# Risks, countermeasures, alternatives

| Risk | Impact | Response |
|---|---|---|
| OnCo evolves quickly | Cherry-pick conflicts | Pin SHA; maintain provenance diff and minimal extraction |
| Partial upstream audit | Surprise dependencies | WP-00 build + import graph + component classification |
| Misread MIT scope | Copyright/legal exposure | Separate code/data/assets; retain original MIT notice |
| Universal graph model too vague | Lost semantics | Domain manifest + typed predicates + preserved source claims |
| Overfitted universal model | Inflexible connector mappings | Core envelope plus extensible typed properties |
| Untraceable ingested claims | False confidence | Claim+Evidence lineage, block unsupported public claims |
| Duplicate identities | Corrupted graph | Source-qualified IDs, explicit equivalence registry |
| URL state drift | Broken shared views | Browser compatibility/e2e tests |
| Large graphs | UI unusable | Bounded neighborhood, paged indexes and lazy loading |
| Untrusted Markdown / remote content | XSS/SSRF | Safe parsers, sanitizer, URL policy, no execution |
| License contagion from imports | Publishing restrictions | Rights gate, attribution manifest, quarantine |
| Premature LLM question-answering | Hallucination | Defer until retrieval and evidence-grade evaluation |

## Alternatives

**A: Fork whole OnCo and replace content.** Fast visual parity but creates cancer-specific technical debt and major removal effort. **B: Fresh rewrite mimicking look.** Cleaner model but forfeits proven table/route work and carries UX drift risk. **C: Selective upstream extraction with canonical adapter (recommended).** Moderate integration cost and sustainable domain independence; requires careful upstream audit. Gate C against measurable coupling. If extraction crosses a predefined complexity threshold (record in WP-00), switch to B for affected components only.