\section{Episode Historical Assets}
\label{sec:episode-assets}

\subsection{From recorded events to causal experience}

Event order is necessary but insufficient. Distributed histories already show
that order and causality cannot be inferred from a single wall clock
\cite{lamport1978time}. Provenance standards distinguish entities, activities,
agents, derivation, and responsibility \cite{w3cProv2013}. KFD adds a
participant and ontology boundary: what did an observer accept, which action
was attempted under which authority, what consequence was borne, what evidence
was missing, and which later interpretation remains a claim?

We model an Episode $e$ as:

\begin{equation}
e = (i, P, F^{-}, A, D, C, I, F^{+}, R, G, S),
\end{equation}

where $i$ is stable identity; $P$ is declared observer and perspective;
$F^{-}$ and $F^{+}$ are adjacent admitted Fact cuts; $A$ is the action and
bounded intent; $D$ records dependencies and authority; $C$ records
consequences, costs, failures, retries, and overrides; $I$ records
interventions; $R$ binds evidence and receipts; $G$ declares gaps, redaction,
degradation, and proxy-only consequences; and $S$ declares stewardship policy.

This tuple is a responsibility decomposition, not a required physical layout.
An implementation may use several stores or one content-addressed bundle. It
qualifies as an Episode only when the relevant distinctions remain recoverable
and verifiable.

\subsection{Artifact taxonomy}

Table~\ref{tab:taxonomy} prevents a common category error: more storage does
not imply a stronger historical asset.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.16\linewidth}p{0.31\linewidth}p{0.42\linewidth}}
\toprule
Artifact & Useful capability & Insufficient by itself because \\
\midrule
Transcript & Recover utterances and tool output & Speaker position, action
authority, omitted evidence, consequences, and admission may be implicit. \\
Event log & Query ordered or timestamped events & The event schema may flatten
observer, responsibility, causal dependency, and competing views. \\
Provenance graph & Relate entities, activities, agents, and derivations & It
does not necessarily preserve the ontology under test, qualification gate, or
promotion authority. \\
Endpoint Fact cut & State what was admitted at one boundary & It can omit the
path, alternatives, intervention, failure, and consequence that explain why a
new distinction emerged. \\
Derived index & Retrieve summaries, embeddings, or clusters efficiently & It
is a projection whose loss, source cut, update policy, and non-authority must
remain explicit. \\
Episode asset & Replay a perspective-bound causal occurrence with evidence and
governance & It preserves discovery options but neither generates nor
qualifies a Primitive automatically. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Historical artifact taxonomy. The categories may compose; they are
not interchangeable evidence grades.}
\label{tab:taxonomy}
\end{table}

\subsection{Asset conditions}

A corpus $\mathcal{E}_c$ is an Episode historical asset only if its declared
cut $c$ satisfies six conditions:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
  \item \textbf{Integrity:} stable identities, roots, corruption detection,
        recovery boundaries, and immutable prior cuts.
  \item \textbf{Perspective:} observer position, accepted facts, natural
        objects, consequences, and known gaps remain visible.
  \item \textbf{Causal and responsibility structure:} actions, dependencies,
        authority, outcomes, interventions, and omissions are not flattened
        into anonymous tokens.
  \item \textbf{Portability:} export and import preserve exact roots or declare
        loss; provider migration does not silently redefine identity.
  \item \textbf{Governance:} retention, deletion, consent, access, redaction,
        purpose, and review policies are enforceable and auditable.
  \item \textbf{Independent challenge:} another accountable participant or
        verifier can inspect evidence, degradation, and later qualification.
\end{enumerate}

The corpus may be intentionally incomplete. Completeness claims are stronger
than asset claims and usually unavailable. A useful asset makes omissions
inspectable instead of generating certainty to cover them.

\subsection{Option value without storage determinism}

Let $Q_f$ be a future distribution of admissible questions and $\Pi$ the
policies that permit a participant to inspect a corpus. We define the
\emph{discovery option value} of an Episode cut qualitatively as the avoidable
future burden of reconstructing perspective, causality, and responsibility
when a question requires concepts absent from $O_n$:

\begin{equation}
V_{\mathrm{option}}(\mathcal{E}_c) =
\mathbb{E}_{q \sim Q_f}
\left[ B(q \mid H(O_n)) - B(q \mid \mathcal{E}_c, \Pi) \right].
\end{equation}

$B$ may include reconstruction time, coordination load, missing-evidence risk,
or inability to test an ontology revision. The expression is not a monetary
valuation and does not imply $V_{\mathrm{option}}>0$. Poor capture, restricted
access, privacy harm, corrupted roots, or ontology lock-in can make retention
neutral or harmful. Storage volume is absent from the definition because
volume does not establish recoverability or legitimacy.
