Operational impact
Administrative violation, access misuse, theft, sabotage, violence, source compromise, interference with an authority, or large-scale disruption.
Authority-specific consequences
The server may know.
The institution still needs evidence.
IARPG separates operational severity from evidentiary certainty. A fictional authority reacts through its jurisdiction, mandate, witnesses, sensors, records, and chain of custody—not through an omniscient morality meter.
Dual-axis model
What happened and
what can be proven.
A severe event in a heavily monitored facility can move quickly because evidence is abundant. The same event in an unmonitored zone may remain an anomaly or suspect file until witnesses, records, sensor traces, or recovered material establish a formal case.
Institutional certainty
Anomaly, suspect file, corroborated case, confirmed warrant, or active manhunt based on traceable evidence and jurisdiction.
Exposure pipeline
Operations create records
other professionals can interpret.
Anomaly
A missing record, unusual access, witness reaction, sensor trace, source report, or contradictory transaction exists.
Suspect file
Enough correlation exists for inspection, questioning, surveillance, access review, or collection tasking.
Corroborated case
Independent evidence and provenance support a formal institutional judgment.
Confirmed warrant
The competent fictional authority can impose access, movement, financial, or custody consequences.
Active manhunt
Licensed players or authority units receive bounded tasking and coarse intelligence to locate the subject.
Professional consequences
No universal crime faction.
No consequence-free orders.
Authorities enforce their own mandates. A player may be protected in one jurisdiction, restricted in another, valuable to a third, and under investigation by a fourth. The world models institutional conflict rather than a single red-versus-blue morality layer.
Credential and facility restrictions
Loss of official entry, source contact, data access, liaison standing, or cover sponsor.
Fines, bonds, liens, and frozen funds
Value is locked or transferred through explicit reason codes rather than silently deleted.
Institutional trust and source confidence
Customers, partners, sources, and contractors respond to documented behavior and outcomes.
Surveillance, pursuit, and counterintelligence
Exposure creates new tasking for other players and changes routes, covers, and access.
Appeal, restitution, and evidence challenge
Recorded evidence can be reviewed, contested, corrected, or reversed through logged processes.
Integrity Review Facility
A fictional legal and counterintelligence institution with time-bounded tasks, debrief, review, and reintegration—not psychiatric diagnosis or care.
Neutrality rule
Authority is contextual.
Evidence remains inspectable.
“Just doing the job” means the player operates within a fictional professional chain, but the world still records mandate, jurisdiction, tasking, evidence, and consequence. No authority receives universal moral immunity, and no opposing authority is automatically evil.
Read authority memoryDeep research links
Evidence-based jurisdiction and consequence research.
The active design adopts the evidence, jurisdiction, anti-collusion, and player-experience findings while rejecting diagnostic punishment framing.
FULL REPORT
Justice System and Warrant Escalation for Rogue Intelligence
Dual severity/evidence axes, jurisdiction, bounty economics, and review.
→
FULL REPORT
Monetary Architecture and Economic Stabilization
Multi-stage legal status, frozen funds, appeals, and institutional recovery.
→
FULL REPORT
Trust, Deception, and Virtual Economies
Explicit risk boundaries, reputation, and consequences for contract betrayal.
→
