Authority is not inferred from activity
Creative projects need decisions about scope, direction, approvals, staffing, ownership, and obligations. Those decisions are different from the work performed by any individual contributor. In NOS, holding a role, participating in a conversation, receiving funding, or having a high metric value does not automatically establish unlimited authority.
The governing principle is explicit, scoped authority. A Project Owner originates a Project, but the word Owner is a participation label, not proof of every underlying intellectual-property right or economic entitlement. Actual rights and permissions are established through agreements and applicable law. Supervisors, producers, and other participants may receive delegated decision authority within defined limits, subject to the terms governing the project.
Agency and authority are different
Every Member retains agency to decide whether to enter a Commitment and what terms to accept. Once a Commitment has been made, the Member may have obligations under those terms. A person's agency to consent should not be confused with authority to make decisions for other Members or for the Project as a whole.
This separation is especially valuable when teams grow. Delegated review authority, for example, need not imply authority to rewrite revenue participation or transfer intellectual property. A funding agreement also need not confer creative control unless the relevant documents explicitly say so.
When an agreement changes
Projects evolve. Work can change, new partners arrive, and circumstances may make the original plan unworkable. NOS's proposed governance approach treats changes as explicit amendments or state transitions. It preserves the previous terms and records which revised terms, if any, were accepted.
Submission does not equal acceptance. Acceptance does not equal an unspecified rights assignment. A metric movement does not revoke authority or alter compensation. These distinctions make the underlying relationship more legible during both normal operations and conflict.
Disagreement and evidence
A dispute may concern performance, acceptance, scope, approval authority, payment, ownership, or attribution. The Event Spine is designed to preserve the evidence relevant to these questions: Commitments, submissions, revisions, decisions, accepted deliverables, changes in authority, and documented resolutions.
The Event Spine is not a substitute for a legal process. Disputes remain subject to agreed procedures and applicable law. NOS does not claim that a score can arbitrate a dispute or that blockchain automatically resolves legal rights.
Important boundary between research and product
NOS has detailed draft governance and escalation research. It describes intended structural constraints, not a guarantee that every dispute workflow, remedy, or supervisory permission is implemented in Alpha. The approved product terms and current interface documentation must govern operational instructions.
Further reading: The Event Spine, Commitments and Compensation, Participation, and App Documentation.