- Layer: 4 — Conflict, Repair & Accountability
- Status: Template — adapt for your community
- RCOS reference: §6.1, §6.2, §6.3, §6.5
Conflict Classification
RCOS clauses: 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.5.3
Why classify conflicts at all?
Without named classes, every dispute gets treated the same — or worse, treated differently based on who is involved. Explicit classes set the entry point, the response window, and the documentation burden up front, so safety-critical matters cannot be quietly routed through a friendly chat and minor friction cannot be weaponized into a formal review.
How to fill this in
For each class, set entry criteria, the entry step in the ladder, the initial response window, and the documentation burden.
| Class | Entry criteria | Entry point | Initial response window | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <Interpersonal> | <member-to-member friction> | <Step 1> | <window> | <from which step> |
| <Role-based> | <role-performance dispute> | <…> | <…> | <…> |
| <Structural> | <governance-process dispute> | <…> | <…> | <…> |
| <Ethical / obligation breach> | <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> |
| <Safety-critical> | <credible safety risk, coercion, abuse, or threats> | <bypasses earlier steps> | <short window> | <from intake; immediate action permitted> |
> Safety-critical conflicts override participation rights, role continuity, and operational convenience.
Resolution Ladder Steps
RCOS clauses: 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.5.3
Why a stepped ladder instead of a single process?
Most conflict is low-stakes and best resolved between the people involved; forcing everything into formal review would kill trust and flood the governance system. A ladder matches process weight to dispute weight — private conversation first, facilitated dialogue next, written record only when needed, governance vote only when all else fails. It also makes escalation a structural right, not a favour granted by whoever holds social power.
How to fill this in
Define each ladder step: who is involved, what happens, the time window, and the escalation rule. Keep the early steps light and confidential; reserve formal review for later steps.
- Direct conversation — <parties attempt to resolve privately; window; outcome rules.>
- Facilitated dialogue — <facilitator hosts conversation; confidentiality; window; outcome rules.>
- Accountability intake — <formal written record opened; submissions; window; outcome rules.>
- Accountability review — <structured review; both parties present; written recommendation; window; outcome rules.>
- Governance decision — <minimum-necessary disclosure to Full Members; deliberation period; vote mechanism and threshold.>
- Separation process — <coordinated with the Exit & Separation Protocol; minimum re-application block.>
Non-Response, Withdrawal, and Deadlock
What stops a process from being killed by silence?
The easiest way to defeat any accountability process is to ignore it. If non-response, withdrawal, or deadlock leaves the matter frozen, the party on the receiving end of harm carries the cost of the inaction. Explicit rules for each failure mode convert silence into a documented escalation trigger rather than a veto.
How to fill this in
Define how non-response, mid-process withdrawal, deadlock, and procedural failure are handled. Each should have a documented escalation path.
If a party does not respond within the defined window:
- <Follow-up notice; additional grace period; treatment of continued silence as non-resolution; escalation rule.>
If a party withdraws mid-process:
- <Notification of withdrawal; option for the other party to close or request a written summary; escalation rule for outstanding accountability matters.>
Deadlock (all resolution attempts exhausted):
- <Documentation of the deadlock; escalation to governance decision.>
Procedural failure review:
- <How procedural objections are raised; where they are logged; trigger for review of this artifact under the Change Protocol.>
Facilitator Selection and Replacement
Why name how the Facilitator is chosen or replaced?
A facilitator who is implicated in the conflict — or socially aligned with one party — cannot hold the process fairly, no matter how good their intentions. Naming selection and replacement rules up front means the affected party does not have to fight for a neutral hearing while already under stress.
How to fill this in
State the default facilitator role, the rule when the facilitator is a party, the right to decline, and any provision for external facilitation.
- <Default facilitator role per the Role Registry.>
- <Rule when the facilitator is a party — selection of a neutral substitute.>
- <Right of either party to decline a facilitator with stated conflict of interest.>
- <Optional external facilitation by mutual agreement.>
Privacy and Information Access Boundaries
RCOS clauses: 6.5.3
Why bound information flow so tightly?
Conflict records contain the most sensitive material the community holds. Leaks, gossip, or casual disclosure cause second-order harm and deter future reporting. Explicit boundaries — what stays with the parties, what reaches Full Members, and when records are destroyed — make confidentiality enforceable rather than aspirational.
How to fill this in
State which steps are fully confidential, what minimum information may be disclosed at the governance step, the retention period, and the non-disclosure obligation.
- <Steps 1–4: fully confidential; only parties and Facilitator may access records.>
- <Steps 5–6: minimum necessary information disclosed to Full Members; parties notified before disclosure. Define what “minimum necessary” means.>
- <Record retention: who holds records, for how long, then destroyed.>
- <Non-disclosure: no participant may share information about the process outside the defined participants without written consent of all parties.>
Safeguards
RCOS clauses: 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5
Why do safeguards exist on top of the ladder?
Process alone does not protect the party with less power. Retaliation, bad-faith complaints, conflicted facilitators, and unreviewed safety risks can all neutralize an otherwise good procedure. Safeguards are the backstops that keep the ladder functional when incentives push against honest reporting.
How to fill this in
For each safeguard, state the rule and the consequence when it is violated. Power-differential cases need their own intake channel.
- Anti-retaliation: <retaliation against a member raising a conflict in good faith is itself grounds for an accountability process.>
- Bad-faith complaints: <deliberately false complaints may trigger an accountability process against the complainant.>
- Facilitator conflict of interest: <see Facilitator Selection and Replacement.>
- Process pause: <either party may pause once for up to X days by written notice.>
- Safety-critical immediate action: <facilitator may recommend a temporary access restriction pending review; review window.>
- Power differential — separate intake channel: <where a power differential exists, the affected member may submit intake directly to a body other than the standard Facilitator.>
- Role suspension during review: <Full Members may temporarily suspend a role holder’s delegated authority during review without constituting forced exit.>
Ratification Record
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>