A consent-bounded two-channel and four-lane community response to harassment

A consent-bounded two-channel and four-lane community response to harassment

Definitions and mathematical statement

Shared notation.

Standard number systems are $\mathbb N,\mathbb Z,\mathbb Q,\mathbb R,\mathbb C$. Specialized notation and index ranges follow the cited source and the definitions below.

Harassment is conduct concerning treatment of people, not an algebraic or computational object. Community support can involve assistance to affected people, policies for handling reports, and processes governing participation. Restorative justice concerns responses aimed at acknowledging harm and repairing relationships under an agreed process.

Record scope and qualifications.

The catalogue title is retained as metadata. Named certificates, contracts, bounds or frameworks in that title are not asserted as results of the original source extract. The source registry marks this record unrecoverable as a formal mathematical statement. The supplied discussion text is retained literally; it provides no adjudication procedure or mathematical target.

Catalogue screening limitation: The supplied source audit marks the record unrecoverable: This is a policy and community-safety question, not a mathematical problem. It has no universal answer independent of employment law, education law, collective agreements, professional-society authority, safeguarding duties, privacy rules, and the country or state involved. This report therefore offers a testable governance design, not legal advice. Every adopting body must have qualified local personnel map the design to its jurisdiction, insurance, funder, employer, venue, union, and institutional obligations before use.

The source snapshot labels this record partially solved; this is catalogue metadata rather than independent verification of a mathematical result or the current completion of a project. The source text below is rendered literally where necessary; damaged formulas and composite extracts are not silently repaired into a new mathematical claim. The supplied catalogue marks this record as unrecoverable. Its extract and terminology are documented, but a complete original problem has not been reconstructed.

Statement recorded in the supplied source.

Cases of Harassment in the Community

How can we support people who have been harassed? How do we as a community handle working with people who have been accused (including by way of warnings over the "whisper network")? Is there room for restorative justice? [S2]

Source status.

The supplied catalogue labels this source record partially solved; that metadata was checked against the supplied snapshot on 2026-10-11. The label is preserved for provenance and is not an independent verification of present open status or mathematical correctness.

Short English statement

Preserve the community discussion about supporting people affected by harassment and responding to allegations.

Sources

• S1 Ulam AI and the UnsolvedMath Contributors, UnsolvedMath: A Curated Collection of Open Mathematics Problems, record 20002196 (AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0096). Catalogue curation and metadata: CC BY 4.0. The source extract is retained; definitions, English summaries and qualifications are editorial additions. https://huggingface.co/datasets/ulamai/UnsolvedMath.
• S2 AIM Workshop Problem Lists, source linked by catalogue record AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0096. http://aimpl.org/gemscombin/7/.

Preparation and review.

The original source and UnsolvedMath contributors retain attribution for the source extract. Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) assisted with definitions, English summaries, scope notes and formatting. No new human mathematical authorship or independently verified solution is asserted. Permanent source ID 20002196 and code AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0096 checked against the complete supplied registry and current repository. Distinct upstream records, including repeated questions and broad or damaged extracts, are retained for complete coverage of the source CS category. A repeated record is not a new independent conjecture. Complete mathematical-equivalence and current-literature review has not been performed. Preparation and final review follow contribution prompts C and D, with source gaps disclosed. Structural and rendering checks do not establish a new theorem or open status.

Research attempt

Literature, source context and scope

The complete catalogue body above retains the original agenda, source status, and historical preparation. The AIMPL problem page could not be retrieved. The supplied complete source transcription was read, and the accessible primary AIM workshop announcement was checked for context. The announcement is not a substitute for verification of the inaccessible problem page. The catalogue's earlier proposed frameworks and research summaries are context, not established solutions credited to this attempt. The following is an explicitly limited investigation of one route; it neither substitutes a formalized toy model for the entire source agenda nor claims empirical or deployed-software results. Elementary auxiliary facts are not new original-target progress.

A narrowly technical confidentiality route

Support, fair process and restorative justice are not determined by a graph theorem. The source supplies no single mathematical acceptance criterion for those community decisions. A limited technical facet is whether information sent through a support workflow can reach an unintended recipient. Define a finite directed graph whose vertices are communication locations and whose edges permit copying a particular sensitive message. A source vertex $s$ initially holds the message. Let $A$ be the locations authorized to receive it, with $s\in A$. Assume each permitted edge may eventually be used, messages can be copied without modification, and there are no other routes. Reachability is computable by starting with $\{s\}$ and repeatedly adding out-neighbors; on a finite graph this stops, includes only path endpoints by induction, and includes every path endpoint by induction on path length. With adjacency lists and each vertex processed once, its operation count is $O(|V|+|E|)$. For example, permitted copying from support to scheduler and scheduler to public gives a path to public even if the initial authorized set is only support and scheduler. Checking just the first handoff misses the second. This illustrates a workflow configuration error; it does not assert that any actual community uses such a workflow.

Verification and remaining gaps

The three-vertex graph was traversed, finding the unauthorized reachable endpoint. No real allegations, identities or messages were processed, and no support or adjudication policy was designed or evaluated. The graph result cannot decide appropriate authorization, sanctions, restoration, consent or survivor support. Those original questions remain open in this attempt.

References and source attribution

Primary source: http://aimpl.org/gemscombin/7/. Attempted primary AIMPL page retrieval; failed with timeout or gateway error. The supplied full source transcription was read; the inaccessible live page was not independently inspected.

https://aimath.org/pastworkshops/gemscombin.html. Read the primary March 2023 workshop announcement and its community inclusion agenda.

All retrievals were checked on 11 October 2026. Original contributor and catalogue attribution remains in the preserved Sources section. The elementary arguments below are self-contained; their exposition is not a claim of first discovery.

Integration review.

Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) reviewed the written arguments and expanded layout and source-reference wrappers. Repository metadata and the production web renderer were checked using Python 3.13 and JavaScript with MathJax 3.2.2. This model-assisted review is not independent human proof verification; no PDF compilation or formal proof checking is asserted.

Completion Estimate

COMPLETION: 0% No substantiated new progress toward the entire original target is claimed. The worked results and failed route are delimited above; a known result, illustrative model, or auxiliary obstruction is not counted as original-target completion.

Final status and attribution

Attempt status: unresolved. This describes this research attempt, not a new ruling on the source catalogue's status or on external literature claims. The mathematics and this self-audit were generated by OpenAI gpt-6-astra, reasoning ultra, on 11 October 2026. Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) orchestrated the batch and contributed formatting/repository review. No human mathematical authorship, independent human proof checking, or formal verification is claimed. The historical preparation paragraphs in the reproduced catalogue body concern that body only.

Contribution prompt A was applied to the complete definition and supplied source record, followed by the adversarial checks of prompt B. Local reproduction files are batch013/checks.py, computations.json, and the per-ID audit JSON. They were not public links at preparation time. Numerical checks are finite and do not prove unrestricted results. No LaTeX engine was found locally; compilation was not performed by this research agent.