**RCOS — Regenerative Community Operating System**

# Identity Constraints Register

- **Generated:** 2026-04-29
- **Source (latest version):** [https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-templates/layer-0/identity-constraints-register](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-templates/layer-0/identity-constraints-register)
- **All RCOS templates:** [https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-templates](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-templates)

---
- **Layer:** 0 — Identity & Scope
- **Status:** Template — adapt for your community
- **RCOS reference:** [§2.4](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints), [§2.5](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#25-artifacts)

> Identity constraints are the non-negotiable behavioural, ethical, and structural boundaries that shape who the community is. Unlike invariants (which protect the system itself), identity constraints define how members and the community relate to people, ecosystems, and ideologies.

---

## Active Identity Constraints

*RCOS clauses: [2.4.1](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints), [2.4.3](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints), [2.4.4](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints)*

<details data-kind="rationale">
<summary>Why declare identity constraints explicitly?</summary>

Every community has implicit rules — "we don't do that here." Implicit rules become tools of arbitrary enforcement: whoever has social power decides what they mean. Writing identity constraints down, and requiring them to be testable through defined processes, is what turns an informal norm into something a member can actually rely on or contest.

</details>

<details data-kind="instructions">
<summary>How to fill this in</summary>

Each constraint must be testable and enforceable through a defined process — not vague aspirations. Common categories from RCOS §2.4.2: ethical/behavioural boundaries, participation prerequisites, non-negotiable cultural or ecological constraints. Reference Layer 4 for enforcement, Layer 1 for participation consequences.

</details>

1. _<Constraint 1, e.g. Members must not act in ways that concentrate power, extract value, or cause harm to people, land, or governance integrity.>_
2. _<Constraint 2, e.g. The community may not be used as a vehicle for speculative financial gain — internal economic mechanisms exist to recognize contribution, not generate profit.>_
3. _<Constraint 3, e.g. No member or role may claim authority that is not explicitly granted through the governance system.>_
4. _<Constraint 4, e.g. The community must not cause sustained net harm to local ecosystems, land, or biodiversity.>_
5. _<Constraint 5, e.g. Ecological impact must be considered in all significant resource, land, and infrastructure decisions.>_
6. _<Constraint 6, e.g. The structural layer of the community must remain non-ideological and non-normative — it provides scaffolding, not a prescribed way of living.>_
7. _<Constraint 7, e.g. No specific belief system, spirituality, culture, or political ideology may be required as a condition of membership or participation.>_
8. _<Constraint 8, e.g. Diversity of approaches to regenerative living is a feature, not a problem.>_

## Enforcement and Testability

*RCOS clauses: [2.4.3](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints), [2.4.4](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints)*

<details data-kind="rationale">
<summary>Why must constraints be testable, not informal?</summary>

A constraint that cannot be tested is a constraint that gets enforced by whoever has the most social capital in the room. Defining how each constraint is detected, who raises it, and through which process it is resolved is what prevents identity rules from becoming tools of arbitrary exclusion.

</details>

<details data-kind="instructions">
<summary>How to fill this in</summary>

For each constraint above (or as a general policy), describe how a violation is identified and addressed. Reference the Conflict Resolution Ladder (Layer 4) and any role responsible for monitoring (Layer 5).

</details>

- _<How violations are detected and reported.>_
- _<Which Layer 4 process handles violations of which class of constraint.>_
- _<Which roles or bodies are responsible for monitoring and review.>_

## Conditions for Change

*RCOS clauses: [2.4.1](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#24-identity-constraints), [2.5.2](https://blueprint.ecohubs.community/articles/rcos-core/v0-1/layer-0-identity-scope#25-artifacts)*

<details data-kind="instructions">
<summary>How to fill this in</summary>

Identity constraints are constitutional — describe the decision type, threshold, and ratification process required to add, remove, or amend a constraint.

</details>

Identity constraints may only be added, removed, or amended through a Constitutional decision as defined in the Decision Matrix (Layer 2), requiring _<threshold>_ and a ratification period of no less than _<duration>_. Any change must be recorded in the Version History (Layer 6).

---

## Ratification Record

- **Adopted:** <YYYY-MM-DD>
- **Decision type:** Constitutional
- **Version:** <version>
- **Decision record:** <link to decision record>