tegwick
fcdcb0af9b
Marking the 2026-08-29 review round read on the reasoning that v0.7's acceptance closed it was an inference, not a check. This does the check: fifteen findings and two answered questions from kings-guard, ops-warden, access-engine and audit-core, each traced to v0.7 text or a decision record rather than to the §15 change log. All fifteen are dispositioned. None was silently dropped. The change log deliberately is not the evidence — kings-guard's finding 1 was exactly the case where the change log claimed a rule the body did not contain. One item surfaced, and it is not a v0.6 finding: §17 still says emission-cadence ownership is proposed and unassented, which GH-DEC-2026-004 and the info-tech-canon and net-kingdom acceptances have since made false. Tracked as GH-WP-0003-T07. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WtJBr77gMFLrN93iEevqQJ Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 425128@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: f5944d8b-dac4-4e1a-87eb-8b3d8f314a63 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| adr | ||
| assurance | ||
| conformance | ||
| contracts | ||