Project Status
Detailed public declaration of the current LEO architecture, development position, governance boundaries, historical-runtime treatment, and publication-readiness sequence.
Start Here
This page is designed as a navigation map for human reviewers, institutional evaluators, developers, and AI-assisted evaluation. Start with the current public status, then move to the architecture, public demonstrations, evidence, and governance materials relevant to the question being evaluated.
1
Current authority
Understand what LEO is now
Read the current project-status declaration before interpreting historical runtime artifacts or earlier public terminology.
Open Project Status
2
Repository orientation
Understand the architecture and boundaries
Read the repository README for the high-level architecture, human-control model, current development state, and evaluation path.
Open README
3
Public evaluation
Inspect demonstrated runtime behavior
Use the canonical demo catalog to identify the three public demonstration tracks and their documented scope.
Open Demo Catalog
4
Historical evidence
Interpret older artifacts in context
Earlier runtime terminology and implementation evidence remain preserved for provenance. Historical evidence does not automatically define current architectural authority.
Historical Demonstration Area
Evaluation rule:
current governing architecture, scoped runtime evidence,
public evaluation artifacts, and historical evidence are different
artifact classes. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
Current Status
LEO is under active architectural and engineering development and controlled public evaluation preparation.
Repository README
High-level orientation for evidence, provenance, Process Mode, anomaly analysis, Reviewed / Institutional Knowledge, public demonstrations, and human authority.
Public Demo Catalog
Canonical catalog of public demonstrations, their runtime scope, governance boundaries, and relationship to the broader architecture.
Production boundary:
public availability, a completed runtime baseline, passing scoped tests,
or a reproducible demonstration does not independently authorize
production deployment or production mutation.
Architecture & Process Mode
Current LEO architecture separates source evidence, evidence-derived interpretation, signal eligibility, analytical signals, process characterization, and human review.
SOURCE EVIDENCE
->
EVIDENCE-DERIVED CHARACTERISTICS
->
SIGNAL ELIGIBILITY
->
DETERMINISTIC / STOCHASTIC SIGNAL COUNTS
->
PROCESS MODE PROPOSAL
->
HUMAN REVIEW
Signal rule:
only signal-eligible
SUPPORTED characteristics may
contribute positive deterministic or stochastic signals.
NOT_SUPPORTED, NOT_OBSERVED,
UNKNOWN, and CONFLICTING remain
distinct states and do not automatically create positive or
opposite signals.
Canonical Process Mode States
DETERMINISTIC_PROCESS
Process context characterized by supported deterministic characteristics such as rule stability, procedural control, outcome predictability, or repeatability.
STOCHASTIC_PROCESS
Process context characterized by supported stochastic characteristics such as human discretion, behavioral variability, or response uncertainty.
MIXED_PROCESS
Process context where meaningful deterministic and stochastic characteristics are both present.
UNKNOWN_REQUIRES_REVIEW
Preserves uncertainty where available evidence does not support an adequate process-mode proposal.
Architecture Directory
Public architecture materials describing system structure and architectural concepts preserved in the repository.
Evidence Before Conclusions
LEO preserves the distinction between source evidence, derived characteristics, analytical signals, system proposals, reviewed knowledge, and human decisions.
Human Authority Boundary
Process Mode, anomaly analysis, and reviewer-support outputs do not independently become authoritative institutional decisions.
- Human review required
- No autonomous enforcement
- No authoritative fraud verdicts
- No authoritative legal verdicts
- No production mutation without separate authorization
- Provenance and evidence lineage preserved
- Historical evidence remains traceable
- Uncertainty remains visible
Historical architecture note:
earlier concepts such as structured truth ingestion,
investigation pipelines, risk escalation, institutional alerts,
case escalation, and automatic triggering remain relevant as
historical engineering evidence where preserved in the repository.
They do not independently define the current governing LEO architecture.
Public Evaluation
LEO is being prepared for controlled public evaluation. Public evaluation means that an external reviewer should be able to distinguish current architecture, demonstrated runtime behavior, historical evidence, governance boundaries, and unresolved review gates.
Public Demo Catalog
Canonical catalog of the current public demonstration portfolio, including scope, governance boundaries, runtime interpretation, and historical context.
Project Status
Use this document to determine the current architectural position, development state, authority boundaries, and publication-readiness sequence.
Repository README
High-level explanation of evidence lineage, Process Mode, Reviewed / Institutional Knowledge, demos, governance, licensing review boundaries, and evaluation navigation.
Public-evaluation rule:
claims should remain proportional to available evidence.
Architecture, implementation, testing, demonstrations,
historical evidence, and planned functionality are different states.
Not a production authorization:
public availability, a reproducible demo, passing scoped tests,
or a frozen runtime baseline does not independently establish
complete-system production readiness.
Public Demo Portfolio
The current portfolio contains three principal human-controlled public demonstration tracks. Each demo should be evaluated only within its documented runtime scope.
Institutional Approval Review
Local human-controlled review of institutional approval chains, including input-quality validation, approval-workflow analysis, evidence-backed findings, reviewer actions, and review-package export.
No autonomous approval, rejection, enforcement, authoritative fraud verdict, legal verdict, or production mutation.
Procurement / Accounting Review
Evidence-linked procurement and accounting review with source-trust warnings, reviewer questions, anomaly-review support, and controlled local export.
No automatic accusation, authoritative fraud verdict, legal conclusion, autonomous enforcement, or production mutation.
Grant Expense Review
Human-controlled grant-expense review involving evidence generation, documentation-completeness review, budget-line review, reviewer-dashboard use, and review-package export.
No expense approval authority, payment decision authority, authoritative fraud determination, legal verdict, autonomous enforcement, or production mutation.
Shared demo boundary:
demonstrations provide analysis and reviewer support.
They do not independently authorize institutional action.
PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION
->
SCOPED RUNTIME EVIDENCE
->
INSPECTABLE OUTPUT
->
HUMAN EVALUATION
Do not infer complete-system implementation:
the public demo portfolio represents selected runtime evidence.
It does not prove that every current LEO architectural layer
has been fully implemented in each demonstration.
Runtime Evidence
LEO preserves controlled runtime baselines as engineering evidence. Runtime completion, freezing, testing, and production authorization are intentionally treated as different states.
Controlled Runtime Baselines
Runtime baselines document implemented and validated behavior within a defined scope. They support reproducibility and evaluation, but do not automatically establish complete-system readiness.
Institutional Approval Test Evidence
A historical Institutional Approval combined runtime baseline recorded:
2451 passed in 56.87s
This is historical scoped engineering evidence. It is not asserted as the current global LEO test count.
Runtime Is Not Production Authorization
A runtime may be implemented, tested, demonstrated, or frozen without being authorized for production deployment or production mutation.
DEMONSTRATED
!=
COMPLETE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
TESTED WITHIN DEFINED SCOPE
!=
CURRENT GLOBAL TEST STATUS
RUNTIME COMPLETE
!=
PRODUCTION AUTHORIZED
Evidence, Provenance & Reports
LEO treats provenance, evidence lineage, reproducibility, review history, and historical engineering records as part of the system's institutional memory.
Institutional & Research Documents
Public institutional, research, governance, and supporting documentation preserved in the repository.
Development Reports
Chronological reports and verification materials documenting development activity, runtime validation, and system evolution.
Prototype Demonstration Archive
Preserved earlier demonstration materials including legacy anomaly, investigation, escalation, and institutional-alert concepts.
Historical runtime evidence remains part of engineering provenance but does not independently define current architectural authority.
Evidence Model
Review how source evidence, derived characteristics, signal eligibility, Process Mode proposals, reviewed knowledge, and human decisions remain distinguishable.
Preservation rule:
historical runtime components, earlier terminology,
previous demonstrations, review records, and older baselines
should remain traceable. Architectural evolution should use
explicit supersession rather than silent historical deletion.
Evidence-lineage rule:
downstream analytical output should remain traceable to the
evidence from which it originated. Evidence, interpretation,
signals, proposals, reviewed knowledge, and human decisions
should not be collapsed into a single machine conclusion.
Governance & Institutional Authority
LEO is designed as a human-controlled reviewer-support system. Technical capability does not automatically create institutional authority.
Human Review Required
Analytical outputs, Process Mode proposals, anomaly structures, reviewer-support information, and Reviewed / Institutional Knowledge remain subject to human review.
No Autonomous Enforcement
LEO does not independently convert analytical output into sanctions, restrictions, approvals, rejections, suspensions, punishments, or other consequential institutional actions.
No Fraud or Legal Verdict Authority
Anomalies, inconsistencies, unusual patterns, or missing evidence may justify additional review but do not independently establish fraud, illegality, liability, or regulatory violation.
No Production Mutation
A completed demonstration, runtime baseline, test result, or public evaluation artifact does not independently authorize production deployment or production-changing actions.
ANALYSIS
->
PROPOSAL / REVIEW SUPPORT
->
HUMAN REVIEW
->
AUTHORIZATION
->
INSTITUTIONAL ACTION
- Human review required
- No autonomous enforcement
- No autonomous institutional authority
- No autonomous learning of institutional truth from raw evidence
- No authoritative fraud verdicts
- No authoritative legal verdicts
- No automatic conversion of anomaly detection into accusation
- No production mutation without explicit authorization
Knowledge rule:
documents are evidence. Human-confirmed classifications and reviewed records
may become institutional knowledge under controlled governance with preserved
provenance, review context, and correction history.
Regulatory Context
LEO is developed in Poland within the European Union. Legal and regulatory frameworks may be relevant depending on the specific institutional role, processing context, deployment model, data categories, and operational environment.
Relevant Frameworks
Potentially relevant areas may include GDPR, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, data-governance requirements, Polish law, foundation law, accounting law, contractual requirements, and sector-specific rules.
Compliance Is Not Assumed
Governance controls, provenance, evidence lineage, human review, traceability, and audit-oriented design do not independently prove legal or regulatory compliance.
REGULATORY AWARENESS
!=
VERIFIED REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Compliance boundary:
no GDPR, EU AI Act, or other regulatory compliance claim should be inferred
from this site unless it is separately supported by appropriate legal,
technical, organizational, and evidentiary review.
Licensing / IP Review Gate
Licensing, intellectual-property, and third-party dependency consistency remain a separate publication-readiness review gate.
Licensing Consistency Review
Repository-level licenses, historical licensing statements, third-party dependencies, redistribution conditions, attribution requirements, contribution expectations, and intellectual-property positioning require dedicated review.
Historical Licensing Statements
Historical licensing material remains part of repository provenance. It should not be silently rewritten or treated as fully reconciled before the dedicated licensing review is complete.
Dedicated gate:
LICENSE / IP / THIRD-PARTY LICENSING CONSISTENCY REVIEW must be completed
before final publication readiness is declared for broader institutional,
corporate, foundation, developer, or EU/institutional cooperation.
Repository Navigation
Use this section to move directly to the major public artifact classes. Links are grouped by purpose so evaluators can distinguish current authority, runtime evidence, historical material, and pending review areas.
Project Status
Current public project-status and evaluation-readiness declaration.
README
High-level architecture, governance boundaries, demos, licensing review gate, and evaluation navigation.
Demo Catalog
Canonical navigation for public demonstration tracks and scoped runtime evidence.
Architecture Directory
Public architecture materials and structural descriptions.
Institutional & Research Documents
Public institutional, research, governance, and supporting documentation.
Development Reports
Development reports, verification records, and runtime-validation materials.
Prototype Demonstration Archive
Preserved historical runtime and prototype demonstration materials.
Licensing Materials
Repository licensing artifacts pending dedicated consistency review.
Publication-Readiness Sequence
Current public-repository work follows a controlled sequence. Completion of one step does not authorize skipping later review gates.
PROJECT_STATUS.md
->
README.md
->
PUBLIC_DEMO_CATALOG.md
->
index.html
->
CROSS-DOCUMENT ARCHITECTURAL CONTINUITY / CONSISTENCY REVIEW
->
LICENSE / IP / THIRD-PARTY LICENSING CONSISTENCY REVIEW
->
FINAL PUBLICATION-READINESS REVIEW
->
EXPLICIT HUMAN APPROVAL
->
PUBLIC REPOSITORY UPDATE
->
FRESH-CLONE / POST-PUSH VERIFICATION
Current stage:
this
index.html alignment is part of public documentation alignment.
It does not itself authorize publication, licensing conclusions,
production deployment, or GitHub update.
Institutional Context & Contact
LEO is developed by Fundacja BBS — Better Balance System in Poland, within a controlled institutional, architectural, engineering, and evaluation framework.
Fundacja BBS — Better Balance System
Poland · European Union
Institutional, research, evaluation, collaboration, licensing, and regulatory inquiries should be directed through official channels.
BBS Open System
Public-facing repository for LEO documentation, selected runtime demonstrations, architecture materials, reports, and evaluation artifacts.