AIFC-052: Shared Values Layer

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-020 Human-Managed AI
• AIFC-021 AI as External Expert Capacity
• AIFC-022 AI-NDA Boundary
• AIFC-050 Community Interface
• AIFC-051 Enterprise Interface

Purpose of this document: Define the Shared Values Layer as a values layer that enables cooperation between communities, teams, companies, AI agents, suppliers, customers, and wider ecosystems. The Shared Values Layer helps identify values alignment, values conflict, minimum common ground, cooperation boundaries, and responsibility for decisions in an AI-first environment.

1. Purpose of this document

This document defines the Shared Values Layer.

An AIFC community does not exist in isolation.

It cooperates with other communities that may have:

• different goals,
• different priorities,
• different strategies,
• different culture,
• different risk appetite,
• different rules,
• different economic interests,
• different legal environment,
• different AI governance,
• different trust boundaries.

For cooperation to work, sharing data, interfaces, or processes is not enough.

Communities must also understand the values layer of cooperation:

• what matters to each party,
• what is unacceptable,
• where common ground exists,
• where conflict exists,
• who decides,
• how conflict is escalated,
• what role AI may have,
• and where human or community responsibility must remain.

The Shared Values Layer is the mechanism that helps connect different communities without one losing its purpose, values, or responsibility.

2. Core principle

The core principle of this document is:

Communities may collaborate without having identical values, but they must understand the shared and conflicting values that govern the collaboration.

AIFC says:

Shared values are not decoration.
They are the governance layer of collaboration.

3. Definition

Shared Values Layer is a governed layer of values, principles, boundaries, and conflicts that enables communities to cooperate with a clear understanding of what is shared, what is different, and what must not be crossed.

The Shared Values Layer may include:

• shared values,
• non-negotiable values,
• values conflicts,
• value priorities,
• ethical boundaries,
• human responsibility rules,
• AI responsibility boundaries,
• decision principles,
• escalation rules,
• conflict resolution mechanism,
• transparency expectations,
• trust conditions,
• collaboration limits.

The Shared Values Layer is not a list of nice words.

It is a decision and protection layer.

Minimum requirement

Significant cooperation between communities must have at least a basic understanding of shared values, boundaries, and conflict areas.

4. Why Shared Values Layer matters

Without a Shared Values Layer, cooperation may look functional at the process level while failing at the level of meaning.

Examples:

• one team wants speed, another wants security,
• business wants growth, compliance wants risk reduction,
• a vendor wants to maximize AI tool adoption, the company wants to protect Operational DNA,
• a customer wants personalization, the community wants to protect privacy,
• an AI agent proposes an efficient solution but violates the value of human responsibility,
• a department optimizes local KPIs against the whole company’s purpose,
• a state optimizes the economy against ecosystem health.

Without an explicit values layer, these conflicts appear as technical or process disputes.

In reality, they are often values conflicts.

Minimum requirement

An AIFC community must be able to recognize when a problem is not technical, but value-based.

5. Shared values vs identical values

The Shared Values Layer does not mean all communities must have the same values.

Cooperation often happens between different communities.

It is important to distinguish:

identical values
shared values
compatible values
conflicting values
non-negotiable values

Identical values

Communities share the same value with the same meaning.

Shared values

Communities agree on a value for the purposes of cooperation.

Compatible values

Values are not the same, but can coexist.

Conflicting values

Values are in tension.

Non-negotiable values

Values that a community cannot sacrifice.

Minimum requirement

The Shared Values Layer must distinguish alignment, compatibility, conflict, and non-negotiable boundaries.

6. Values as collaboration boundaries

Values are not only aspirations.

They are cooperation boundaries.

For example:

Value:
Human responsibility

Boundary:
AI may not make final decisions in critical matters without accountable human or community owner.

Value:
Operational resilience

Boundary:
Critical workflow may not depend on a single AI vendor without fallback.

Value:
Privacy

Boundary:
Customer personal data may not be processed by unapproved AI tools.

Minimum requirement

Critical values must be translatable into practical cooperation boundaries.

7. Shared values and purpose

The Shared Values Layer must be connected to purpose.

Values without purpose are generic. Purpose without values can be dangerous.

Cooperation between communities must answer:

• Why are we cooperating?
• What common or overlapping purpose do we have?
• What values constrain this cooperation?
• When would cooperation stop making sense?
• What must we not sacrifice for the result?

Minimum requirement

Significant cooperation must have at least minimal purpose alignment or an explicitly acknowledged difference in purposes.

8. Values conflict

Values conflict is a situation where two or more values are in tension.

For example:

• speed vs security,
• personalization vs privacy,
• automation vs human capability,
• efficiency vs fairness,
• growth vs sustainability,
• transparency vs confidentiality,
• local optimization vs system impact,
• AI Autonomy vs human responsibility.

Values conflict is not a failure.

It is a signal that a decision requires conscious governance.

Minimum requirement

Values conflict must be named and must not be hidden as a purely technical or process problem.

9. Value priority

Sometimes it is not enough to say that values exist.

Their priority must be specified in a particular context.

Example:

In emergency mode:
safety may override speed.

In public communication:
truthfulness may override marketing attractiveness.

In Operational DNA handling:
confidentiality may override convenience.

In human capability risk:
resilience may override short-term productivity.

Value priorities may be contextual.

Minimum requirement

Critical decisions with values conflict must clearly state value priority or decision rationale.

10. Non-negotiable values

Every community may have non-negotiable values.

For example:

• human responsibility,
• protection of children,
• safety,
• legality,
• confidentiality,
• prohibition of manipulation,
• protection of Operational DNA,
• preservation of human capability,
• transparency of AI use in sensitive contexts.

Non-negotiable values define where cooperation ends.

Minimum requirement

The community must be able to name values or boundaries that must not be sacrificed for speed, cost, or AI efficiency.

11. Shared values between internal teams

The Shared Values Layer is also important inside a company.

Example:

• Marketing wants to publish content quickly.
• Legal wants to minimize risk.
• Security wants to protect data.
• Product wants to deliver value.
• Support wants to solve customer pain.
• Finance wants to control costs.

Conflicts between teams are not only a “communication problem.”

They are often unnamed values conflicts.

Minimum requirement

The Enterprise Interface must support identification of values conflicts between teams and departments.

12. Shared values with vendors

A supplier may have different values from the community.

For example:

• a vendor maximizes adoption of its AI tool,
• the community wants to minimize lock-in,
• the vendor wants to process more data,
• the community wants to minimize data exposure,
• the vendor wants automation,
• the community wants to preserve Human Capability Reserve.

A vendor relationship must therefore include the Shared Values Layer.

Minimum requirement

AI vendors or AI-enabled vendors with significant impact must have described values boundaries for cooperation.

13. Shared values with customers

Customers may expect:

• speed,
• price,
• quality,
• personalization,
• privacy,
• human support,
• transparency,
• fairness,
• reliability.

The company may have different operational priorities.

The customer interface must recognize values tension, for example:

Customer wants instant AI response.
Company value requires human review for sensitive cases.

Minimum requirement

Critical customer promises must be aligned with the community’s values and real capabilities.

14. Shared values and AI agents

An AI agent must work within the community’s values frame.

It is not enough to give it a task.

It must know:

• values,
• boundaries,
• allowed actions,
• forbidden actions,
• decision boundaries,
• escalation rules,
• human responsibility,
• AI-NDA Boundary,
• Source of Truth rules.

An AI agent may propose a values conflict, but must not make the final decision on it when it has significant impact.

Minimum requirement

AI agents with significant impact must be connected to community values and value boundaries.

15. Shared values and AI Autonomy

The higher AI Autonomy becomes, the more important the Shared Values Layer is.

AI Autonomy without a values layer leads to optimization toward a narrow goal.

Example:

• AI optimizes support response time,
• but starts simplifying answers in a way that reduces trust,
• or discourages the customer from escalation.

Autonomy must be constrained by values.

Minimum requirement

AI Autonomy in critical workflows must be assessed against values and non-negotiable boundaries.

16. Shared values and AI-NDA Boundary

The AI-NDA Boundary is not only a legal or security construct.

It is also a values expression of trust.

It says:

• what the community considers sensitive,
• what may leave the community,
• what remains protected,
• whom it trusts,
• for what purpose,
• with what responsibility.

Minimum requirement

The AI-NDA Boundary must align with the values of confidentiality, responsibility, and know-how protection.

17. Shared values and Operational DNA

Operational DNA is critical community know-how.

The Shared Values Layer must say which values protect Operational DNA.

For example:

• confidentiality,
• responsibility,
• resilience,
• know-how ownership,
• anti-lock-in,
• community sovereignty,
• security.

Without a values layer, Operational DNA may be shared for convenience or short-term efficiency.

Minimum requirement

Sharing or AI processing of Operational DNA must be assessed in value terms, not only technically.

18. Shared values and Human Capability Reserve

Human Capability Reserve is a values decision.

The community may say:

We value resilience over maximum short-term AI automation.

This affects:

• how much work people do without AI,
• how juniors are trained,
• how fallback is maintained,
• how AI is reviewed,
• how much autonomy AI receives.

Minimum requirement

The decision to preserve human capability must be part of the values layer, not only operational practice.

19. Shared values and feedback

Feedback often reveals values tension.

For example:

• an employee warns that an AI workflow weakens human capability,
• a customer warns that AI answers feel impersonal,
• security warns that rapid AI adoption threatens confidentiality,
• an AI agent warns that the backlog conflicts with strategy.

The Shared Values Layer must make these signals interpretable.

Minimum requirement

Feedback and change proposals must support marking values conflict.

20. Shared values and Decision Records

Critical decisions should record not only what was decided, but why.

If the decision resolves a values conflict, the Decision Record should include:

• affected values,
• conflict,
• priority,
• trade-off,
• owner,
• impact,
• review date,
• whether this was an exception.

Minimum requirement

Critical decisions with values conflict must have a Decision Record containing values reasoning.

21. Shared values and multi-community governance

When multiple communities cooperate, values conflict may be more complex.

Example:

Team value:
speed

Company value:
security

Customer value:
privacy

Society value:
fairness

Earth-level value:
sustainability

The Shared Values Layer helps reveal that a decision is not only local.

It has wider impact.

Minimum requirement

Decisions affecting multiple communities must assess the values of affected communities proportionally to impact.

22. Shared values and represented communities

Some communities do not have a direct voice in a digital interface.

For example:

• children,
• future generations,
• animals,
• forests,
• rivers,
• soil,
• oceans,
• climate,
• local ecosystems.

AIFC allows these communities to be represented through:

• people,
• science,
• data,
• law,
• AI models,
• institutions,
• ethical rules.

AI may help make the signals of these communities visible.

But responsibility for decisions remains with people and institutions.

Minimum requirement

For decisions with significant impact on unrepresented or weakly represented communities, the community must consider who represents their values and how.

23. Shared values and transparency

Cooperation requires appropriate transparency.

That does not mean exposing everything.

It means saying:

• what values govern the cooperation,
• what boundaries apply,
• when AI is used,
• who is responsible,
• how conflict is resolved,
• how sensitive knowledge is protected.

Minimum requirement

The Shared Values Layer must be appropriately transparent to actors affected by the cooperation.

24. Shared values and trust

Trust emerges when values appear in behavior.

Declaring values is not enough.

The community must show:

• how values affect decisions,
• how conflicts are resolved,
• how mistakes are acknowledged,
• how boundaries are protected,
• how feedback is handled,
• how AI is limited when necessary.

Minimum requirement

The Shared Values Layer must be verifiable in decisions, rules, and behavior, not only declared.

25. Shared values and metrics

Metrics can support values, but they can also distort them.

Example:

• measuring speed may weaken quality,
• measuring the number of AI outputs may weaken meaning,
• measuring cost savings may weaken Human Capability Reserve,
• measuring engagement may lead to manipulation.

The Shared Values Layer must check whether metrics encourage behavior against values.

Minimum requirement

Critical metrics must be assessed against the values they may unintentionally weaken.

26. Shared values and Human Cockpit Layer

The Human Cockpit Layer may make the values layer visible.

It may show:

• community values,
• cooperation values,
• values conflicts,
• non-negotiable boundaries,
• decision trade-offs,
• pending value escalations,
• AI proposals with value impact,
• metrics vs values,
• affected communities,
• represented communities.

The Human Cockpit Layer helps people see that some questions are not only tasks, but value decisions.

Minimum requirement

Critical values conflicts must be visible to responsible roles in human-readable form.

27. Shared values lifecycle

The Shared Values Layer evolves.

Values may:

• become more precise,
• change,
• be interpreted in a new context,
• be extended with new boundaries,
• be challenged by feedback,
• be affected by an incident,
• be extended to new communities.

The lifecycle may be:

draft
proposed
active
under_review
updated
deprecated
archived

Minimum requirement

Critical values artefacts must have an owner, status, and review mechanism.

28. Shared values record

AIFC recommends using a shared values record for significant cooperation.

It should contain:

• affected communities,
• common purpose,
• shared values,
• compatible values,
• conflicting values,
• non-negotiable boundaries,
• escalation path,
• decision rules,
• AI role,
• data boundaries,
• review cycle.

Minimum requirement

Significant multi-community cooperation must have a values record or equivalent.

29. AI role in Shared Values Layer

AI may help with the values layer.

It may:

• identify a possible values conflict,
• summarize values from documentation,
• warn about mismatch between values and work,
• propose decision questions,
• compare a proposal against values,
• detect metrics in conflict with values,
• prepare a draft values record.

AI must not decide a values conflict with significant impact by itself.

Minimum requirement

AI-generated values analysis must be marked as input or proposal and reviewed by a responsible human or community role.

30. Suggested metadata

Example metadata for the Shared Values Layer:

shared_values_layer:
  id:
  title:
  status: draft | proposed | active | under_review | updated | deprecated | archived
  owner:
  related_communities:
  collaboration_purpose:
  shared_values:
  compatible_values:
  conflicting_values:
  non_negotiable_boundaries:
  value_priorities:
  decision_rules:
  escalation_path:
  ai_role:
  ai_autonomy_constraints:
  ai_nda_boundary:
  data_boundaries:
  affected_communities:
  represented_communities:
  transparency_requirements:
  review_cycle:
  last_reviewed:
  version:

Example metadata for values conflict:

values_conflict:
  id:
  title:
  status: observed | under_review | decided | deferred | escalated | closed
  owner:
  related_decision:
  related_communities:
  affected_values:
  conflict_description:
  priority_context:
  non_negotiable_boundaries:
  proposed_tradeoff:
  ai_generated: true | false
  decision_owner:
  decision_record:
  review_date:

These structures are illustrative.

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

31. Anti-patterns

AIFC rejects the following anti-patterns.

31.1 Values as decoration

Values exist on a website or in slides, but do not affect decisions.

31.2 Hidden values conflict

A values conflict is presented as a technical or process problem.

31.3 AI optimizes without values

AI optimizes a narrow goal without value boundaries.

31.4 Vendor values ignored

The community assumes a vendor has the same values without verifying it.

31.5 Metrics override values

Metrics push the community toward behavior against its own values.

31.6 Non-negotiables not stated

The community does not name boundaries that must not be crossed.

31.7 AI decides values conflict

AI decides a values conflict with significant impact by itself.

31.8 Human responsibility diluted

Responsibility for a values decision dissolves between AI, process, and tool.

31.9 Represented communities ignored

A decision affects weakly represented communities, but their impact is not considered.

31.10 Declared values contradict behavior

The community declares values, but its decisions and budget systematically contradict them.

32. Minimal requirements

In the area of Shared Values Layer, an AIFC community must at minimum:

1. Ensure significant cooperation has an understanding of shared values, boundaries, and conflict areas.
2. Recognize when a problem is not technical, but value-based.
3. Distinguish alignment, compatibility, conflict, and non-negotiable boundaries.
4. Translate critical values into practical cooperation boundaries.
5. Give significant cooperation minimal purpose alignment or an acknowledged difference in purposes.
6. Name values conflict and avoid hiding it as a technical problem.
7. State value priority or decision rationale for critical decisions with values conflict.
8. Name non-negotiable values or boundaries.
9. Use the Enterprise Interface to identify values conflicts between teams.
10. Describe values boundaries for AI vendors or AI-enabled vendors with significant impact.
11. Align critical customer promises with community values and capabilities.
12. Connect AI agents with significant impact to values and value boundaries.
13. Assess AI Autonomy in critical workflows against values.
14. Align the AI-NDA Boundary with confidentiality, responsibility, and know-how protection.
15. Assess sharing or AI processing of Operational DNA in value terms.
16. Include Human Capability Reserve in the values layer.
17. Allow feedback and change proposals to mark values conflict.
18. Create Decision Records with values reasoning for critical decisions involving values conflict.
19. Assess the values of affected communities for decisions with multi-community impact, proportionally to impact.
20. Consider who represents weakly represented communities and how when decisions affect them.
21. Make the Shared Values Layer appropriately transparent to affected actors.
22. Make the Shared Values Layer verifiable in decisions, rules, and behavior.
23. Assess critical metrics against values.
24. Make critical values conflicts visible to responsible roles.
25. Give critical values artefacts an owner, status, and review mechanism.
26. Provide a values record or equivalent for significant multi-community cooperation.
27. Mark AI-generated values analysis as a proposal or input and review it by a responsible role.

33. Summary

The Shared Values Layer enables communities to cooperate without losing their values, boundaries, and responsibility.

Communities do not need to have identical values.

But if they cooperate, they must know:

• what they share,
• where they differ,
• what is compatible,
• what is in conflict,
• what is non-negotiable,
• who decides,
• what role AI may have,
• and how conflict is recorded.

AIFC therefore says:

Make values operational.
Make conflicts visible.
Make boundaries explicit.
Keep humans responsible.

The Shared Values Layer protects cooperation from becoming only an exchange of data, work, or AI outputs without shared meaning.

Shared Values Layer turns values into governed collaboration boundaries.