coulomb/informed-decision
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
informed-decision/WORK-RECORDS.md

21 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

Correct repo flavor to product; add SCOPE, AGENTS, classification fix-consistency surfaced that GOAL.md's `repo_flavor: project` was wrong. project-repository-flavor_v0.1.md reserves the prj- flavor for bounded cross-repo coordination efforts and says durable products use INTENT.md and an ordinary category. informed-decision is a durable product, so the C-35 "prj- flavor forbids shipping both INTENT.md and GOAL.md" contradiction was self-inflicted rather than a real conflict. - .repo-classification.yaml: category product, domain infotech. - GOAL.md: drop repo_flavor/project_status, add a flavor note explaining that GOAL.md is retained as the stage statement alongside a stable INTENT.md. - SCOPE.md: honestly empty — states that nothing is implemented and that INFD-WP-0001-T06 rewrites it after the gate-house ruling and the specs. - AGENTS.md: shared State Hub / session / workplan boilerplate, plus the hard rules for this repository — never decide, never own approval state, never invent identity, never let awareness enter view_hash, never let an agent bind, never fork the schema, fail closed. - INFD-WP-0001: T01 records both corrections; T06 now rewrites SCOPE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 12:38:41 +02:00
# Work Records — informed-decision
> Generated by `statehub fix-consistency` (CUST-WP-0061-T04, work-record
> stage 3). Do not edit by hand — edit the source file/block listed for
> each record and re-run fix-consistency to refresh this index. Archived
> workplans are omitted; closed decisions/intakes/engagements stay listed
> so recently-resolved work is still visible. [auto]
| Kind | ID | Status | Lane | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
Promote schema and canonicalizer out of history; add EvidenceModel (T06) Verified the three published hashes reproduce byte for byte before promoting anything, then moved the schema, canonicalizer and vectors into governed assets. history/20260909-initial-exploration/ is untouched and stays the provenance record. - schemas/, informed_decision/, tests/vectors/ populated; the reference canonicalizer's ad-hoc __main__ block replaced by a real `python -m informed_decision` entry point. - tests/test_canonicalize.py — 20 tests, all green. Published vectors, all four isolation properties, canonical-form round-trip, key sorting, and a provenance test asserting the governed fixtures have not drifted from history/. - docs/specs/EvidenceModel.md — the two hashes, the split and why it exists, the four isolation properties, the presentation record, the bundle, and the relationship to audit-core. - pyproject.toml, Makefile. One test of mine was wrong on first run: it scanned for ", " to assert no insignificant whitespace, which fires on prose inside a brief. Replaced with a canonical round-trip comparison, which is the property actually meant. The canonicalizer was correct. EvidenceModel leads with what the model does NOT claim — no proof of comprehension, no proof of reading (deliberately, since the alternative is surveillance), no survival of a compromised surface, and audit-core's inherited bound that a hash chain cannot prove a record was never sent. T06 stays progress: the SCOPE.md rewrite is gated on the T02 ruling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 14:16:28 +02:00
| workplan | INFD-WP-0001 | active | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
Correct repo flavor to product; add SCOPE, AGENTS, classification fix-consistency surfaced that GOAL.md's `repo_flavor: project` was wrong. project-repository-flavor_v0.1.md reserves the prj- flavor for bounded cross-repo coordination efforts and says durable products use INTENT.md and an ordinary category. informed-decision is a durable product, so the C-35 "prj- flavor forbids shipping both INTENT.md and GOAL.md" contradiction was self-inflicted rather than a real conflict. - .repo-classification.yaml: category product, domain infotech. - GOAL.md: drop repo_flavor/project_status, add a flavor note explaining that GOAL.md is retained as the stage statement alongside a stable INTENT.md. - SCOPE.md: honestly empty — states that nothing is implemented and that INFD-WP-0001-T06 rewrites it after the gate-house ruling and the specs. - AGENTS.md: shared State Hub / session / workplan boilerplate, plus the hard rules for this repository — never decide, never own approval state, never invent identity, never let awareness enter view_hash, never let an agent bind, never fork the schema, fail closed. - INFD-WP-0001: T01 records both corrections; T06 now rewrites SCOPE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 12:38:41 +02:00
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T01 | done | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
Promote INFD-WP-0001 to active with a review note C-23 flagged lifecycle drift: the workplan was still 'proposed' while T02 sat at 'progress'. ADR-007 correctly refuses to auto-promote, so this is a deliberate promotion rather than a status the tool inferred. The plan is genuinely being worked and the review it was pending has happened: against approval-engine's INTENT/SCOPE/layer.yaml/WP-0002 and its keycape service registrations, the accepted security layer model v0.7 and companion, the repo-classification and project-repository-flavor standards, and the schema, state-transition tables and vectors in history/. Also corrected the body text, which claimed T03-T05 would all be rewritten if the ruling differs. That was too broad: only T05 and T07 depend on the catalog row. T03, T04 and T06 describe what the surface must do and what the evidence must contain, and neither changes with layer placement. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 14:12:52 +02:00
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T02 | progress | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T03 | done | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T04 | done | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
Correct repo flavor to product; add SCOPE, AGENTS, classification fix-consistency surfaced that GOAL.md's `repo_flavor: project` was wrong. project-repository-flavor_v0.1.md reserves the prj- flavor for bounded cross-repo coordination efforts and says durable products use INTENT.md and an ordinary category. informed-decision is a durable product, so the C-35 "prj- flavor forbids shipping both INTENT.md and GOAL.md" contradiction was self-inflicted rather than a real conflict. - .repo-classification.yaml: category product, domain infotech. - GOAL.md: drop repo_flavor/project_status, add a flavor note explaining that GOAL.md is retained as the stage statement alongside a stable INTENT.md. - SCOPE.md: honestly empty — states that nothing is implemented and that INFD-WP-0001-T06 rewrites it after the gate-house ruling and the specs. - AGENTS.md: shared State Hub / session / workplan boilerplate, plus the hard rules for this repository — never decide, never own approval state, never invent identity, never let awareness enter view_hash, never let an agent bind, never fork the schema, fail closed. - INFD-WP-0001: T01 records both corrections; T06 now rewrites SCOPE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 12:38:41 +02:00
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T05 | todo | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T06 | todo | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T07 | todo | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
| task | INFD-WP-0001-T08 | todo | — | workplans/INFD-WP-0001-founding-specs-and-approver-ui-ownership.md |
Add PRD and Use Case Catalog; file the gate-house request (T02-T04) T02 — intake INFD-IN-0001 filed with gate-house and messages sent to gate-house, key-cape and approval-engine. Status progress; it now waits on an external ruling. key-cape was told explicitly why T07 is not answering KEY-WP-0013-T02 yet — a placeholder callback URI would either fail closed or register an origin no component owns — and given the token shape to check now rather than at T07. T03 — ProductRequirementsDocument.md. 30 requirements, each traced to a GOAL.md DoD item, an INTENT principle or wrongness condition, a state-transition guard, or a named external contract, and each with an observable pass condition. Anti-requirements are stated as testable absences: no dwell timers, no attention analytics, no dark patterns, no auto-approval, no approval-state caching, no authorization endpoint. Four limitations are recorded up front, including that escalate without a mandate graph is forwarding and that view_hash is computed by the renderer. T04 — UseCaseCatalog.md. L0-L5 with counterparties, plus ten negative cases bound to guards and isolation vectors. Each case records the constraint it places on the shared schema, so scale invariance is testable rather than asserted. Closes with the four changes that would fork the object. T05 and T07 remain gated on the ruling. T06 is independent and is next. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
2026-09-09 14:11:36 +02:00
| intake | INFD-IN-0001 | open | blue | intakes/intakes.md |
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink