Appendix C — Notice, consent, rights, grievance and nomination templates
These are author-designed work aids, not prescribed statutory forms or approved customer communications. The blank and populated paths are deliberately separate. Use the reader guide for evidence categories and the artifact index for the complete promise map.
C.1 Select the correct object
| Object | Blank / adaptation surface | Populated example and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Notice and optional choice | Copy the field checklist below and replace every case fact | English notice, Hindi specimen; translation, accessibility and full language coverage are not accepted |
| Consent receipt and withdrawal | Withdrawal workflow | Consent events, withdrawal state; synthetic grants and stale replay |
| Compound rights request | Rights workflow | Case and partial response; prepared, not sent |
| Grievance | Rights workflow parent case and response outcome table | Chapter 4’s specimen grievance reply and the case’s separately tracked escalation; no inferred Board outcome |
| Nomination / recovery | Rights workflow nomination extension | Case DEC-008 / NOM-001 / NOM-002; subject unchanged, conflicting actors paused, recovered capacity ends the activated authority |
| Lawful guardian | Rights workflow disability/lawful-guardian extension | Chapter 13’s scoped verification example; not the same route as a nominee or informal helper |
C.2 Notice adaptation checklist
Create a new version rather than altering the bytes underlying an old consent hash. Record the actual fiduciary and contact route, itemised data, specified purpose, goods/services or uses, relevant rights and withdrawal/grievance access, selected language and links that work. Separate optional marketing from the requested service. Treat missing language coverage as a release issue, not a reason to assert that an English/Hindi illustration satisfies every language choice. Chapter 9 maps the legal fields to primary text and distinguishes comparable ease from identical screen counts.
| Blank field | Value to supply before use |
|---|---|
| Notice ID / version / effective time | <new ID, version, timestamp and zone> |
| Fiduciary / service / accountable contact | <verified identity and working route> |
| Data items and purpose-specific use | <reviewed list; no blanket future purposes> |
| Separate optional action / no-thanks route | <actual UI copy and observable behavior> |
| Language and accessibility evidence | <reviewed translations and tested channels> |
| Receipt linkage | <subject, actor, purpose, notice hash, affirmative action, occurrence and receipt times> |
| Change decision | <re-notice, new consent where needed, or no change; reason and reviewer> |
These fields are recommendations for reconstructing a decision. They do not turn a notice into authority for every processing ground.
C.3 A response must describe the actual state
The populated RIGHTS-001 response preserves access information, source correction and unresolved downstream refresh, partial erasure/retention reasoning and a grievance route. Copy its structure, not its fictional recipients, clocks or legal conclusions. For each work item, state what was requested, the scope decision, what happened, what has not happened, why a record remains and who owns follow-up. The delivery record is a separate object: a prepared file has not reached the person.
A nomination record preserves the original subject and the acting person independently. Authority has its own evidence, scope, activation and ending conditions. Do not overwrite the subject when a nominee acts, and do not allow a prior activation to continue after recovery merely because an old token still parses. Disputes require a controlled review branch rather than picking whichever nominee submitted first.
C.4 Review before adaptation
Chapter 12 and Appendix A are the legal reading routes for rights scope, grievance and nomination. The reusable template contains source-led scope checks; it is not a substitute for current entity analysis. Review identity minimisation, real contact channels, exact retention grounds, response accuracy and operational delivery before sending anything. Reserved .invalid addresses are illustrations only. The historical notice browser record establishes only its listed local interactions, not human comprehension or production accessibility.