Alignment Matrix

This file aggregates the source-specific memos in formation-docs/analysis/principle-maps/.

Each row records where a source is strongest, where it diverges, and what it adds that Civic Blueprint should take seriously.

Adversarial-response note (June 2026, Exchange #19 Round 2). Two disciplines from the response round apply when reading this matrix: (1) do not compute a cross-genre aggregate "alignment score" — constitutions, rights charters, international declarations, and organizational identity texts are different objects, and the three organizational rows (Mondragon, ICA, B Corp) are evidence about governance/ownership form, not about civilizational values convergence; (2) expression/free-speech overlaps are over-read as truth-infrastructure (Principle 14) commitments and should be treated as implicit/different-resolution unless a source pairs expression with institutionalized knowledge duties (Montana's "right to know" and California's open-governance norms survive as closer-to-explicit; a bare speech clause does not). The matrix's own grouping also supports the round's headline: the dignity/rights overlap is concentrated in the rights-forward modern subset, while the structural/pre-modern texts (US 1787, Bill of Rights, Declaration, France 1789, Massachusetts, Texas) and the regional texts (UN Charter, African Union) show systematic asymmetry — so the synthesis reads as modern rights-constitutionalism convergence, not cross-tradition convergence.

Round 3 discipline (June 2026 — cross-lineage adversarial pass). Two independent lineages added a third reading discipline this matrix must observe: tag every overlap/absence as textual or functional, and never compare one source functionally against another textually. A text can be thin on an entitlement yet provide it functionally (e.g., welfare via municipal/common-law mechanisms), and an authoritarian text can promise rights textually while violating them functionally — so a textual-vs-functional mismatch is the main way the "asymmetry" and "concentration" readings could flip. The pass also confirmed (3) above as the round's strongest claim, and flagged that the "concentration in modern texts" framing needs a constitutional-borrowing/influence lens (postwar hegemony, decolonization borrowing) before any convergence claim goes public.

Round 3 reclassification enacted (June 12, 2026 — claim R3-4, expression→truth-infrastructure). R3-4 was the round's established (not merely working-hypothesis) finding, so it has been applied to the per-source memos. Six bare-expression Principle 14 mappings were downgraded implicit-alignment → different-resolution — Japan (Art 21), India (Art 19), Canada (§2), Texas (speech/press), US Bill of Rights (Amdt I), and France (Art 11) — on the reasoning that a negative-liberty speech protection is a different resolution of the truth-as-public-good problem, not a weak version of a positive truth-infrastructure duty. Nine sources were preserved (not downgraded) as the paired-knowledge-duty exception R3-4 itself names — South Africa (§32 access-to-information), California (access + education), Montana (right to know), UDHR (Art 26 education), Massachusetts (education duty, kept explicit), Germany (Art 5 information access), EU (Art 11 information access), ICA (education/training/information), and Mondragon (education) — each annotated in its memo. The remaining absent Principle 14 rows (US 1787, UN Charter, Brazil, African Union, B Corp) were unaffected. Deferred: the working-hypothesis half of R3-4 — that popular-sovereignty/representation→Principle 10 ("built in the open") mappings should also default to different-resolution — was not enacted this pass; it is held for the corpus-expansion / functional-vs-textual round, since several Principle 10 explicit rows rest on genuine transparency/access provisions (Montana, California, South Africa) that would survive and others would need the functional-vs-textual tag to adjudicate.