Publication Content Policy and Moderation Framework for Asrix Mindgate
1. Scope & Core Principles
1.1 Separation of Private Intake Timestamping and Public Portal Publication
Asrix Mindgate maintains a strict operational and legal distinction between private open-intake timestamping and public portal publication. Private open-intake timestamping operates as a self-service intellectual property (IP) preservation mechanism, accepting online submissions in good faith without pre-screening of merit. In contrast, public portal publication represents an opt-in public dissemination, indexing, and showcase framework. All public records operate strictly under a private contractual framework established via the Click-wrap Participant Agreement rather than conferring statutory exclusivity or government patent grants.
| Dimension | Private Open-Intake Timestamping | Public Portal Publication |
|---|---|---|
| Core Objective | Self-service preservation of intellectual property; establishing a tamper-evident prior-art timeline (who submitted what, and when). | Opt-in public dissemination, indexing, and prior-art showcase featuring an automated AI-generated evaluation. |
| Intake Screening | None. Submissions are accepted in good faith for a fixed fee without pre-screening of merit or novelty. | Mandatory statutory, legal, safety, and content policy screening prior to going live. |
| Certificate Issuance | Issues a SHA-256 hashed, blockchain-anchored Asrix Mindgate IP Certificate with an Originality Score (0–100) regardless of similarity. | Depends on passing publication screening. Refusal withholds public display without invalidating the private certificate. |
| Public Visibility | Confidential by default. The public registry displays metadata only (unless the Claimant explicitly opts in to publish). | Fully indexed and visible on the public portal, including manuscript/work, certificate, review note, and rating. |
| Fee Impact | Fixed fee of USD 1,000 paid up front. Fully earned upon generation and delivery of the private certificate and report. | Included in the standard USD 1,000 fee. Refusal triggers a 50% refund (USD 500), retaining USD 500 for processing overhead. |
| Applicable Governance | Standard Terms of Service, Click-wrap Participant Agreement, private contract rules, and GDPR/PDPA data erasure/redaction handling. | Publication Content Policy, Click-wrap Participant Agreement, Moderation Framework, and Public Open Licensing Terms (CC BY or author-selected open license). |
1.2 Core Principles of Publication Governance
The governance of the Asrix Mindgate Public Portal is anchored in four foundational legal and operational principles:
Publication is Not Endorsement: Public indexing and display of any work on the portal do not constitute validation, legal certification, statutory grant, or endorsement by Asrix Prime Berhad. Public display merely confirms that the work has passed basic content safety screening and has been cryptographically preserved.
Not Pay-to-Publish: Public indexing and automated AI reviews are included in the standard USD 1,000 submission fee. Every submission that passes legal and safety screening is published, regardless of whether its Originality Score or AI Review Rating is high or low. Favourable reviews, higher ratings, or expedited publication cannot be purchased.
Transparency & Permanent Record: Published items carry permanent, AI-generated Mindgate Review Notes and ratings. The evaluation rubric, weights, and model versions are fully transparent. Authors may publish a formal response beside the review note, but they cannot delete, edit, or redact the note. Alterations or removals are permitted exclusively under three narrow statutory exceptions: (a) valid court orders, (b) law-enforcement mandates, or (c) severe provable errors (handled via permanent, visible correction notices or restricted entries / HTTP 451 tombstone pages).
Good Faith & Accountability: Authors warrant under the Click-wrap Participant Agreement that they hold the necessary legal rights to submit and publish the material, that there is no known infringement, and that their Claimant identity details are accurate. Authors accept full legal responsibility and liability for all submitted and published material.
MANDATORY LEGAL DISCLAIMER This page is a public cryptographic record establishing prior art and a verifiable timeline of authorship. It is not a patent, patent-pending application, or statutory IP grant.
2. Prohibited Content Categories
2.1 Overview of Prohibited Content Standards
While private timestamping accepts all content in good faith to establish an immutable proof of existence at a specific timestamp, public indexing and display on the Asrix Mindgate Public Portal require strict adherence to statutory requirements, safety protocols, and community norms. Content submitted for public publication undergoes automated screening and, where flagged, human moderation. Content that breaches statutory obligations, promotes catastrophic societal harm, or violates established safety norms will be refused publication on the public portal.
2.2 Detailed Breakdown of Restricted & Prohibited Categories
| Prohibited Category | Scope & Definition | Enforcement Action & Policy Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Content Against Religious Belief Systems | Material that explicitly attacks, vilifies, defames, or desecrates established religious faiths, doctrines, holy texts, or sacred symbols. | Refused Public Publication. Prevents public dissemination of religious vilification while maintaining statutory compliance across global jurisdictions. |
| Content Against Racial Groups | Hate speech, discriminatory assertions, abusive content, or material promoting hatred, hostility, or violence targeted at racial, ethnic, or national groups. | Refused Public Publication. Ensures portal compliance with international non-discrimination laws, hate speech prohibitions, and public safety standards. |
| Harm to Minors | Child sexual abuse material (CSAM), child exploitation, or any content posing psychological, physical, developmental, or safety risks to individuals under 18 years of age. | Refused Public Publication. Zero-tolerance mandate to protect minors from exploitation and fulfill mandatory statutory reporting obligations. |
| Harm to Humankind | Content promoting or providing actionable instructions for catastrophic biological, chemical, radiological, technological, or violent risks; schematics for weapons of mass destruction; or material posing existential societal harm. | Refused Public Publication. Safeguards public health and global security by preventing the public dissemination of high-consequence threat material. |
| Controversial Content | Material raising sensitive societal, ethical, scientific, public health, or technological concerns that requires specialized qualitative review (see Section 3). | Routed to Human Moderation Queue. Automated AI auto-refusal is strictly prohibited. Evaluated by a human moderator to separate legitimate research from prohibited harm. |
3. Definition & Human Moderation Safeguards for 'Controversial' Content
3.1 Objective Definition and Research Protections
"Controversial Content" is defined objectively as material that touches upon highly sensitive, novel, or contested societal, ethical, public health, or technological topics, but does not inherently constitute actionable harm or illegal speech.
RESEARCH PROTECTION MANDATE The "Controversial Content" classification must never be deployed as a tool for arbitrary censorship, intellectual conformity, or the suppression of legitimate, bona fide research. Advanced genetics, public health inquiries, theological studies, social sciences, heterodox social theories, novel technological proposals, and radical scientific hypotheses are fully eligible for public publication, provided they do not cross into actionable harm or illegal categories.
3.2 Active Intermediary Legal Nuance & Review Note Governance
Because Asrix Mindgate's multimodal AI agents generate the Mindgate Review Notes directly (rather than hosting unmoderated third-party user comments), Asrix Prime Berhad operates as an active evaluation provider. To preserve analytical integrity and manage intermediary liability:
AI agents are strictly restricted to evaluating the submitted work against established rubric criteria and quoting text verbatim.
Automated phrase-matching and sentiment models are forbidden from generating defamatory assertions or unverified personal claims.
When evaluator score spreads exceed 25 points across the AI models, or when potential policy violations are detected, the system triggers mandatory human moderation escalation prior to final publication.
3.3 Prohibition of Automated AI Auto-Refusal
To preserve academic freedom and protect innovative theories from algorithmically enforced suppression, Asrix Mindgate strictly prohibits automated AI systems from issuing automatic publication refusals:
Flagging Limit Only: Initial intake models (Phase 1/Phase 2 classification models and crude phrase lists) are permitted exclusively to flag potential controversial content for secondary review.
Prohibition of Auto-Refusal: AI agents are strictly forbidden from issuing an automated "Refused" status, blocking a submission, or automatically withholding public publication based on keyword hits, vector similarity thresholds, or heuristic scores.
Mandatory Routing: Any submission flagged as potentially "controversial" by automated intake screening must be automatically and immediately routed to the administrative Human Moderator Queue.
3.4 Mandatory Human Moderation Protocol
Submissions flagged for potential policy violations undergo a rigorous, four-step human moderation workflow:
[Phase 1/2 Intake Screening] ──► [Flagged as Controversial] ──► [Human Moderator Dashboard]
│ │
▼ (Parallel) ▼
[SHA-256 / Merkle Timestamping] [Objective Legal Review]
(Never Halted or Blocked) │
├─► [Approved: Public Portal Release]
└─► [Refusal Order: 50% Refund Issued]
Ingestion & Automated Flagging: The automated intake pipeline utilizes Phase 1/Phase 2 classification models, crude phrase lists, and vector database similarity checks against internal and external risk dictionaries. If a potential violation is flagged, the record is marked for human review without halting or delaying the parallel SHA-256 hashing, Merkle tree batching, and private timestamping pipeline.
Human Moderator Queue Ingestion: The flagged submission is queued in the administrative moderation dashboard assigned to a named human moderator.
Objective Evaluation: The named human moderator conducts an objective evaluation against established policy standards, determining whether the submission represents bona fide scientific, academic, or intellectual inquiry versus genuine prohibited harm.
Determination & Logging: The moderator formally issues an administrative decision—either confirming publication or issuing a formal Refusal Order. The full decision matrix and legal rationale are permanently logged in the system audit trail.
4. Refusal Procedure & Financial / Certificate Impact
4.1 Notification and Operational Workflow
When a submission is formally refused public portal publication following human moderation, the author is issued an administrative written Notice of Refusal. The notice specifies:
The exact prohibited content category breached.
The specific statutory or policy rationale for withholding public display.
Full details regarding the formal single-appeal workflow (Section 5.1).
MANDATORY LEGAL DISCLAIMER This page is a public cryptographic record establishing prior art and a verifiable timeline of authorship. It is not a patent, patent-pending application, or statutory IP grant.
4.2 Financial Provisions & Fee Refund Structure
The financial mechanics governing a publication refusal are structured to balance administrative overhead against equitable user remedy:
Total Submission Fee: USD 1,000 paid up front at submission.
Refusal Refund Amount: 50% refund (USD 500) processed automatically to the original payment method via Stripe upon confirmation of publication refusal.
Retained Processing Fee: USD 500 is retained by Asrix Prime Berhad to cover computational costs (multimodal AI analysis, vector database indexing, repository searches) and human moderation overhead.
Refund Cap: Strictly limited to one refund per submission.
4.3 Preservation of IP Certificates and On-Chain Anchors
Publication refusal applies exclusively to public portal indexing and display. Refusal does not revoke, alter, or invalidate the underlying private intellectual property preservation service:
Certificate Validity: The private Asrix Mindgate IP Certificate remains valid, active, and legally effective as a proof of existence.
Originality Score & Report: The Originality Score (0–100) and verified repository comparison report remain intact and accessible to the Claimant via private token.
Cryptographic Integrity & Technical Stack: The SHA-256 hashes of the submission, report, and certificate—along with the Merkle leaf construction, the Ed25519 digital signatures executed via Asrix Prime Berhad's Key Management Service (KMS) / Hardware Security Module (HSM) for non-repudiation, the public blockchain anchor (OpenTimestamps/Bitcoin or Layer 2), and the RFC 3161 trusted timestamp—remain permanently unaltered and independently verifiable.
5. Appeals & Dispute Escalation
5.1 Formal Appeal Workflow
An author whose submission has been refused public publication is granted access to a formal administrative appeal workflow:
Right to Appeal: The author is granted exactly one formal appeal per refused submission.
Submission Period: The appeal must be lodged within the designated timeframe following receipt of the Notice of Refusal, incorporating written counter-arguments, contextual evidence, or scope clarifications.
Senior Review: The appeal is escalated to a senior policy officer or lead compliance counsel who was not involved in the initial refusal determination.
Final Decision: The senior reviewer issues a final written decision. If overturned, the work is published immediately to the portal. If upheld, the refusal stands with no further internal administrative recourse.
5.2 Dispute Escalation Framework
Third-party ownership claims, infringement notices, or participant conflicts regarding published works are managed via a structured, three-tier escalation framework:
[Tier 1: Administrative Notice & Public Marking]
(Response: 24–48h court/privacy; 3–5d general)
│
▼
[Tier 2: Private Mediation]
(Exchanges 5-Part Asrix Proof Bundle)
│
▼
[Tier 3: Independent AIAC Arbitration]
(Rebuttable Priority & NY Convention)
Tier 1: Administrative Notice & Marking:
Upon receipt of a formal written dispute with supporting evidence, Asrix Prime Berhad marks the public certificate, record, and PDF as Disputed.
Response timeframes: 24 to 48 hours for valid court orders and severe privacy breaches; 3 to 5 business days for ordinary administrative claims of error or contract breach.
Cryptographic hashes, Merkle proofs, and blockchain timestamps remain immutable. Takedown of public metadata is executed only upon receipt of a valid court order or law-enforcement mandate.
Tier 2: Private Mediation:
Disputing participants enter private mediation using the offline-verifiable Asrix Proof Bundle as an objective evidentiary baseline. The bundle comprises:
Canonical certificate JSON file.
KMS/HSM-executed Ed25519 digital signature.
Verified citation and repository comparison report.
Merkle audit path and batch proof.
RFC 3161 time-stamp token.
Tier 3: Independent Arbitration:
Unresolved participant disputes proceed to expedited online arbitration administered by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in Kuala Lumpur.
Operational Limitation: Asrix Prime Berhad acts strictly as an evidentiary custodian and administrative record provider; it does not adjudicate, negotiate, or rule on ownership or priority disputes.
Rebuttable Presumption of Priority: Under Section 22.6 of the Click-wrap Participant Agreement, the earliest valid public declaration creates a rebuttable presumption of priority between participants who have accepted the terms.
International Enforcement: Arbitral awards rendered by the AIAC are internationally cross-enforceable across contracting states under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.