PluralBridge Privilege Contribution Grant Note

Attributed Member Contributions Using an ROI-Shaped Permission Model

This note captures one standalone design idea for member-to-member description contributions without silent overwrites. It proposes attributed append behavior plus explicit grant metadata for audience, scope, and duration. It is a working concept note to express and test permission behavior, not a final specification.

Start Here

• This note explores one permission pattern: attributed contribution instead of direct overwrite.
• Use it when designing collaborative member-description workflows with auditability and consent controls.
• The guiding rule is simple: append with attribution under explicit grant; never silently rewrite someone else's canonical text.

Quick Concept Key

• ✍️ DescriptionContribution = attributed text addition with metadata.
• 🧾 ContributionGrant = explicit permission envelope (who, what, audience, duration).
• 👁️ Audience scope = visibility boundary for each contribution.
• ⏱️ Grant lifecycle = starts, expires, or is revoked, while audit history remains.
• 📝 Working note = design concept in progress, not final implementation spec.

What This Note Is Not

• Not a legal ROI document.
• Not a blanket edit permission model.
• Not a replacement for account/system authorization checks.

One DID therapist we talked to asked how this would work if Member A of System Alpha wanted to add text to Member B's description. In their workflow, this is allowed as (Member) date-stamp: added text. The team discussed an ROI-shaped pattern where audience, accessible content, and duration are explicit.

For PluralBridge, this should be modeled as attributed contribution, not ordinary editing.

• Member A should not silently overwrite Member B’s canonical description.
• Member A may add a dated, attributed contribution when consent or System policy allows it.

Example Display

Member B description

B’s own description text here.

Contributions:
(Member A) 2026-07-03: Added context about how B prefers to be addressed during high-stress mornings.
(Member C) 2026-07-05: Added note that B dislikes being described as "protector."

Data Shape: DescriptionContribution

DescriptionContribution
- targetSystemId: System Alpha
- targetMemberId: Member B
- authorMemberId: Member A
- actingAccountId: signed-in account that performed the action
- createdAt
- contributionText
- visibilityScope
- source: manual / import / therapist-facing summary / migration
- status: active / hidden / withdrawn / superseded

Data Shape: ContributionGrant

ContributionGrant
- grantor: Member B, System Alpha policy, or authorized System role
- grantee: Member A
- target: Member B description
- allowedAction: append_contribution
- audience: private, System members, therapist-facing export, selected members, etc.
- startsAt
- expiresAt
- revokedAt
- purpose: optional plain-language reason

ROI-Shaped Prompt (Design Metaphor)

The ROI analogy is a design metaphor, not a legal claim.

• Who may act: Member A
• What they may access: Member B’s description
• What they may do: append attributed text, not overwrite
• Who may see it: selected audience
• How long permission lasts: until a date, until revoked, or one session/event
• What happens later: grant can expire or be revoked while audit history remains

This aligns with the PluralBridge principle that structure and access stay separate: parent/sibling/related/focused System relationships should not automatically grant visibility or editing power. Access should come from explicit permission, membership, consent, or policy.

Therapist Question: Concrete Modes

Scenario:

• System Alpha
• Member A wants to add text to Member B’s description

PluralBridge could support several System-defined modes:

1. Closed: only B can edit or annotate B’s description.
2. Append with consent: A can add attributed notes only if B grants permission.
3. Append by role: A can add attributed notes because A has a System role (caretaker, historian, archivist, admin).
4. Append pending approval: A writes the note; B or an authorized member approves before it appears.
5. Private contribution: A’s note exists, but only A, B, or a defined audience can see it.
6. Therapist-facing contribution: A’s note can appear in a user-controlled therapist export, bounded by explicit sharing rules.

Safety Boundary

PluralBridge should avoid a raw shared edit field.

• Canonical description belongs to the described member or System-defined authority.
• Other members may contribute attributed, dated additions when allowed.
• Every contribution has visibility, consent, and audit metadata.

This preserves meaning, allows collaborative self-description, supports existing System conventions, and avoids silent rewrites by other members.