AI governance + community authority · Aloha AI
Sovereign Stack governance-layer concept
Browser-local proposal prototype · independently initiated · release-blocked
Carry community authority through every layer of an AI system—from purpose and data to models, use, review, and refusal.
Controlled visual demonstration
Current live interface
This sandboxed preview shows the current public interface. Open the full site to use the build in its intended window.
What I noticed
Purple Maiʻa's public work described a technical stack involving local compute, open models, edge hardware, place-based environmental observation, and Indigenous approaches to technology. The design question was whether authority, knowledge boundaries, accountability, withdrawal, and refusal could travel through that technical body in a durable form.
What I researched
The proposal was grounded in Purple Maiʻa's public descriptions of the Sovereign Stack, KILO, Kānāwai, Kula, Waiw.AI, and Rooted Futures, then organized around the unresolved governance questions a community-authorized process would still have to answer.
What exists
A governance and learning layer that makes ownership, authority, data, model choice, review, exit, and refusal visible as design decisions rather than afterthoughts.
Who it serves
Communities and institutions evaluating AI systems on their own terms.
What it demonstrates
Sociotechnical systems thinking, governance architecture, public explanation, and interactive proposal design.
Current evidence
This is an independently prepared working proposal for discussion with Purple Maiʻa. It is not a Purple Maiʻa product, policy, endorsement, approved protocol, community consent, or community-authorized framework. Purple Maiʻa and relevant community and cultural authorities—not RN—would define the substantive values, standing, knowledge permissions, and approvals.
Verified build record
What is actually running, and what it is not.
ProposalProposal · independently initiated, not adopted
The problem. A technical stack can be local, open and place-based and still leave the questions of authority, knowledge boundaries, accountability, withdrawal and refusal with nowhere to live.
What it does. Demonstrates a possible decision protocol, a living system record, a bounded pilot path and an optional learning translation, organised around the governance questions a community-authorised process would still have to answer.
Built on. A prototype application on Vercel, grounded in the recipient organisation's own published descriptions of its work.
What it does not establish. An independently prepared working proposal. It is not the recipient's product, policy, endorsement, approved protocol or community consent, and the substantive values and permissions would be theirs to define, not the author's.
This record is generated from the same inventory as the complete build index: the production URL was checked at the last regeneration, and the status line above repeats what the build reports about itself rather than restating an intention.