
> discuss and deliberate what is presented.
>
> Christoph
>
>
>
> — Christopher Allen
>
>
>
>