Risk Classification
CCES assigns systems to one of three risk categories based on recoverability and capacity exhaustion assessment.
Green — Robust Recoverability
Characteristics
- • System recovers reliably from perturbations
- • Adaptive capacity is not exhausted
- • Performance metrics remain stable under disruption
- • No cascading failure modes detected
- • Structural margin is adequate
What This Means
The system exhibits structural robustness. It can withstand perturbations and recover to stable operation. This does not guarantee immunity to all failure modes, but indicates that the system is not operating near its structural limits.
Amber — Early Capacity Exhaustion
Characteristics
- • Recovery from perturbations is delayed or incomplete
- • Adaptive capacity is approaching exhaustion
- • Performance metrics may remain stable, but recoverability is degraded
- • Some perturbations trigger cascading responses
- • Structural margin is limited
What This Means
The system is operating near its structural limits. While it may currently perform well, it has reduced capacity to handle disruptions. This is a diagnostic signal that the system warrants closer monitoring and evaluation. The organization responsible for the system should assess whether this level of capacity exhaustion is acceptable for their use case.
Red — Brittle / Unrecoverable
Characteristics
- • System fails to recover from perturbations
- • Adaptive capacity is exhausted
- • Cascading failure modes are evident
- • Performance degrades significantly under disruption
- • Structural brittleness is acute
What This Means
The system exhibits structural brittleness. It is vulnerable to failure under perturbation and has minimal capacity to recover. This is a diagnostic signal that the system requires immediate evaluation and intervention. The organization responsible for the system should prioritize assessment of this risk.
Important Clarifications
Classification is Diagnostic, Not Prescriptive
CCES risk classifications provide evidence of structural risk. They do not prescribe specific actions or interventions. The decision to act on this evidence remains with the organization responsible for the system.
Not a Safety Guarantee
A green classification indicates robust recoverability under the perturbations tested. It does not guarantee immunity to all failure modes or unknown risks. CCES is one diagnostic tool among many that should inform risk assessment.
Context-Dependent Interpretation
The significance of a given classification depends on the system's use case. An amber rating for a non-critical system may be acceptable; the same rating for a safety-critical system may warrant immediate intervention.
Not About Alignment or Consciousness
CCES measures structural robustness and recoverability. It does not measure alignment, consciousness, ethics, or any metaphysical property. Red classification does not imply malice or deception; it indicates structural brittleness.
Empirically Observed, Not Predicted
Classifications are based on observed behavior under perturbation. They reflect current structural state, not predictions about future behavior. Systems can transition between classifications as their structure changes.
Use in Governance & Audit
CCES risk classifications are designed to support governance and audit workflows:
For Auditors
CCES provides empirical evidence of structural risk that can be included in audit reports. Classifications support risk-based audit planning.
For Governance Bodies
Risk classifications inform board-level discussions of system risk. They provide a common language for discussing structural brittleness.
For Insurers
CCES classifications can inform underwriting decisions and risk pricing for systems with known structural risk.
For Regulators
CCES provides a standardized diagnostic framework for evaluating structural risk in regulated systems.