{
  "node_id": "eziah:reasoning-inequity@1.0.0",
  "term": "Reasoning Inequity",
  "slug": "reasoning-inequity",
  "node_version": "1.0.0",
  "document_version": "1.0",
  "status": "canonical",
  "intended_status_after_publication": "canonical",
  "effective_date": "2026-08-03",
  "draft_date": "2026-08-03",
  "canonical_uri": "https://eziah.ai/ontology#term-reasoning-inequity",
  "canonical_definition": "Reasoning Inequity refers to an unfair difference in a person’s ability to develop, use, or benefit from high-quality reasoning. It exists when a barrier, system, or environment creates or worsens that difference and the disadvantage could reasonably be reduced or removed.",
  "semantic_role": "normative_evaluation_layer",
  "governing_restraint": "A reasoning difference becomes a reasoning inequity only when evidence connects it to an unfair and reasonably avoidable barrier that creates a meaningful disadvantage.",
  "prerequisite": {
    "node": "eziah:reasoning-inequality@1.0.0",
    "requirement": "A measurable reasoning difference must be identified before it can be evaluated as an inequity."
  },
  "classification_test": {
    "measurable_difference": "A clear difference exists in reasoning access, development, quality, system support, continuity, control, or benefit.",
    "mechanism": "A barrier, system, rule, or environment helped create, maintain, or worsen the difference.",
    "material_disadvantage": "The difference meaningfully limits reasoning opportunity, development, support, continuity, or benefit.",
    "reasonable_avoidability": "A practical change could reduce or remove the barrier without creating greater harm or defeating a necessary system purpose.",
    "fairness_principle": "A clear and stated principle explains why the condition is unfair.",
    "evidence_strength": "The evidence is strong enough to support the level of classification being claimed."
  },
  "evidence_levels": {
    "signal": "An initial concern that warrants further review.",
    "pattern": "A repeated difference observed across several cases or conditions.",
    "supported_finding": "Strong evidence showing a consistent unfair and avoidable disadvantage.",
    "causal_finding": "Evidence showing that the barrier directly caused or worsened the disadvantage."
  },
  "forms": {
    "access_inequity": "Unfair and avoidable barriers to the tools, education, time, privacy, language support, or infrastructure needed for strong reasoning.",
    "development_inequity": "Unfair differences in the opportunity to build reasoning skill through teaching, challenge, feedback, reflection, or support.",
    "system_treatment_inequity": "Lower-quality reasoning support caused by irrelevant assumptions about a user, including assumptions based on writing style, vocabulary, location, or perceived education.",
    "continuity_inequity": "Unfair barriers to preserving context, memory, decision history, feedback, and long-term reasoning development.",
    "control_inequity": "Unfair limits on a person’s ability to inspect, correct, transfer, or remove the context and memory used to shape reasoning support."
  },
  "fairness_principles": {
    "equal_respect": "People should not receive weaker reasoning support because of irrelevant assumptions about their ability or worth.",
    "relevant_difference": "Different treatment should be based only on facts that matter to the task or risk.",
    "fair_opportunity": "People should have a reasonable chance to build, use, and benefit from reasoning capability.",
    "user_control": "People should be able to inspect and correct important information used to guide reasoning support.",
    "transparency": "Users should be told about important limits, uncertainty, and capability differences.",
    "non_exploitation": "Systems should not increase dependence when stronger reasoning development is reasonably possible."
  },
  "invariants": [
    "A measurable reasoning inequality does not automatically establish reasoning inequity.",
    "Reasoning inequity requires a stated fairness principle.",
    "Reasoning inequity requires evidence of a meaningful disadvantage.",
    "The barrier must be reasonably avoidable or reducible.",
    "Intent is not required for inequity to exist.",
    "Intent may affect responsibility, trust, urgency, and accountability.",
    "Fair treatment does not always require identical treatment.",
    "One case may establish a signal but does not automatically establish a structural pattern.",
    "The strength of the claim must match the strength of the evidence.",
    "Human judgment must remain part of fairness evaluation."
  ],
  "non_claims": [
    "Every reasoning difference is unfair.",
    "Every unequal outcome is a reasoning inequity.",
    "All users should receive identical answers or outcomes.",
    "All reasoning gaps can or should be removed.",
    "Higher reasoning capability proves unfair advantage.",
    "Lower reasoning capability proves personal failure.",
    "Harmful intent is required for inequity to exist.",
    "One isolated case proves a system-wide pattern.",
    "Machine judgment should hold final authority over fairness.",
    "The framework has already been validated as a universal standard."
  ],
  "operational_requirements": [
    "Identify the measured reasoning inequality.",
    "Identify the affected person, group, or system.",
    "Identify the barrier, rule, design, or environment linked to the difference.",
    "Describe the meaningful disadvantage.",
    "State the fairness principle being applied.",
    "Explain why the barrier is reasonably avoidable or reducible.",
    "State the evidence level and confidence.",
    "Disclose alternate explanations and remaining uncertainty.",
    "Separate individual findings from structural claims.",
    "Do not recommend intervention beyond what the evidence supports."
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "predicate": "evaluates",
      "object": "eziah:reasoning-inequality@1.0.0"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "addressed_by",
      "object": "eziah:reasoning-equity@2.0.0"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "may_be_created_or_reduced_by",
      "object": "eziah:cognitive-infrastructure"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "may_be_compounded_by",
      "object": "eziah:contextual-continuity"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "requires_governance_from",
      "object": "eziah:semantic-governance"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "must_preserve",
      "object": "eziah:productive-friction"
    },
    {
      "predicate": "must_protect",
      "object": "eziah:cognitive-sovereignty"
    }
  ],
  "prior_and_parallel_use": {
    "status": "general_phrase_with_possible_prior_and_parallel_use",
    "attribution_claim": "Eziah AI does not claim origin of the words reasoning inequity.",
    "authorship_claim": "Eziah AI claims authorship of this canonical definition, six-part classification test, evidence levels, forms, and relationship architecture."
  },
  "evidence_status": {
    "classification": "conceptual_normative_evaluation_framework",
    "empirical_validation": "pending",
    "legal_standard": "not_claimed",
    "universal_moral_standard": "not_claimed",
    "causal_validation": "not_claimed",
    "intended_use": [
      "system_audits",
      "research_design",
      "accessibility_review",
      "educational_analysis",
      "continuity_governance",
      "human_ai_interaction_review",
      "semantic_governance"
    ]
  },
  "governance": {
    "publication_status": "published",
    "silent_definition_replacement_prohibited": true,
    "change_history_required": true,
    "future_breaking_definition_changes": "major_version_increment",
    "future_classification_test_additions": "minor_version_increment",
    "future_non_breaking_clarifications": "patch_version_increment"
  }
}