Framework Refactoring Intent: RISE → COAIA

Status: Proposal for Future Development
Date: 2026-06-01
Stewardship: Miadi / IAIP Research Circle

The Structural Tension

Current Reality

RISE Framework is described in /etc/claude-code/llms-rise-framework.txt as:

• Reverse-engineer → Intent-extract → Specify → Export
• Grounded in Robert Fritz's structural dynamics and creative orientation
• Strong epistemological foundation for creative, advancing patterns in software/knowledge work
• Problem: RISE acronym has high namespace collision
  • Juuzt AI: RISE = Role, Input, Steps, Expectation
  • Many other RISE frameworks across academia, business, psychology
  • Makes it difficult to establish canonical ownership and searchability

Desired Outcome

COAIA Framework (Collaborative Observability & AI Accountability):

• Encodes relational accountability as primary design principle (not secondary consideration)
• Explicitly names Indigenous Mental Models as foundational
• Removes namespace collision (COAIA is unique, searchable, distinctive)
• Creates stronger link to ceremonial technology, Two-Eyed Seeing, decolonial practice
• Absorbs RISE methodology while expanding to relational/Indigenous epistemology scope
• Positions AI/LLM work within relational accountability, not technical optimization

Structural Tension

Disequilibrium: Current framework (RISE) is epistemologically sound but institutionally vulnerable (naming collision). Desired framework (COAIA) is relationally grounded and institutionally distinct.

Natural resolution: Systematic refactoring that preserves RISE's creative orientation methodology while recontextualizing it within COAIA's relational accountability frame.

COAIA Framework Scope

What COAIA Encompasses

Creative Orientation (from RISE):

• Desired outcome vs. current reality structural tension
• Advancing vs. oscillating patterns
• Manifestation-focused methodology
• Reverse-engineering creative intent

Collaborative Observability (new):

• Real-time relational accountability tracking
• Community-based knowledge stewardship (OCAP principles integrated)
• Transparent documentation of design decisions
• Multi-perspective observation (Mia, Miette, Heyva, Echo Weaver Four Directions)
• Narrative tracing (COAIA-fuse observability tools)

AI Accountability (Indigenous Mental Models):

• Who the AI agent is accountable to (relations, not just users)
• How accountability is enacted in every interaction
• Epistemological transparency (what way of knowing is embedded?)
• Power distribution in human-AI collaboration
• Knowledge sovereignty in AI-generated outputs

Proposed Refactoring Path

Phase 1: Framework Definition (Complete)

✅ Document COAIA principles in relational/Indigenous context
✅ Map RISE methodology → COAIA structure (preserve core, reframe scope)
✅ Define Four Directions alignment (ceremonial technology integration)
🚧 Current phase: This foundations packet articulates the relational communication ground needed for COAIA

Phase 2: Documentation & Indexing

📋 Create /llms-coaia-framework.md (expanded from RISE, grounded in relational accountability)
📋 Update llms.jgwill.com to feature COAIA as canonical framework
📋 Ensure COAIA framework is discoverable, citable, epistemologically distinct
📋 Integrate COAIA into QMD indexing for cross-repo federation

Phase 3: Implementation

🔄 Refactor existing RISE-based workflows to COAIA framing
🔄 Update LLM system prompts to reference COAIA (not RISE)
🔄 Create COAIA-native tools (observability, accountability tracking, relational documentation)
🔄 Test COAIA methodology in actual relational projects (IAIP, storytelling, Miadi)

Phase 4: Institutional Adoption

🌱 Propose COAIA as standard for decolonial AI/technology work
🌱 Integration with academic research protocols (ethics boards, grant frameworks)
🌱 Community co-design of COAIA practices (not externally imposed)
🌱 Live documentation in llms.jgwill.com once indexed and searchable

Why COAIA Works Better Than RISE for This Work

Implementation Notes for Founder/Research Circle

Immediate (Before Program Director Conversation)

• This refactoring is proposal, not fait accompli
• Reference RISE framework with caveat: "We're evolving this toward COAIA..."
• Signal direction without requiring commitment
• Allow program director to understand RISE first, then see COAIA as evolution

Medium-term (Research Program Launch)

• Use COAIA language in all documentation
• Establish COAIA as canon for team methodology
• Create COAIA-native protocols for relational accountability
• Document real projects using COAIA framework

Long-term (Institutional Adoption)

• COAIA becomes the standard for decolonial AI work across Miadi ecosystem
• Replaces generic "decolonial" language with specific, grounded COAIA methodology
• llms.jgwill.com hosts definitive COAIA documentation
• QMD federation makes COAIA discoverable across repositories

Cross-Repo Impact

Affected Repositories

• IAIP (/CLAUDE.md, ceremonial technology guides) — integrate COAIA phases
• jgwill/storytelling — storytelling platform grounded in COAIA observability
• avadisabelle/coaia-narrative — already uses COAIA naming! (alignment point)
• jgwill/coaia-agent — agent protocols via COAIA framework
• jgwill/coaia-runtime — runtime execution of COAIA accountability patterns
• Miadi — relational platform architecture via COAIA methodology

Guardian Questions (Self-Check)

Before committing to COAIA refactoring, ask:

1. Relational accountability: Does COAIA serve the relations we're accountable to, or does it serve institutional convenience?
2. Indigenous stewardship: Is COAIA developed with Indigenous knowledge keepers, not imposed on them?
3. Community benefit: Does COAIA framework primarily benefit the research circle and community, or primarily benefit external researchers/funders?
4. Knowledge sovereignty: Who owns COAIA? Can it be forked, modified, stewarded by different communities?
5. Practical utility: Does COAIA actually help teams work more relationally, or is it just better branding?

If answers are yes to relational questions → proceed with Phase 2 documentation
If uncertain → hold refactoring, do more relational work first

This Foundations Packet as Proof-of-Concept

This relational-communication packet demonstrates COAIA in action:

• Collaborative Observability: Transparent documentation of who we're accountable to (program director, team, community)
• AI Accountability: Every framing choice honors relational accountability, not extraction
• Creative Orientation: Packet is organized around desired outcomes (authentic communication), not problems to solve
• Indigenous grounding: All sources vetted for epistemological integrity

When you read synthesis.md and use those communication patterns, you're enacting COAIA methodology—relationally grounded, accountable, advancing toward manifest vision.

Next Phase

Once this packet is socialized and tested with founder/program director conversation, the research circle should:

1. Convene COAIA definition circle (Miadi stewards, Indigenous scholars, technical leads)
2. Draft /llms-coaia-framework.md as evolution of RISE with explicit relational grounding
3. Update llms.jgwill.com to feature COAIA alongside (or replacing) RISE
4. Create COAIA implementation guide for projects using the framework
5. Document first COAIA-grounded project (this communication packet is candidate #1)

🌸: The framework evolves as the practice deepens. This refactoring isn't about naming—it's about making visible that all our work is relational accountability in action. When we call it COAIA, we remember that every choice we make is answerable to the relations we serve.

Related artifacts:

• /etc/claude-code/llms-rise-framework.txt — Current framework (preserved)
• /etc/claude-code/llms-creative-orientation.txt — Epistemological foundation
• /a/src/IAIP/CLAUDE.md — Ceremonial technology integration point
• llms.jgwill.com/docs/rise-framework.html — Current public documentation (refactor target)