AIFC-050: Community Interface

Status: Draft 0.1
Standard: AI-First Community Standard
Short name: AIFC
Builds on:

• AIFC-000 Manifest of the AI-first community
• AIFC-001 Core Concepts
• AIFC-002 Community Model
• AIFC-003 Values and Purpose
• AIFC-004 Feedback and Change Proposals
• AIFC-010 Knowledge Structure
• AIFC-011 Operational DNA
• AIFC-014 Human Cockpit Layer
• AIFC-020 Human-Managed AI
• AIFC-021 AI as External Expert Capacity
• AIFC-022 AI-NDA Boundary
• AIFC-023 AI as Team Member
• AIFC-024 Human Capability Reserve
• AIFC-040 AI Retrospective
• AIFC-044 Human Skills and AI Skills

Purpose of this document: Define the Community Interface as a governed interface through which a community communicates with its members, subcommunities, parent communities, partner communities, customers, suppliers, AI agents, and external expert capacity. The Community Interface protects the community’s purpose, values, knowledge, security, and ability to cooperate without losing identity or control.

1. Purpose of this document

This document defines the Community Interface.

An AIFC community is not an isolated island.

Every community exists in relation to other communities, people, systems, AI agents, and institutions.

A community may be:

• company,
• team,
• department,
• project,
• family,
• school,
• band,
• nonprofit organization,
• municipality,
• state,
• professional community,
• ecosystem,
• or network of communities.

Every community needs an interface that says:

• who we are,
• why we exist,
• what values we hold,
• what we offer,
• what we need,
• how to cooperate with us,
• what our boundaries are,
• how we use AI,
• how we accept feedback,
• how we escalate risks,
• how we protect know-how,
• what may be shared,
• what must not be shared,
• and how we connect with other communities.

The Community Interface is how a community becomes understandable and interoperable without losing control over its purpose, values, and Operational DNA.

2. Core principle

The core principle of this document is:

A community must be understandable and connectable without exposing everything it knows.

AIFC says:

Interface is not exposure.
Interface is governed connection.

The Community Interface enables cooperation.

At the same time, it protects the community from losing know-how, purpose, values, and security boundaries.

3. Definition

Community Interface is a governed set of information, rules, inputs, outputs, boundaries, and communication mechanisms that enable a community to cooperate with other actors.

A Community Interface may include:

• identity statement,
• purpose statement,
• values summary,
• capability map,
• service or product interface,
• decision interface,
• feedback interface,
• escalation interface,
• data sharing rules,
• AI access rules,
• security boundary,
• communication channels,
• roles and contacts,
• API or technical interfaces,
• knowledge sharing rules,
• collaboration protocol,
• conflict resolution mechanism.

The Community Interface is not the whole knowledge base.

It is a governed view of the community.

Minimum requirement

An AIFC community must have at least a basic way to describe its purpose, values, capabilities, boundaries, and way of cooperating.

4. Why Community Interface matters

Without a clear Community Interface, chaos emerges.

Other communities, teams, customers, suppliers, or AI agents do not know:

• what the community does,
• who is responsible for what,
• what the priorities are,
• what the value boundaries are,
• how to make a request,
• how to escalate a problem,
• what output to expect,
• what information may be shared,
• what AI access is allowed,
• what is sensitive,
• who decides,
• how conflict is resolved.

Without an interface, cooperation happens through informal relationships, assumptions, and repeated explanation.

This creates:

• attention debt,
• knowledge debt,
• relationship debt,
• governance debt,
• security risk,
• AI misuse,
• and loss of direction.

Minimum requirement

The community must have an interface that reduces ambiguity for people and AI.

5. Community Interface vs Source of Truth

The Source of Truth is the internal memory of the community.

The Community Interface is a governed view outward or between communities.

Source of Truth:
what the community knows and uses internally

Community Interface:
what others need to understand and interact with the community safely

The Community Interface may draw from the Source of Truth, but it must not expose it in an uncontrolled way.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must be derived from the Source of Truth, while respecting data classification, the AI-NDA Boundary, and Operational DNA protection.

6. Community Interface vs Human Cockpit Layer

The Human Cockpit Layer helps community members operate their knowledge base, work, decisions, and AI involvement.

The Community Interface helps the community communicate with its environment or between its own parts.

Human Cockpit Layer:
internal human-operable control layer

Community Interface:
governed connection layer between communities or actors

The two layers are related.

The Human Cockpit Layer may display, manage, and approve the Community Interface.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must be human-manageable and reviewable, ideally through the Human Cockpit Layer or an equivalent governance interface.

7. Interface types

AIFC distinguishes several interface types.

7.1 Internal interface

Interface between parts of the same community.

For example:

• team to team,
• department to department,
• project to governance board,
• support to development,
• marketing to customer service.

7.2 External interface

Interface toward other communities or external actors.

For example:

• customer,
• supplier,
• partner,
• auditor,
• regulator,
• external consultant.

7.3 AI interface

Interface for AI agents or external AI capacity.

For example:

• what data AI may see,
• what scope the agent has,
• what it may propose,
• what it must not change,
• how outputs are written back.

7.4 Public interface

Interface toward the public.

For example:

• website,
• manifesto,
• product offer,
• public values,
• public API,
• public documentation.

7.5 Governance interface

Interface for decisions, approval, feedback, and escalation.

Minimum requirement

The community must know what type of relationship a given interface exists for.

8. Interface content

A Community Interface may contain different content layers.

8.1 Identity

Who we are.

8.2 Purpose

Why we exist.

8.3 Values

What values we must not violate.

8.4 Capabilities

What we can do.

8.5 Services or outputs

What we provide to other communities.

8.6 Inputs

What we need from others.

8.7 Rules of engagement

How to cooperate with us.

8.8 Boundaries

What we do not share, do, or allow.

8.9 Decision process

How decisions are made.

8.10 Feedback process

How a signal or change proposal can be sent.

8.11 Escalation process

How risks, conflicts, and incidents are handled.

8.12 AI use disclosure

How and where we use AI.

Minimum requirement

A basic Community Interface must contain purpose, values, capabilities, boundaries, and a contact or engagement mechanism.

9. Purpose interface

The purpose interface describes why the community exists and where it is heading.

It should be clear enough for another community or AI to understand:

• what the purpose is,
• what is outside the purpose,
• what success means,
• what direction is undesirable,
• what kinds of cooperation make sense.

The purpose interface protects the community from being pulled into work that does not match its purpose.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must contain a human-readable purpose statement.

10. Values interface

The values interface describes the values the community uses for decision-making and cooperation.

It should not be decorative.

It should say:

• what the community protects,
• what is unacceptable,
• how conflicts are resolved,
• what has priority,
• how values appear in work,
• how AI must respect the values.

Example

Value:
Human responsibility

Interface implication:
AI may prepare proposals, but critical decisions are owned by accountable humans or community roles.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must contain values when cooperation may trigger decisions, risk, or conflict.

11. Capability interface

The capability interface describes what the community can do and within which limits.

It may include:

• main capabilities,
• services,
• products,
• processes,
• available capacity,
• qualification boundaries,
• what the community does not do,
• what requires external support,
• what depends on AI,
• what works without AI.

The capability interface is important for cooperation between communities.

Minimum requirement

The community must be able to describe its main capabilities and their boundaries.

12. Input interface

The input interface says what the community needs in order to work well.

For example:

• required request format,
• required context,
• expected metadata,
• decision deadline,
• business owner,
• sensitivity classification,
• acceptance criteria,
• risk context,
• AI usage consent,
• required approvals.

A good input interface reduces waste.

A poor input interface causes repeated explanation, rewriting, and AI waste.

Minimum requirement

Repeated requests to the community must have a defined input format or rules.

13. Output interface

The output interface says what the community provides back.

For example:

• output format,
• quality,
• responsibility,
• status,
• metadata,
• limitations,
• assumptions,
• decisions,
• recommendations,
• risks,
• next steps.

The output interface helps prevent outputs from being unclear or unusable.

Minimum requirement

Critical community outputs must have a clear output interface or quality criteria.

14. Decision interface

The decision interface says how decisions are made.

It may include:

• who decides,
• who recommends,
• who reviews,
• who is consulted,
• how a Decision Record is created,
• how ambiguity is resolved,
• how escalation works,
• what role AI has,
• what is a proposal and what is an approved decision.

Minimum requirement

For critical decisions, the Community Interface must distinguish proposal, recommendation, decision, and approved change.

15. Feedback interface

The feedback interface says how a signal can be sent to the community.

A signal may come from:

• community member,
• customer,
• partner,
• another community,
• AI agent,
• support process,
• maintenance process,
• audit,
• incident.

Feedback may be:

• observed signal,
• issue,
• improvement suggestion,
• risk,
• values conflict,
• opportunity,
• change proposal.

Minimum requirement

An AIFC community must have a way to receive and process feedback or change proposals.

16. Escalation interface

The escalation interface says how serious situations are handled.

For example:

• security incident,
• AI-NDA Boundary issue,
• values conflict,
• customer harm,
• Operational DNA exposure,
• budget incident,
• lock-in incident,
• legal risk,
• cross-community conflict,
• mission failure.

The escalation interface must be clear before an incident happens.

Minimum requirement

A critical Community Interface must contain an escalation path.

17. AI interface

The AI interface describes how AI may work with the community.

It may include:

• allowed AI roles,
• allowed AI tools,
• allowed data,
• forbidden data,
• allowed actions,
• forbidden actions,
• approval rules,
• AI-NDA Boundary,
• write-back rules,
• memory rules,
• audit rules,
• human owner,
• fallback.

The AI interface matters because AI may be a reader, assistant, agent, external expert, or team member.

Minimum requirement

If AI works with non-public community know-how, AI interface or AI-NDA Boundary rules must exist.

18. Data sharing interface

The data sharing interface defines what information may be shared.

It must distinguish:

public
internal
restricted
operational_dna

For each level, it must be clear:

• who may read,
• who may write,
• whether AI may see the data,
• whether the data may leave the community,
• whether it may be stored,
• whether it may be used for training,
• how access is audited.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must respect data classification and must not expose Operational DNA without approval.

19. Boundary interface

The boundary interface says what the community does not do, share, or allow.

Boundaries protect:

• purpose,
• values,
• people,
• know-how,
• security,
• attention,
• capacity,
• Operational DNA,
• trust.

Without a boundary interface, cooperation may turn into exploitation, chaos, or risk.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must contain explicit boundaries for significant cooperation.

20. Relationship interface

The relationship interface describes the type of relationship between communities.

For example:

• customer/provider,
• partner/partner,
• regulator/regulated,
• parent/subcommunity,
• internal service provider,
• external expert,
• AI vendor,
• open community,
• represented ecosystem.

Each relationship has different responsibility, trust, expectations, and data boundary.

Minimum requirement

Significant cooperation between communities must have a defined relationship type or engagement model.

21. Interface between nested communities

An AIFC community may contain smaller communities.

For example:

Company
  -> Department
    -> Team
      -> Project

Each layer has its own purpose, values, capabilities, and interface.

A nested community interface must address:

• what is inherited from above,
• what the community defines itself,
• how escalation flows upward,
• how feedback flows downward,
• how values conflict is resolved,
• how the Source of Truth is shared,
• how Operational DNA is separated.

Minimum requirement

Nested communities must have a way to align their purpose and values with the parent community.

22. Interface and shared values

The Community Interface must show how values are translated into cooperation.

When two communities cooperate, they must understand at least the basic value boundaries.

Example:

• one community prefers speed,
• another prefers security,
• without a values interface, conflict emerges,
• with a values interface, the conflict can be named and governed.

Minimum requirement

A significant community-to-community interface must make it possible to identify a values conflict.

23. Interface and AI-generated proposals

AI may propose changes through the Community Interface.

For example:

• an AI agent in a team sees a risk and proposes escalation to the department,
• an AI support agent detects a repeated customer problem and proposes a change proposal,
• an AI maintenance agent finds a mismatch between strategy and workflow.

An AI-generated proposal must be marked as a proposal.

The community decides.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must distinguish AI-generated proposal from human or community decision.

24. Interface and Source of Truth write-back

The Community Interface should not be only a communication facade.

Important interactions must be able to return learning to the Source of Truth.

For example:

• customer feedback,
• audit finding,
• partner issue,
• support pattern,
• AI signal,
• values conflict,
• escalation,
• change proposal.

Minimum requirement

Significant signals received through the Community Interface must be processable as a Source of Truth update, observed signal, or change proposal.

25. Interface and Operational DNA protection

The Community Interface must not expose Operational DNA in an uncontrolled way.

Risk arises when an interface publishes:

• internal decision logic,
• unique processes,
• agent skills,
• strategy,
• internal playbooks,
• security rules,
• customer know-how,
• business model,
• capability to replicate the company.

Minimum requirement

The Community Interface must have an Operational DNA exposure review for sensitive or public interfaces.

26. Interface and security

The Community Interface is a security boundary.

It must address:

• authentication,
• authorization,
• data classification,
• access rights,
• logging,
• audit,
• rate limits,
• AI access,
• export control,
• revocation,
• incident handling.

Even a human communication interface can be a security risk.

Minimum requirement

Technical and knowledge Community Interfaces must have an appropriate security review based on risk.

27. Interface and Human Capability Reserve

The Community Interface must be understandable by people.

If the interface works only because AI interprets it, dependency emerges.

People must be able to:

• understand the request,
• assess the output,
• escalate a problem,
• use fallback,
• communicate boundaries,
• update the interface,
• explain the rules.

Minimum requirement

A critical Community Interface must have a human-readable description and fallback for work without AI.

28. Interface and Human Cockpit Layer

The Human Cockpit Layer may manage the Community Interface.

It may show:

• active interfaces,
• owner,
• purpose,
• allowed inputs,
• outputs,
• boundaries,
• AI access,
• data classification,
• open feedback,
• escalations,
• interface incidents,
• review status,
• proposed changes.

This helps people understand how the community communicates and where risks exist.

Minimum requirement

Significant Community Interfaces must be available to responsible roles in human-readable form.

29. Interface lifecycle

The Community Interface has a lifecycle.

Recommended statuses:

draft
proposed
under_review
active
deprecated
retired
archived
suspended

Interfaces must be reviewed because the following change:

• purpose,
• values,
• capabilities,
• partners,
• data,
• AI tools,
• security,
• legal requirements,
• operating reality.

Minimum requirement

Significant Community Interfaces must have an owner, status, and review cycle.

30. Interface record

AIFC recommends using an interface record.

It should contain:

• title,
• purpose,
• interface type,
• owner,
• affected communities,
• inputs,
• outputs,
• boundaries,
• data classification,
• AI access,
• decision rules,
• feedback rules,
• escalation path,
• security requirements,
• review cycle.

Minimum requirement

A significant Community Interface must be traceable as an artefact in the Source of Truth or governance repository.

31. Interface quality criteria

A good Community Interface is:

• understandable,
• concise,
• concrete,
• secure,
• current,
• owned,
• reviewed,
• aligned with values,
• data-classified,
• usable by people and AI,
• protective of Operational DNA,
• connected to the feedback loop.

Minimum requirement

Critical Community Interfaces must have quality criteria or a review checklist.

32. AI role in Community Interface

AI may help with the Community Interface.

It may:

• propose interface drafts,
• summarize capabilities,
• detect values conflicts,
• triage feedback,
• propose escalation,
• check consistency,
• detect outdated interfaces,
• propose interface improvements.

AI must not change a critical interface by itself without approval.

Minimum requirement

AI-generated interface changes must be marked as proposals and reviewed by the responsible owner.

33. Suggested metadata

Example metadata for a Community Interface:

community_interface:
  id:
  title:
  status: draft | proposed | under_review | active | deprecated | retired | archived | suspended
  owner:
  interface_type:
    - internal
    - external
    - ai
    - public
    - governance
  purpose:
  related_communities:
  relationship_type:
  related_values:
  related_capabilities:
  allowed_inputs:
  required_input_metadata:
  outputs:
  quality_criteria:
  boundaries:
  decision_rules:
  feedback_rules:
  escalation_path:
  data_classification:
  ai_access:
  ai_nda_boundary:
  operational_dna_exposure_risk: low | medium | high | critical
  security_review_required: true | false
  human_fallback_required: true | false
  source_of_truth_write_back:
  review_cycle:
  last_reviewed:
  version:

Example metadata for an interface signal:

interface_signal:
  id:
  title:
  status: observed | triaged | converted_to_proposal | closed | rejected
  source_interface:
  source_actor:
  signal_type:
    - feedback
    - risk
    - opportunity
    - values_conflict
    - support_pattern
    - incident
    - improvement
  description:
  affected_community:
  related_values:
  related_capabilities:
  ai_generated: true | false
  priority: low | medium | high | critical
  proposed_next_step:
  related_change_proposal:
  owner:
  created_at:

These structures are illustrative.

The final schema should be defined in the agent-actionable layer of the standard.

34. Anti-patterns

AIFC rejects the following anti-patterns.

34.1 No interface

The community exists, but nobody knows how to cooperate with it.

34.2 Interface as exposure

The community exposes too much internal know-how instead of providing a governed view.

34.3 Interface without owner

The interface exists, but nobody maintains it.

34.4 Interface without values

Cooperation is described technically, but value boundaries are missing.

34.5 Interface without feedback

The community can produce outputs, but cannot receive signals back.

34.6 AI access without AI interface

AI works with community know-how without defined boundaries.

34.7 Public interface exposing Operational DNA

A public interface exposes critical know-how that would allow the community to be replicated or harmed.

34.8 Interface only AI can understand

The interface works only because AI interprets unclear context.

34.9 Interface without escalation

When a problem occurs, nobody knows where to escalate it.

34.10 Interface drift

The interface diverges from the community’s current purpose, values, or capabilities.

35. Minimal requirements

In the area of Community Interface, an AIFC community must at minimum:

1. Describe its purpose, values, capabilities, boundaries, and way of cooperating.
2. Derive the Community Interface from the Source of Truth.
3. Respect data classification.
4. Respect the AI-NDA Boundary.
5. Protect Operational DNA.
6. Keep the Community Interface human-manageable and reviewable.
7. Distinguish interface type.
8. Include purpose, values, capabilities, boundaries, and an engagement mechanism in the basic Community Interface.
9. Define input format or rules for repeated requests.
10. Provide output interface or quality criteria for critical outputs.
11. Distinguish proposal, recommendation, decision, and approved change for critical decisions.
12. Provide a way to receive feedback or change proposals.
13. Provide escalation path for critical interfaces.
14. Provide AI interface or AI-NDA Boundary rules for AI access to non-public know-how.
15. Avoid exposing Operational DNA without approval.
16. Define relationship type or engagement model for significant cooperation.
17. Provide a way for nested communities to align purpose and values.
18. Make it possible to identify values conflict in significant interfaces.
19. Distinguish AI-generated proposals from human or community decisions.
20. Process significant signals from the interface as observed signals or change proposals.
21. Provide human-readable description and non-AI fallback for critical interfaces.
22. Assign owner, status, and review cycle to significant Community Interfaces.
23. Make significant Community Interfaces traceable in the Source of Truth or governance repository.
24. Provide quality criteria or a review checklist for critical interfaces.
25. Mark AI-generated interface changes as proposals and review them by an owner.

36. Summary

The Community Interface is the governed interface between a community and the world.

It enables the community to be understandable, cooperative, and connectable.

At the same time, it protects its:

• purpose,
• values,
• know-how,
• Operational DNA,
• security,
• attention,
• capability,
• and human responsibility.

AIFC therefore says:

Make the community connectable.
Do not make it exposed.

The Community Interface is a foundational building block for cooperation between teams, companies, communities, AI agents, and wider systems.

Without it, communities connect through chaos.

With it, they connect through purpose, values, boundaries, and responsibility.

Community Interface turns community identity and capability into governed collaboration.