T08 fixes two defects in our own declaration. provider.R.available quoted a
30-day horizon audit-core does not solely control: at P1 the erasure horizon is
the instance maximum across co-residents, so a co-resident declaring longer
extends what a sender's records remain recoverable for, silently. Decision 4.5.4
names this for tiers; it applies to a provider quoting a number too, and the
provider block now says so. And user-engine, the only consumer, was notified
under Decision 6.1 -- what we declared, that E4 and R4 are unreachable here, and
that the retention number is a floor rather than a ceiling.
T03 writes docs/erasure-and-audit.md: the fact/payload split, why shreddability
is not retrofittable onto a chain committing to cleartext, and why the retained
hash is a confirmation oracle over low-entropy audit records. The framework half
was already resolved as Decision 4.5.3, so what remains is our own position. The
legal basis for retaining audit facts is routed to risk-nexus, open and visible.
T06 closes the review loop with net-kingdom: five findings adopted, declaration
validates clean, and the E line will go stale on an upgrade that Decision 6.1
deliberately does not require anyone to announce.
T07 enumerates the seven dependencies on the accept path and specifies five
recovery scenarios with integrity as a pass condition. It settled one thing: V2
is not reachable from P1 as built, since platform-pg runs instances 1 and
Decision 4.6.1 makes V the minimum across synchronous providers. V1 is the
ceiling here, not the next step. The exercise needs a live window.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The framework moved from draft-5 to draft-8 while this workplan ran. No finding
was reversed, but three things changed underneath it: R moved to 2 once
rapp-postgres declared the window, a sixth axis V (availability) appeared, and
the implemented-versus-evidenced distinction became a schema field.
T03 reduces: the confirmation-oracle finding landed as Decision 4.5.3 and
question 11 is marked framework-resolved, so no amendment remains -- only our
own position document. The legal question routes to risk-nexus rather than
the-custodian, per §19.11 and policy-nexus INTENT.
T06 reduces to confirmation: all five findings were adopted and the two stale
status lines it was going to flag are already fixed.
T07 is new. V1 needs critical dependencies enumerated, restart recovery
exercised and recovery time measured. The 2026-08-16 reboot walk observed ~40s
of unreadiness but is not an exercise and does not enumerate the dependency set.
T08 is new and covers two defects in our own declaration. provider.R.available
quotes a 30-day horizon we do not solely control -- at P1 the horizon is the
instance maximum across co-residents. And under Decision 6.1, user-engine was
never told what we declared, which makes the declaration drift rather than a
completed change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Written against draft-7, which landed after the task was drafted and moved the
target. Decision 5.4 fixes the location at tenancy.yaml in the repo root rather
than docs/, and fixes the schema: current, target, reviewed, gap,
placement_exceptions, service_class, per-path detail, provider block.
Declares I1 A2 E1 P1 R1. E is quoted at 1 although T04 put the E2 mechanism on
both paths, because §13.2 states a passing CI run is not E2 evidence -- the
artifact is adversarial, compares separate tenant contexts and carries a review
date. Our cross-tenant tests are mechanical, so under §13.1 the level is not
claimable until T05. The mechanism is recorded in paths.E and the reason in
gap.E. Claiming E2 off unit tests would be the overclaim §6 prohibits, and
refusing that reasoning is what found the read-path defect.
R stays at 1: R2 needs backupRetentionDays in rapp-postgres's consumer file,
requested in T02 and not ours to declare.
Two additions draft-7 forced. A credentials gap under Decision 9.2 -- our own
finding, adopted as a rule, and it binds us: ingest credentials are static
long-lived bearer tokens, declared as a stated gap rather than a silent
exclusion. And a provides block under Decision 5.5, declaring what a sender can
reach through this service: E2 now, E3 pending ADR-0003, E4 and R4 unreachable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
