SEMANTIC CONTRACTS
A Semantic Contract makes decision meaning testable.
A Semantic Contract is the governed agreement that binds one stated decision scope to the meaning, identity, classification, relationships, context, permitted use, authority, evidence, and Gate criteria required for that use.
It does not require one product, repository, or semantic technology. It requires an identifiable and versioned record that an authorized reviewer can resolve to its supporting evidence and test.
The contract does not make every interpretation identical. It makes the governing interpretation explicit enough to inspect, challenge, and retest.
THE CONTRACT ANATOMY
One decision scope brings the meaning, identity, relationships, context, authority, and evidence requirements into one governed agreement.
A definition by itself is not enough.
A decision can also depend on which business instance is involved, which relationships are permitted, which context applies, who has authority, which uses are allowed, and what evidence must satisfy the Gate.
STATED DECISION SCOPE
What decision or use is this agreement intended to support?
01 MEANING
What does it mean?
Approved concepts, definitions, labels, semantic boundaries, classifications, versions, and authorities.
02 IDENTITY
Which instance is involved?
Stable identifiers, resolution or mastery rules, semantic grain, source representations, thresholds, and exceptions.
03 RELATIONSHIPS
Which paths may matter?
Material relationship types, orientation, provenance, permitted and prohibited paths, constraints, and readiness where applicable.
04 CONTEXT
What must be true around it?
Source assertions, effective time, semantic versions, policy, jurisdiction, operating conditions, and other facts needed to reconstruct use.
05 USE & AUTHORITY
Who may rely on it, and for what?
Included, excluded, constrained, and prohibited uses plus ownership, approval authority, exceptions, and review conditions.
06 EVIDENCE & GATES
What must be demonstrated?
Required evidence, applicable tests, readiness criteria, decision logic, remediation expectations, and reassessment triggers.
GOVERNED CONTRACT RECORD
Identifier + owner + version + scope mapping + stable evidence references + review/change rules
The evidence may remain distributed across existing systems. The contract record makes the agreement and its references resolvable for the stated use.
A technically consistent metric, model, graph, or AI output can still be semantically unresolved if the organization cannot show which agreement governed the decision scope.
A SMALL EXAMPLE
Three teams can calculate “Active Customer” correctly and still disagree about what the metric is allowed to mean.
Suppose Sales, Finance, and Operations each maintain a technically reproducible Active Customer Count. One includes recently suspended accounts, one excludes them, and one uses a different customer-resolution rule.
A Semantic Contract for the executive metric would bind the approved Active Customer definition, customer identity rule and grain, and material account-to-subscription relationships.
It would also bind the reporting period, use boundaries, approving authorities, required evidence, readiness criteria, and review conditions to that decision scope.
The contract does not hide unresolved meaning. It keeps the disagreement visible, limits use, and creates a governed path to resolution.
WHAT A REVIEWER SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESOLVE
Active Customer Count
Scope
Which executive use is governed and which uses are excluded?
Meaning
Which Active Customer definition and version apply?
Identity
Which customer identifier or resolution rule and grain apply?
Readiness
What evidence must be satisfied, what remains unresolved, and what use is permitted?
NOT ANOTHER SEMANTIC TOOL
Existing semantic assets can supply evidence. They do not automatically become the contract.
Glossaries, catalogs, data dictionaries, semantic layers, data contracts, models, knowledge graphs, lineage, and observability systems can all contribute useful evidence.
The governing question is whether those assets, taken together, establish a resolvable and testable agreement for one stated decision scope.
A collection of semantic assets is not the same thing as an explicit agreement about what a material decision is allowed to rely upon.
WHAT EXISTING CAPABILITIES CAN CONTRIBUTE
Meaning and calculation evidence: definitions, labels, metric logic, dimensions, calculations, ownership, and semantic versions.
Physical and operational evidence: source representations, classifications, transformations, versions, lineage, traces, and runtime events.
Identity and relationship evidence: identifiers, resolution methods, concept structures, relationship types, permitted paths, constraints, and provenance.
See how existing data and AI controls contribute to decision evidence >
THE INSPECTION TEST
Can an authorized reviewer resolve the agreement that governed this use?
If the answer depends on undocumented memory or an implied combination of tools, the agreement is not governed strongly enough for reconstructable use.
The evidence may remain distributed. The contract record cannot be ambiguous.
THE MINIMUM GOVERNED RECORD
A Semantic Contract must be identifiable, owned, versioned, and bound to the decision scope it governs.
At minimum, the reviewer must be able to answer four questions.
- Identifier: Which agreement governed the use?
- Owner: Who was accountable for approving and maintaining it?
- Version: Which approved version and effective period were in force?
- Scope mapping: Which stated decision scope and required components were bound to it?
If those elements cannot be resolved, other semantic assets do not substitute for a governed contract record.
VERSION AND CHANGE
A contract that cannot survive change cannot support reconstruction.
The version and supporting semantic context that applied at the time of use must remain retrievable. Material changes require impact review and reassessment for affected decision scopes.
Change does not automatically determine a new readiness result. It determines that the affected agreement and evidence must be reviewed again.
REASSESS WHEN MATERIAL BINDINGS CHANGE
Meaning or identity: definitions, boundaries, identifiers, resolution rules, grain, or classification change.
Evidence path: sources, fields, APIs, joins, relationship paths, provenance, or constraints change.
Use or authority: ownership, purpose, policy, permitted use, model or agent behavior, action authority, or material AI context changes.
The question is not whether change occurred. The question is whether the change can alter the basis on which the decision is permitted.
FROM AGREEMENT TO READINESS
Once the intended use is explicit, the next question is whether the information is actually ready for that use.
A Semantic Contract defines the governing agreement. It does not by itself prove that every required condition has been satisfied.
The evidence still has to be prepared, evaluated, and kept within the readiness boundaries that apply to the decision scope.
SIM-ZONEs make those readiness boundaries visible without confusing availability with permission to use.
GO DEEPER
Read the normative control language
The DACS Specification defines the control requirement, applicability rules, evidence obligations, and conformance boundary.
See how the control model uses the agreement
The DACS Operating Model shows how decision scope, evidence, controls, disposition, remediation, and accountability fit together.