A method and system for institutional circulation of spatial object governance, and a storage medium

Abstract

This invention discloses a method, system, and storage medium for institutional flow in spatial object governance, belonging to the fields of spatial object governance and computer data processing technology. It aims to solve the technical problems in existing spatial object change management where changes take effect directly and lack candidate isolation and path-based governance mechanisms before formal effectiveness. The method includes: receiving change trigger information; generating candidate change structures corresponding to the formal spatial structure; reading governance judgment factors related to the candidate change structures; determining the institutional flow path based on the governance judgment factors; processing the candidate change structures according to the institutional flow path and obtaining flow results; writing, updating, or merging the candidate change structures into the formal spatial structure when the formal effectiveness conditions are met; and maintaining them in an ineffective, invalid, or subsequent governance state when the formal effectiveness conditions are not met. Through the isolation of candidate change structures and the dynamic determination of institutional flow paths, this invention achieves isolated governance of spatial object change results, control over formal effectiveness, multi-person confirmation, conflict detection, and controlled access to automated processing results, thereby improving the consistency, controllability, and auditability of spatial object governance.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the fields of space object governance, digital space management, computer data processing and intelligent collaborative control, and in particular to a method, system and storage medium for institutional transfer in space object governance.

[0002] Specifically, this invention relates to a structured governance method that addresses changes to spatial objects, spatial relationships, spatial permissions, spatial states, spatial area rules, and related service access rules. Before these changes take effect, they first enter a candidate change structure and are matched with corresponding policy flow paths based on governance judgment factors. This method enables confirmation, negotiation, conflict resolution, multi-person confirmation, upgraded policy confirmation, and control over formal effectiveness. Background Technology

[0003] As digital space has evolved from static display, content management, and single-user editing tools into a spatial system characterized by multi-stakeholder collaboration, continuous governance, automated processing unit intervention, and complex boundary control, the goal of spatial data processing is no longer just "how to record changes," but rather "how to make changes enter the formal spatial structure in a controlled, traceable, and verifiable manner."

[0004] In existing technologies, common solutions mainly include the following categories: First, intermediate storage solutions based on database transactions, caching mechanisms, shadow pagination, or temporary table structures; Second, business process control solutions based on approval flows, workflows, and permission transfers; Third, multi-person collaborative editing solutions based on drafts, versions, and collaborative comments; Fourth, automated change generation solutions based on intelligent agents, automated scripts, and rule engines.

[0005] While the aforementioned solutions address some of the issues, they still have significant shortcomings in application scenarios oriented towards spatial object governance. On one hand, intermediate database structures are primarily used for recovery, commit, rollback, or consistency control, focusing on data write security and transaction integrity, rather than handling governance factors required for spatial governance before formal implementation, such as object sensitivity, object state, relational structure, permission boundaries, region types, security risks, and multi-party confirmation. Therefore, such structures are ill-suited to directly undertake the tasks of institutional judgment and formal implementation control in spatial governance.

[0006] On the other hand, while existing approval or workflow systems can handle processes like "submission-review-approval," they typically lack the ability to express the multidimensional structural relationships in spatial object governance. For example, in spatial governance scenarios, different objects may have different sensitivities, different object states may correspond to different confirmation intensities, and different areas may correspond to different collaboration boundaries. Furthermore, when multiple entities intervene in parallel, issues such as object overlap, relationship conflicts, fragmented regional rules, or inconsistent states may arise. Traditional approval or collaboration processes often struggle to effectively address these spatial structural consistency problems.

[0007] Furthermore, as automated processing units gradually enter spatial governance scenarios, they can automatically generate object change suggestions, relationship adjustment schemes, state transition results, or service access candidate results. If such automated results are directly written into the formal spatial structure, it may lead to uncontrollable sovereignty, unstable boundaries, disordered states, or unauthorized rewriting of highly sensitive objects. Currently, there is a lack of a unified mechanism to ensure that automatically generated results first enter a governance-constrained candidate change structure, and then determine whether they officially take effect based on the institutional flow path.

[0008] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a new technical solution to convert change requests, automated results, or collaborative governance instructions into candidate change structures in spatial object governance scenarios, and match the system flow path according to governance judgment factors before they officially take effect, so as to realize confirmation, negotiation, multi-person confirmation, conflict detection, escalation processing and official take-off control, thereby improving the controllability, consistency and auditability of spatial governance. Summary of the Invention

[0009] (a) Purpose of the invention

[0010] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method, system, and storage medium for institutional flow in space object governance, in order to solve the following problems existing in the prior art: change results directly enter the formal structure, lacking governance isolation before formal effectiveness; governance paths are relatively fixed, making it difficult to dynamically match based on object sensitivity, object status, relationship structure, and environmental context; there is a lack of conflict detection and structured convergence mechanisms when multiple entities intervene in parallel; the results generated by automated processing units lack constrained institutional entry points; existing process systems reflect more business rules and are difficult to reflect the structural consistency and formal effectiveness control requirements in space object governance.

[0011] To achieve the above objectives, this invention proposes a technical solution that uses candidate change structures as intermediate governance carriers, governance judgment factors as path matching criteria, and institutional transfer paths as the main chain for formal effective control.

[0012] (II) Technical Solution To achieve the above objectives, this invention provides a method for institutional transfer in spatial object governance, comprising: receiving change trigger information for spatial elements; generating candidate change structures corresponding to the formal spatial structure based on the change trigger information; reading governance judgment factors related to the candidate change structures; determining the institutional transfer path corresponding to the candidate change structures based on the governance judgment factors; causing the candidate change structures to enter the corresponding processing flow according to the determined institutional transfer path, and obtaining the transfer result based on the processing result; writing, updating, or merging the candidate change structures into the formal spatial structure when the formal effective conditions are met, and maintaining them in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state when the formal effective conditions are not met.

[0013] In a preferred embodiment, the candidate change structure includes at least one of the following: candidate object change structure, candidate relationship change structure, candidate permission change structure, candidate state change structure, candidate region rule change structure, candidate service access change structure, or candidate version differential structure.

[0014] In a preferred embodiment, the governance judgment factors include at least one of the following: object characteristic parameters, relationship structure parameters, permission boundary information, environmental context information, security risk indicators, historical governance trajectory, and the number of associated entities.

[0015] In a preferred embodiment, the object characteristic parameters include object attributes, object sensitivity, and object status. The object sensitivity is used to determine the confirmation strength, the threshold for formal effectiveness, or the range of institutional circulation paths that can be entered. The object status includes ordinary status, commemorative status, sealed status, inherited status, or other governance status. Different object statuses correspond to different confirmation strengths, conflict resolution paths, or formal effectiveness conditions.

[0016] In a preferred embodiment, the system flow path includes at least one of the following: individual confirmation path, relationship confirmation path, collaboration confirmation path, system confirmation path, multi-person confirmation path, negotiation path, conflict resolution path, escalation system confirmation path, or cooling-off and re-emergence path.

[0017] In a preferred embodiment, the multi-person confirmation path includes at least one of the following mechanisms: approval after all parties agree, approval after core stakeholders agree, approval after reaching a preset confirmation threshold, approval after reaching a preset threshold based on the role weight or weight ratio of the participating confirmation subjects, disapproval when a veto condition is met, or entry into the next process stage after tiered confirmation.

[0018] In a preferred embodiment, the method further includes: performing conflict detection on multiple parallel candidate change structures, and when multiple candidate change structures point to the same formal space structure node or have mutual influence relationships, triggering at least one of the negotiation path, conflict handling path, or escalation mechanism confirmation path for processing based on the conflict detection results.

[0019] In a preferred embodiment, it further includes: recording at least a portion of the source of the candidate change structure, governance judgment factors, system flow path, participating entities, conflict resolution results, formally effective results, or ineffective results, to form a system flow record or audit record.

[0020] In a preferred embodiment, the change triggering information includes a structured result generated by an automated processing unit. The structured result enters a candidate change structure before entering the formal spatial structure and is constrained by the institutional flow path.

[0021] This invention also provides a system for institutional circulation oriented towards spatial object governance, including a candidate change generation module, a governance judgment module, a path determination module, a circulation processing module, an effectiveness processing module, and a recording module. Figure 7 As shown, in one embodiment, the modules work together to complete candidate change generation, governance judgment, path determination, flow processing, formal effectiveness control, and generation of system flow records.

[0022] The present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the above-described system flow method.

[0023] (III) Beneficial Effects Compared with the prior art, the present invention has at least the following beneficial effects: First, by using candidate change structures to carry change results that have not yet officially taken effect, the candidate state and the official state are logically or physically separated, thereby avoiding the change results from directly affecting the official spatial structure before governance judgment, confirmation negotiation or conflict resolution.

[0024] Second, by considering governance judgment factors such as object sensitivity, object status, relationship structure, permission boundaries, environmental context, and security risks, the system's flow path is dynamically determined, thereby transforming the originally abstract governance rules into a matching, executable, and auditable technical processing link.

[0025] Third, by performing conflict detection on multiple parallel candidate change structures and triggering negotiation paths, conflict handling paths, or escalation mechanism confirmation paths based on the conflict detection results, it is possible to effectively reduce object conflicts, relationship breakdowns, state confusion, or inconsistent regional rules caused by the parallel intervention of multiple users and multiple automated processing units.

[0026] Fourth, it allows the structured results generated by automated processing units to enter the candidate change structure and be constrained by the institutional flow path, thereby avoiding the direct writing of automated results into the formal spatial structure and improving the sovereignty controllability, state consistency and boundary security in the governance of spatial objects.

[0027] Fifth, by preserving the source of candidate changes, the basis for governance judgment, the system transfer path, the handling entity, and the official effective result through system transfer records or audit records, subsequent review, dispute resolution, accountability tracking, and governance restoration are made more reliable. Attached Figure Description

[0028] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of the institutional transfer method for space object governance in this embodiment of the invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the relationship between the candidate variation structure and the formal spatial structure in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the matching relationship between governance judgment factors and institutional circulation paths in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the multi-person confirmation path in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the parallel candidate change structure conflict detection and processing flow in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the process by which the automated processing unit generates structured results and enters the candidate variation structure in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of the system module structure for the institutional circulation system in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0029] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. It should be understood that the following embodiments are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present invention. Without departing from the core idea of ​​the present invention, those skilled in the art can make various substitutions, modifications, and combinations to the following embodiments, and all such substitutions, modifications, and combinations should fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0030] (I) Overall Structure Description This invention addresses a system flow structure for spatial object governance. Here, "spatial object governance" is not limited to traditional document management, form management, or approval node management, but rather refers to a structured governance process that formally controls the effectiveness of changes at the object layer, relationship layer, permission layer, status layer, regional rule layer, service rule layer, and version layer.

[0031] In this invention, the spatial objects include objects in physical space, objects in digital space, and logical objects in a computer system that have hierarchical, attribution, permission, status, or version relationships (the logical objects may also include resource objects organized and controlled for updating according to hierarchical, attribution, permission, status, or version relationships). Accordingly, the spatial structure includes object layers, relationship layers, permission layers, status layers, area rule layers, version layers, service rule layers, or other logical dimensions for describing the aforementioned objects and their interrelationships. Therefore, this invention is applicable to object governance scenarios oriented towards three-dimensional space, digital space, or composite space, as well as logical resource governance scenarios with spatialized organizational characteristics.

[0032] In this invention, a "formal spatial structure" refers to a spatial formal structure that has met the formal effectiveness conditions and can be directly read, used, presented, or executed by external business logic, spatial service logic, or governance logic. The formal spatial structure may include, but is not limited to, object-layer formal structures, relationship-layer formal structures, permission-layer formal structures, state-layer formal structures, region rule-layer formal structures, service rule-layer formal structures, and version-layer formal structures. In some embodiments, the formal spatial structure may be represented as a logical data model, a set of controlled states, or its persistent representation in a computer system used to characterize the formal effectiveness governance results.

[0033] Correspondingly, a "candidate change structure" refers to a structured intermediate carrier used to hold changes that have not yet officially taken effect, before the conditions for formal implementation are met. This candidate change structure can be implemented through an independent candidate storage area, logical isolation identifier, version branch structure, memory mirror structure, transactional intermediate structure, object-level temporary storage structure, or a combination thereof. In some implementations, the candidate change structure can also be represented as a structure to be confirmed, a structure to be negotiated, or a differential structure to be processed. The candidate change structure is not only used for system recovery, caching, or rollback, but also to carry governance judgment factors, policy flow paths, conflict detection results, and formal implementation conditions, thereby forming structured governance isolation between the candidate state and the formal state. Figure 2 As shown, the candidate change structure is set separately from the formal space structure, and the candidate change structure does not directly change the current state of the formal space structure before the formal effective conditions are met.

[0034] In this invention, "change triggering information" can originate from manual operations, collaborative governance activities, external system calls, event triggers, rule triggers, or structured results generated by automated processing units. Regardless of the source of the change triggering information, as long as its goal is to change at least a part of the objects, relationships, permissions, states, regional rules, service rules, or version structure in the formal spatial structure, it can enter the system flow process described in this invention.

[0035] (II) Definition of Automated Processing Unit In this invention, "automatic processing unit" refers to a software or hardware functional unit that can automatically generate structured results related to candidate changes based on preset logic, rule matching, environmental perception, event triggering, or model reasoning. This includes, but is not limited to, smart agents, automated scripts, rule execution units, logic triggering units, smart contract execution units, or combinations thereof.

[0036] In some implementations, the output of the automated system may be generated by intelligent agents, rule engines, automated processing modules, external computing nodes, or other intelligent processing units. The output of the automated system may include object change suggestions, relationship change suggestions, permission change suggestions, state change suggestions, regional rule adjustment suggestions, service access suggestions, or a structured result composed of combinations thereof.

[0037] In this invention, the output of the automated processing unit does not directly enter the formal spatial structure. Instead, it first enters the candidate change structure and matches the corresponding institutional flow path based on governance judgment factors. In this way, this invention can retain automated processing capabilities while preventing automated results from directly affecting the formal spatial structure without governance control.

[0038] (III) Implementation Method of the Main Chain of Institutional Circulation like Figure 1 As shown, the institutional flow main chain in this invention includes steps such as receiving change trigger information, generating candidate change structures, reading governance judgment factors, determining institutional flow paths, path processing, and controlling formal effectiveness. In one embodiment, the institutional flow main chain may include the following steps: Step S101: Receive change trigger information. The system receives change trigger information for spatial elements, which may include at least one of spatial objects, spatial relationships, permission settings, object status, regional rules, service access rules, or version structure.

[0039] Step S102: Generate candidate change structures. The system generates candidate change structures corresponding to the formal spatial structure based on the change trigger information. These candidate change structures do not directly alter the current state of the formal spatial structure before meeting the formal effectiveness conditions.

[0040] Step S103: Read governance judgment factors. The system reads governance judgment factors related to the candidate change structure. The governance judgment factors include at least one of the following: object feature parameters, relationship structure parameters, permission boundary information, environmental context information, security risk indicators, historical governance trajectory, and the number of associated entities.

[0041] Step S104: Determine the institutional flow path. The system determines the institutional flow path corresponding to the candidate change structure based on governance judgment factors. The institutional flow path can be at least one of the following: individual confirmation path, relationship confirmation path, collaboration confirmation path, institutional confirmation path, multi-person confirmation path, negotiation path, conflict resolution path, escalation of institutional confirmation path, or a path of re-proposing after cooling down.

[0042] Step S105: Execution path processing. The system causes the candidate change structure to enter the corresponding processing flow according to the determined system flow path, and obtains the flow result based on the processing result. The flow result may include at least one of the following: approval, partial approval, rejection, return to candidate state, maintaining ineffective state, or escalation processing.

[0043] Step S106: Officially take effect or maintain candidate status. When the transfer result meets the conditions for official take-off, the system writes, updates, or merges the candidate change structure into the official space structure; when the transfer result does not meet the conditions for official take-off, it remains in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state.

[0044] (iv) Implementation methods for governance judgment factors like Figure 3 As shown, the system can determine the corresponding institutional flow path for candidate change structures based on governance judgment factors. These governance judgment factors may include at least one of the following: object characteristic parameters, relationship structure parameters, permission boundary information, environmental context information, security risk indicators, historical governance trajectories, and the number of associated entities. The object characteristic parameters include object attributes, object sensitivity, and object status.

[0045] The sensitivity of an object can be represented by a tiered parameter, such as low-sensitivity, medium-sensitivity, high-sensitivity, and extremely high-sensitivity objects. Different sensitivity levels correspond to different formal effectiveness thresholds. For example, low-sensitivity objects can enter a personal confirmation path or a fast confirmation path, while high-sensitivity or extremely high-sensitivity objects should be forced to enter a multi-person confirmation path, a relationship confirmation path, or a policy confirmation path.

[0046] Object states include normal state, memorial state, sealed state, inherited state, or other governance states. Among them, memorial state objects usually correspond to higher confirmation strength; sealed state objects usually correspond to stricter modification restrictions; inherited state objects usually correspond to higher formal effectiveness thresholds and more complex relationship confirmation chains.

[0047] In one embodiment, the following illustrative path matching rules can be set: when the object sensitivity is low and the object status is normal, the individual confirmation path is allowed; when the object sensitivity is high, or the object status is commemorative or sealed, the multi-person confirmation path or the system confirmation path is entered; when the object status is inherited and the number of associated subjects reaches a preset threshold, the combined process of relationship confirmation path and upgraded system confirmation path is forced.

[0048] It should be noted that the above correspondence between parameters and paths is only an illustrative implementation. Those skilled in the art can implement it using rule tables, threshold models, strategy models, or hybrid evaluation models according to specific application scenarios. In some implementations, the rule tables, threshold models, strategy models, or hybrid evaluation models can be configured, updated, or replaced.

[0049] (v) Multiple people confirm the implementation method like Figure 4 As shown, the multi-person confirmation path is used to handle candidate change structures that may have a governance impact on multiple entities, and can be processed according to the scope of the confirmation entity, confirmation threshold, role weight, veto conditions, or hierarchical confirmation rules.

[0050] For example, in the scenario of adjusting rules for family shared areas, the system can calculate the set of confirming entities and the confirmation threshold required for the candidate change structure based on the relationship type of the participating entities, the level of governance responsibility, and the scope of regional influence, and decide whether to officially take effect after the corresponding conditions are met.

[0051] (vi) Parallel Collision Detection Implementation Method like Figure 5 As shown, when multiple candidate change structures exist in parallel, the system can first perform conflict detection, and then trigger a negotiation path, conflict handling path, or escalation mechanism confirmation path based on the conflict detection results; the parallel candidate change structures can be generated simultaneously by multiple users, multiple automated processing units, or multiple intelligent agents.

[0052] When multiple candidate change structures meet any of the following conditions, the system can determine that they have a conflict relationship: pointing to the same formal spatial structure node; modifying the state, attributes or permission scope of the same object in different directions; having a mutually exclusive effect on the same area rules, relationship structure or service access rules; causing object overlap, relationship breakage, area boundary conflict or state inconsistency in spatial topology.

[0053] Upon detecting a conflict, the system can trigger at least one of the following paths for processing: negotiation path, conflict resolution path, or escalation mechanism confirmation path, based on factors such as the degree of conflict, object sensitivity, object status, number of participating entities, and scope of impact.

[0054] Through the above methods, the present invention can solve the problem of spatial structure consistency under the parallel intervention of multiple entities, rather than just dealing with general business approval conflicts.

[0055] (vii) Implementation method involving automated processing units like Figure 6 As shown, the structured results generated by the automated processing unit do not directly enter the formal spatial structure, but are first converted into candidate change structures, and the corresponding institutional flow path is determined based on governance judgment factors; the structured results may include at least one of object change candidates, relationship change candidates, state change candidates, service access candidates, or version difference candidates.

[0056] After receiving the structured results from the automated processing unit, the system does not directly write them into the formal spatial structure. Instead, it first converts them into candidate change structures and determines the corresponding system flow path by combining governance judgment factors such as object sensitivity, object state, relationship structure, permission boundaries, and environmental context.

[0057] For example, in a shared area, the automated processing unit generates a suggestion for adjusting area rules based on space usage. After receiving this structured result, the system first generates a candidate area rule change structure, and then determines whether the area currently belongs to a high-sensitivity shared area, whether it involves multiple core stakeholders, and whether it will cause overlapping object boundaries or changes in service access scope. If so, it enters a multi-person confirmation path or an escalation confirmation path, and is not allowed to automatically take effect.

[0058] (viii) Implementation of Audit Records In one implementation, the system records at least some of the following information to form a system flow record or audit record: source of candidate change structure, governance judgment factors, system flow path, participating entities, conflict resolution results, official effective results, non-effective results, time information, and version association information.

[0059] By using system flow records or audit records, the entire process of candidate structural changes from generation to formal implementation or termination can be tracked, providing support for subsequent dispute resolution, accountability, governance restoration, and historical review.

[0060] (ix) Example 1: Implementation of the Institutional Flow of Changes in Shared Area Rules In one specific embodiment, the system operates in a multi-entity shared space scenario, wherein the shared space includes a shared area, shared objects, and access rules, display rules, or service access rules associated with the shared area.

[0061] Suppose a shared area currently allows access from core co-management entities and invited users. Now, a change trigger request changes the openness of this shared area from "visible to core co-management entities" to "visible to ordinary members." This change trigger can be initiated manually or automatically generated by an automated processing unit based on area usage frequency, historical access patterns, or governance policies.

[0062] Upon receiving the change trigger information, the system does not directly rewrite the region rules in the formal spatial structure. Instead, it first generates a corresponding candidate region rule change structure. This candidate region rule change structure represents the adjustment result of the open range of the shared area, which has not yet officially taken effect, and is separate from the current region rules in the formal spatial structure.

[0063] Subsequently, the system reads the governance judgment factors related to the rule change structure of the candidate region. These governance judgment factors include, but are not limited to, the type of shared region, the current region access boundary, the sensitivity of associated objects within the region, the number of co-managed entities, relationship structure parameters, current environmental context information, and security risk indicators.

[0064] In this embodiment, the system identifies that the shared area belongs to a multi-person co-managed area, and at least some of the objects within it are highly sensitive objects. At the same time, the change will expand the formal visibility range. Therefore, based on the above governance judgment factors, the system matches the candidate area rule change structure to at least one of the multi-person confirmation path and the negotiation path.

[0065] In the multi-party confirmation process, the system sends a confirmation request to the core co-management entities and processes it according to preset confirmation rules. These preset confirmation rules can include: approval upon agreement from all core co-management entities; approval upon reaching a preset weight ratio; rejection if a key stakeholder objects; or reconfirmation after entering a negotiation path.

[0066] If multiple parties give inconsistent opinions during the confirmation process, such as some parties agreeing to expand the scope of openness while others oppose it, the system can determine that the rule change structure of the candidate area has entered a conflict state and trigger a negotiation path or conflict resolution path.

[0067] In one approach, the system can partially approve changes to the candidate region rules, for example, by only allowing the expansion of the displayed text area while temporarily not expanding the object viewing permission area. For parts that do not meet the conditions for formal implementation, they remain in the candidate state or enter the subsequent governance state.

[0068] In another approach, the system can directly determine whether the candidate region's rule change structure should be rejected or upgraded to a higher-level institutional confirmation path, such as submitting it to an institutional processing entity with higher governance authority for further processing.

[0069] Once the conditions for formal effectiveness are met, the system writes the candidate region rule change structure into the region rule layer or permission layer in the formal spatial structure to form a new formally effective rule; if the conditions for formal effectiveness are not met, it remains in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state.

[0070] Throughout the process, the system records the source of the rule change structure in the candidate area, the governance judgment factors, the participating confirmation entities, the confirmation process, the conflict resolution results, and the final formal effective result, in order to form a system flow record or audit record.

[0071] (X) Example 2: Implementation of the System Flow for Changes in the State of Highly Sensitive Objects In one specific embodiment, the system operates within a spatial governance environment that includes commemorative objects, sealed objects, or inherited objects. The status of these objects directly affects the intensity of subsequent governance, the threshold for formal effectiveness, and the scope of accessible institutional transfer paths.

[0072] Suppose an object is currently in the normal state, and a change trigger message requests to adjust its state to the memorial state; or an object is currently in the memorial state, and a change trigger message requests to further adjust its state to the sealed state or the inherited state.

[0073] Upon receiving the aforementioned change trigger information, the system does not directly modify the object state in the formal spatial structure. Instead, it generates a corresponding candidate state change structure. This candidate state change structure is isolated from the current object state in the formal spatial structure and is used to carry the state change results that have not yet officially taken effect.

[0074] Subsequently, the system reads the governance judgment factors related to the candidate state change structure. These governance judgment factors include object attributes, object sensitivity, object current state, relationship structure, number of associated entities, permission boundary information, historical governance trajectory, and security risk indicators.

[0075] In this embodiment, the system recognizes that the sensitivity of the object has reached a preset high sensitivity level, and that changes in the object's state will affect the object's viewing permissions, editing permissions, display rules, or subsequent service access conditions. Therefore, the system matches the candidate state change structure to a relationship confirmation path, a multi-person confirmation path, a policy confirmation path, or a combination thereof.

[0076] For example, when an object is changed from a normal state to a memorial state, the system can require confirmation from at least one object creator and one core relationship person before it can enter the formal effective stage; when an object is changed from a memorial state to a sealed state, the system can require a higher confirmation threshold to prevent the object from being hidden or removed from the normal access structure without sufficient confirmation; when an object enters the inheritance state, the system can require a higher-level system confirmation path to be triggered based on the relationship structure and the number of subjects to ensure that the formal effective result will not disrupt the subsequent inheritance-related governance chain.

[0077] During processing, if the system identifies multiple parallel candidate state change structures—for example, one candidate structure requires switching the object to a memorial state, and another candidate structure requires switching the object to a sealed state—the system performs conflict detection on these parallel candidate structures. If it detects that they point to the same formal object state node and the results are incompatible, it triggers a conflict resolution path, a negotiation path, or an escalation mechanism confirmation path.

[0078] In one approach, the system can initiate formal implementation of candidate state change structures with higher priority and met confirmation conditions, while reverting another candidate state change structure to the candidate state. In another approach, the system can freeze all candidate state change structures and require relevant parties to complete further consultation or system confirmation before formal implementation.

[0079] When a candidate state change structure meets the formal effective conditions, the system writes it into the state layer of the formal space structure and synchronously updates the relevant formal structures of the permission layer, relationship layer, service rule layer, or version layer associated with the object; if the formal effective conditions are not met, the candidate state change structure is kept in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state.

[0080] (xi) Example 3: Example of Automated Processing Unit Candidate Results Entering the System Flow In one specific embodiment, the system includes an automated processing unit capable of automatically generating spatial governance recommendations. This automated processing unit may be a smart agent, an automated script, a rule execution unit, a logic triggering unit, a smart contract execution unit, or a combination thereof. Based on environmental perception, historical behavior patterns, object clustering results, rule analysis results, or model inference results, this automated processing unit can automatically generate structured results related to spatial object governance.

[0081] Suppose that an automated processing unit automatically generates a structured result based on the frequency of shared area usage, changes in object distribution, and historical governance records, suggesting adjustments to the relationship mounting methods of several objects and migrating some objects from the existing area to a new display area.

[0082] In existing technologies, such automated results may be directly written to a database, directly rewrite object layouts, or directly update the formal structure via background scripts, resulting in the formal spatial structure being altered without confirmation or governance judgment. This invention does not employ this approach.

[0083] In this embodiment, after receiving the structured result generated by the automated processing unit, the system first converts the structured result into a candidate variation structure. The candidate variation structure may include at least one of the following: candidate object variation structure, candidate relationship variation structure, candidate region rule variation structure, or candidate version difference structure.

[0084] Subsequently, the system reads the governance judgment factors related to the candidate changed structure. Since the candidate changed structure originates from the automated processing unit, in addition to the conventional governance judgment factors, the system can further read at least some of the following information: the source identifier of the structured result, the type of automated processing unit, the automatic generation time, the data source on which the automatic generation was based, the scope of influence of the automatic generation result, and the difference information between the automatic generation result and the formal spatial structure.

[0085] In this embodiment, if the system identifies that the structured result generated by the automated processing unit involves a highly sensitive object, a sealed object, a memorial object, an inherited object, or a core boundary of a shared area, the system may prohibit it from entering the automatic passage path and force it to enter at least one of the following paths: a multi-person confirmation path, a negotiation path, a system confirmation path, or an upgraded system confirmation path.

[0086] For example, an automated processing unit suggests moving several commemorative objects from the shared area out of the public display area and re-aggregating them into a private domain. Upon receiving this structured result, the system first generates a candidate relationship change structure and a candidate region rule change structure, then reads the object sensitivity, object status, relationship structure, and region boundary information. If it identifies commemorative objects among the involved objects and the region boundary has changed, the system automatically matches them to a multi-person confirmation path and a negotiation path, preventing automatic formal implementation.

[0087] If the structured result generated by the automated processing unit conflicts with other candidate change structures submitted by other users, such as simultaneously modifying the object mounting relationship in the same area, the system will further trigger conflict detection and select a negotiation path, conflict resolution path, or escalation confirmation path for processing based on the conflict detection result.

[0088] When the structured results generated by the automated processing unit are processed through the institutional flow path and meet the formal effective conditions, the system can write, update, or merge the corresponding candidate change structure into the formal space structure; if the formal effective conditions are not met, it will remain in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state.

[0089] Throughout the process, the system records the source of the structured results generated by the automated processing unit, the content of the candidate change structure, governance judgment factors, the policy flow path, the participating processing entities, the conflict resolution results, and the final formally effective results, in order to form a policy flow record or audit record.

[0090] (xii) Supplementary technical effect description In one implementation, by first converting change trigger information into candidate change structures and determining the system flow path based on governance judgment factors, the formal effective operation in spatial object governance can be transformed from directly writing into the formal spatial structure into a structured governance process of verification before effective implementation, thereby improving the state consistency of the formal spatial structure and the formal effective control capability.

[0091] In one embodiment, by introducing a parallel candidate change structure conflict detection mechanism, the problems of object conflict, relationship conflict, regional boundary conflict or state inconsistency caused by the parallel intervention of multiple subjects can be reduced, thereby improving the consistency between spatial topology and governance state.

[0092] In one embodiment, by having the structured results generated by the automated processing unit first enter the candidate change structure and be constrained by the institutional flow path, the risk of unauthorized changes, instability of the formal state, or miswriting of highly sensitive objects caused by the automated results directly entering the formal spatial structure can be reduced.

[0093] In one implementation, tracking the basis for governance judgments, the process of handling the path, and the formal results of effectiveness through institutional transfer records or audit records can improve the traceability of responsibility, the ability to review disputes, and the ability to restore governance in spatial governance. Concluding remarks

[0094] This invention sets up a candidate change structure outside the formal spatial structure and transforms governance judgment factors such as object sensitivity, object state, relationship structure, permission boundary, environmental context, and security risk into matching criteria for the institutional flow path, so that the change results in spatial object governance can enter the control chain of confirmation, negotiation, multi-person confirmation, conflict handling, and formal effectiveness as candidate states.

[0095] Compared with existing database caching, workflow approval, or collaborative editing technologies, this invention no longer focuses solely on whether data is submitted or whether a process is approved. Instead, it focuses on the formal effectiveness control, consistency maintenance, multi-subject parallel conflict resolution, and controllable entry of automated processing results in spatial object governance scenarios, thereby forming a technical solution for institutional flow applicable to complex spatial governance systems.

Claims

1. A method for institutional transfer in spatial object governance, characterized in that, include: S1. Receive change trigger information for spatial elements; S2. Based on the change triggering information, generate a candidate change structure corresponding to the formal spatial structure, wherein the candidate change structure does not directly change the current state of the formal spatial structure before the formal effective conditions are met; S3. Read the governance judgment factors related to the candidate changed structure; S4. Based on the governance judgment factors, determine the institutional flow path corresponding to the candidate change structure, wherein the institutional flow path includes at least one of the following: individual confirmation path, negotiation path, conflict resolution path, multi-person confirmation path, and escalation institutional confirmation path. S5. The candidate change structure is made to enter the corresponding processing flow according to the determined system flow path, and the flow result is obtained according to the processing result, wherein the flow result includes at least one of the following: pass, partial pass, rejection, return to candidate state, maintain ineffective state, and upgrade processing; S6. When the transfer result meets the formal effective conditions, the candidate change structure is written into, updated or merged into the formal space structure; when the transfer result does not meet the formal effective conditions, the candidate change structure is kept in an ineffective state, an invalid state or a subsequent governance state.

2. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The candidate change structure includes at least one of the following: candidate object change structure, candidate relationship change structure, candidate permission change structure, candidate state change structure, candidate region rule change structure, candidate service access change structure, or candidate version differential structure.

3. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The governance judgment factors include at least one of the following: object characteristic parameters, relationship structure parameters, permission boundary information, environmental context information, security risk indicators, historical governance trajectory, and the number of associated entities.

4. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1 or 3, characterized in that, The object feature parameters include at least one of object attributes, object sensitivity, and object state; wherein, the object sensitivity is used to determine the confirmation strength, formal effectiveness threshold, or range of institutional flow paths that can be entered corresponding to the candidate change structure.

5. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, 3, or 4, characterized in that, The object state includes at least one of the following: normal state, memorial state, sealed state, inherited state, or other governance state. Different object states correspond to different confirmation strengths, conflict handling paths, or formal effectiveness conditions.

6. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The system flow path includes at least one of the following: individual confirmation path, relationship confirmation path, collaboration confirmation path, system confirmation path, multi-person confirmation path, negotiation path, conflict resolution path, escalation system confirmation path, or a path of re-emphasis after cooling down.

7. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1 or 6, characterized in that, The multi-person confirmation path includes at least one of the following mechanisms: approval after unanimous consent, approval after consent from core stakeholders, approval after reaching a preset confirmation threshold, approval after reaching a preset threshold based on the role weight or weight ratio of the participating confirmation subjects, disapproval when a veto condition is met, or entry into the next processing stage after tiered confirmation.

8. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1 or 6, characterized in that, Also includes: Conflict detection is performed on multiple parallel candidate change structures, and when multiple candidate change structures point to the same formal space structure node or have mutual influence relationships, at least one of the negotiation path, conflict handling path or escalation mechanism confirmation path is triggered for processing based on the conflict detection results.

9. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Also includes: Record at least one of the following: the source of the candidate change structure, governance judgment factors, system flow path, participating entities, conflict resolution results, and results that have officially taken effect or have not taken effect, in order to form a system flow record or audit record.

10. The institutional transfer method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The change triggering information includes structured results generated by an automated processing unit. These structured results enter a candidate change structure before entering the formal spatial structure and are constrained by the institutional flow path.

11. A system for institutional transfer oriented towards spatial object governance, characterized in that, include: The candidate change generation module is used to generate candidate change structures based on the change triggering information. The governance judgment module is used to read governance judgment factors related to the candidate changed structure; The path determination module is used to determine the institutional flow path corresponding to the candidate change structure based on the governance judgment factors. The flow processing module is used to enable the candidate change structure to enter the corresponding processing flow according to the institutional flow path; The effective processing module is used to write, update, or merge the candidate change structure into the formal space structure when the formal effective conditions are met, or to maintain it in an ineffective state, an invalid state, or a subsequent governance state when the formal effective conditions are not met. The recording module is used to generate records of the process of establishing procedures or audit records.

12. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the institutional circulation method according to any one of claims 1 to 10.

Images