resource-control/data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json

286 lines
11 KiB
JSON
Raw Permalink Normal View History

feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
{
"schema_version": "0.1",
"record_scope": "operational",
"canon": {
"model": "ITC-CAP",
feat: adopt canon 0.4.0-0.6.0 — EvidenceBasis is canon, uses_provisions is canon Both demands were accepted. Adopting what landed. EVIDENCE BASIS IS NOW ITC-GOV CANON (0.4.0) tools/basis.py reads infospace/models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml instead of defining its own vocabulary — same discipline we already applied to the capability catalog. Two semantic changes came back that we did not have: - estimated and assumed are peers in tier "judgement". We had them separately ranked, which asserted a difference the canon does not. - derived belongs to no tier at all; asking for its tier before resolving it is now an error rather than a silent rank. Tier membership is read from tiers[].members, not bases[].tier: the latter labels invoiced/measured/quoted all as "evidenced" while the tier list splits them across "observed" and "quoted". tiers[] is authoritative; reported upstream. USES_PROVISIONS IS NOW CANON (0.5.0, CAP-R11) Dropped the proposed_extensions marker. Renamed relation "uses" to "may_use" per their migration note. tools/capability.py now enforces CAP-R11: relation must be depends_on or may_use, a provider must be named, and a depends_on entry MUST be declared between those capabilities in the catalog. data.backup gained catalog may_use: security.secrets from our restatement, so our entry now checks out. Also in 0.4.0: §10.3 changed so a joinable consumer record counts as promotion proof, met by our restatement; ITC-CAP is now 0.4.0 / canon 0.6.0, status draft. Record and tests updated to those versions. 196 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 19:57:46 +02:00
"model_version": "0.4.0",
"canon_version": "0.6.0",
"status": "draft",
"catalog": "info-tech-canon/infospace/models/capability/capabilities.yaml",
"evidence_basis_catalog": "info-tech-canon/infospace/models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml"
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
},
"record_id": "capability-case:platform-audit-storage:2026-08",
"created_at": "2026-08-15T00:00:00Z",
"subject": "PostgreSQL backup for rapp-postgres/platform-pg, restated in canon terms",
"note": "Real provisioned resource. Every value carries an evidence basis; a derived value is only as strong as its weakest input.",
"requires": [
{
"consumer": "rapp-postgres/platform-pg",
"capability": "data.backup",
"profile": "database",
"minimum_maturity": "D5",
"targets": {
"rpo": {
"value": 5,
"unit": "minutes"
},
"rto": {
"value": 60,
"unit": "minutes"
},
"retention": {
"value": 30,
"unit": "days"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
},
"constraints": [
{
"dimension": "geographical_separation",
"predicate": "not_in",
"of": [
{
"kind": "host",
"id": "railiance01"
},
{
"kind": "provider",
"id": "host-europe"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
]
}
],
"requirement_note": "The constraint is the one that decided the procurement: the backup must not share a failure domain with the host it protects. Before ITC-CAP 0.2.0 this lived only in prose."
}
],
"provisions": [
{
"provider": "resource:platform:audit-storage",
"capability": "data.object",
"environment": "production",
"maturity": "D4",
"implements": "Scaleway Standard Multi-AZ object storage, nl-ams",
"resource_ref": "data/resources/platform-audit-storage.json",
"maturity_rationale": "Approved for production dependency and in production use since 2026-08-14. Not D5: object-integrity testing is inherited from the backup restore drill rather than measured on this provision.",
"consumes": [
{
"class": "S",
"name": "stored objects",
"quantity": {
"value": 0.0066,
"unit": "GB"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"basis": "measured",
"evidence": "docs/evidence/RESOURCE-WP-0002-T05-restore-2026-08-14.json#archive",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14",
"measurement_note": "8 objects, 6 604 031 B in prefix platform-pg/, four hours after commissioning"
},
{
"class": "N",
"name": "restore egress",
"quantity": {
"value": null,
"unit": "GB"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"basis": "unknown",
"gap": "two scratch restores read from the bucket but bytes transferred were not recorded (owner: resource-control, add to the next drill)"
},
{
"class": "P",
"name": "object-store service",
"quantity": {
"value": 1,
"unit": "unit"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"supply": "external",
"basis": "quoted",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#scaleway-standard-multi-az",
"measurement_note": "Published list price; no account quote and no invoice yet"
},
{
"class": "H",
"name": "object-store operation",
"quantity": {
"value": 1.0,
"unit": "hour"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"supply": "internal",
"basis": "assumed",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#scaleway-standard-multi-az.operator_hours_per_month",
"measurement_note": "A planning allowance chosen at model time, not an observed or recorded figure"
},
{
"class": "I",
"name": "intelligence",
"quantity": {
"value": null,
"unit": "token"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"basis": "unknown",
"gap": "resource-control does not yet meter token consumption against a provision (owner: resource-control)"
}
]
},
{
"provider": "rapp-postgres/platform-pg CNPG barmanObjectStore",
"capability": "data.backup",
"profile": "database",
"environment": "production",
"maturity": "D4",
"implements": "CloudNativePG 1.25 / Barman, PostgreSQL 16.10",
"maturity_rationale": "D4 and not D5. The requirement asks for D5 (reliability measured and actively controlled). Thresholds are declared in data/thresholds/platform-audit-storage.json, but the evidence behind them is one backup, one full restore, one PITR, and about four hours of operation. wal_archive_gap_minutes is declared and not yet emitted. Reliability is therefore claimed and not yet substantiated. The requirement is not met; the gap is stated rather than the maturity inflated.",
"evidence": [
{
"hook": "successful_backup",
"basis": "measured",
"value": "platform-pg-daily-20260814181421 completed in 48 s, method barmanObjectStore, verified",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14",
"ref": "docs/evidence/RESOURCE-WP-0002-T05-restore-2026-08-14.json#first_backup"
},
{
"hook": "successful_restore_test",
"basis": "measured",
"value": "full restore to scratch cluster in 65 s; audit_core.events 30 = 30; PITR to a corrected target in 65 s with keep marker present and destroy absent",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14",
"ref": "docs/evidence/RESOURCE-WP-0002-T05-restore-2026-08-14.json#full_restore,pitr"
},
{
"hook": "measured_rpo",
"basis": "measured",
"value": "WAL segment archived about 2 s after pg_switch_wal, against a 5-minute archive_timeout",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14",
"ref": "docs/evidence/RESOURCE-WP-0002-T05-restore-2026-08-14.json#rpo_notes",
"caveat": "A single observation, not a distribution. The target is met on the evidence available."
},
{
"hook": "measured_rto",
"basis": "measured",
"value": "65 s full-restore RTO, 65 s PITR RTO, on 636 MB of PGDATA",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14",
"ref": "docs/evidence/RESOURCE-WP-0002-T05-restore-2026-08-14.json"
}
],
"consumes": [
{
"class": "H",
"name": "backup operation",
"quantity": {
"value": null,
"unit": "hour"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"supply": "internal",
"basis": "unknown",
"gap": "real operator time was spent on procurement, credential custody, and two restore drills in this period, but no time record was kept (owner: resource-control)"
},
{
"class": "I",
"name": "intelligence",
"quantity": {
"value": null,
"unit": "token"
},
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
"period": "month",
"basis": "unknown",
"gap": "not yet metered (owner: resource-control)"
}
],
"uses_provisions": [
{
"capability": "data.object",
"provider": "resource:platform:audit-storage",
"relation": "depends_on",
"note": "data.backup depends_on data.object in the catalog; this names which provision satisfies it."
},
{
"capability": "security.secrets",
"provider": "OpenBao / external-secrets on reef-railiance",
feat: adopt canon 0.4.0-0.6.0 — EvidenceBasis is canon, uses_provisions is canon Both demands were accepted. Adopting what landed. EVIDENCE BASIS IS NOW ITC-GOV CANON (0.4.0) tools/basis.py reads infospace/models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml instead of defining its own vocabulary — same discipline we already applied to the capability catalog. Two semantic changes came back that we did not have: - estimated and assumed are peers in tier "judgement". We had them separately ranked, which asserted a difference the canon does not. - derived belongs to no tier at all; asking for its tier before resolving it is now an error rather than a silent rank. Tier membership is read from tiers[].members, not bases[].tier: the latter labels invoiced/measured/quoted all as "evidenced" while the tier list splits them across "observed" and "quoted". tiers[] is authoritative; reported upstream. USES_PROVISIONS IS NOW CANON (0.5.0, CAP-R11) Dropped the proposed_extensions marker. Renamed relation "uses" to "may_use" per their migration note. tools/capability.py now enforces CAP-R11: relation must be depends_on or may_use, a provider must be named, and a depends_on entry MUST be declared between those capabilities in the catalog. data.backup gained catalog may_use: security.secrets from our restatement, so our entry now checks out. Also in 0.4.0: §10.3 changed so a joinable consumer record counts as promotion proof, met by our restatement; ITC-CAP is now 0.4.0 / canon 0.6.0, status draft. Record and tests updated to those versions. 196 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 19:57:46 +02:00
"relation": "may_use",
"note": "ClusterSecretStore openbao-backup-object-storage; ExternalSecret synced to databases/platform-pg-backup-s3. Not a consumption row: no purchased platform capacity is bought here, another capability is used.",
"evidence_basis": "measured",
"observed_at": "2026-08-14"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
]
}
],
"modelled_alternatives": {
"note": "The provider comparison that produced the decision, graded by evidence basis. The euro figures look precise and are not evidenced: they are derived from quoted list prices, projected demand, and an assumed labour rate.",
"review_period": "2026-08",
"values": [
{
"name": "scaleway.infrastructure_eur_month",
"value": 7.35,
"basis": "derived",
"derived_from": [
{
"name": "scaleway.storage_eur_per_gb_month",
"value": 0.01606,
"basis": "quoted",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#scaleway-standard-multi-az"
},
{
"name": "stored_gb.month12",
"value": 457.968,
"basis": "projected",
"evidence": "data/demand/platform-audit-storage.json base scenario, month 12"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
]
},
{
"name": "scaleway.labour_eur_month",
"value": 60.0,
"basis": "derived",
"derived_from": [
{
"name": "scaleway.operator_hours_per_month",
"value": 1.0,
"basis": "assumed",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#scaleway-standard-multi-az"
},
{
"name": "operator_hourly_eur",
"value": 60,
"basis": "assumed",
"evidence": "data/demand/platform-audit-storage.json scenarios[*].operator_hourly_eur"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
]
},
{
"name": "hetzner.infrastructure_eur_month",
"value": 6.49,
"basis": "quoted",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#hetzner-object-storage monthly_minimum_eur"
},
{
"name": "hetzner.labour_eur_month",
"value": 90.0,
"basis": "derived",
"derived_from": [
{
"name": "hetzner.operator_hours_per_month",
"value": 1.5,
"basis": "assumed",
"evidence": "data/providers/object-storage.json#hetzner-object-storage"
},
{
"name": "operator_hourly_eur",
"value": 60,
"basis": "assumed",
"evidence": "data/demand/platform-audit-storage.json scenarios[*].operator_hourly_eur"
}
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
]
}
]
},
"open_items": [
"The requirement asks for data.backup at D5; the provision is D4. Closing it needs a drill cadence, an emitted wal_archive_gap_minutes, and more than one backup.",
"Class I consumption is unknown on both provisions. resource-control does not meter tokens against a provision yet.",
"Class H on the data.backup provision is unknown: effort was spent and not recorded. A time record starts in 2026-09.",
feat: adopt canon 0.4.0-0.6.0 — EvidenceBasis is canon, uses_provisions is canon Both demands were accepted. Adopting what landed. EVIDENCE BASIS IS NOW ITC-GOV CANON (0.4.0) tools/basis.py reads infospace/models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml instead of defining its own vocabulary — same discipline we already applied to the capability catalog. Two semantic changes came back that we did not have: - estimated and assumed are peers in tier "judgement". We had them separately ranked, which asserted a difference the canon does not. - derived belongs to no tier at all; asking for its tier before resolving it is now an error rather than a silent rank. Tier membership is read from tiers[].members, not bases[].tier: the latter labels invoiced/measured/quoted all as "evidenced" while the tier list splits them across "observed" and "quoted". tiers[] is authoritative; reported upstream. USES_PROVISIONS IS NOW CANON (0.5.0, CAP-R11) Dropped the proposed_extensions marker. Renamed relation "uses" to "may_use" per their migration note. tools/capability.py now enforces CAP-R11: relation must be depends_on or may_use, a provider must be named, and a depends_on entry MUST be declared between those capabilities in the catalog. data.backup gained catalog may_use: security.secrets from our restatement, so our entry now checks out. Also in 0.4.0: §10.3 changed so a joinable consumer record counts as promotion proof, met by our restatement; ITC-CAP is now 0.4.0 / canon 0.6.0, status draft. Record and tests updated to those versions. 196 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 19:57:46 +02:00
"No invoiced basis exists anywhere in this record. The first booked Scaleway cost from fin-hub (FIN-WP-0004) would be the first."
]
feat: restate the backup case in ITC-CAP terms; add evidence basis; publish consumption-mode signal Three things. 1. CANON RESTATEMENT (info-tech-canon's ask after accepting our demand) data/capability/platform-audit-storage.json restates the backup case against ITC-CAP 0.2.0: requirement with profile, targets and the failure-domain constraint that decided the procurement; two provisions (data.object and data.backup); all four data.backup evidence hooks satisfied and measured; and consumption in native units — GB, hours, tokens — with unknown never zero. tools/capability.py reads their capabilities.yaml directly rather than copying it, so drift in either repo fails here. The requirement asks D5, the provision is D4, and the review reports below_requirement rather than inflating maturity. 2. EVIDENCE BASIS (tools/basis.py, docs/evidence-basis.md) Every value declares how it was obtained on an ordered scale: invoiced, measured, quoted, derived, projected, estimated, assumed, unknown. A derived value resolves to the weakest basis among its inputs, so precise arithmetic cannot launder weak assumptions. First application is a finding about our own biggest decision: the Scaleway vs Hetzner comparison, EUR 29.14/month stated to the cent, grades "indicative" — 1 of 4 load-bearing values evidenced, weakest "assumed". The direction is robust; the magnitude is a model output. The cheapest fix is recording real operator hours, not better arithmetic. 3. CONSUMPTION-MODE SIGNAL (railiance-platform RAILIANCE-WP-0017) settlement.py gains a consumption-mode command projecting statements into the signal they consume; make consumption-mode PERIOD=YYYY-MM publishes data/consumption-mode/current.json. Currently an empty list: no live charges for 2026-09, so no entity is restricted. Publishing the empty list makes that an assertion rather than an absence, which their contract distinguishes. The validator fails if the published signal is stale. 185 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-15 18:42:06 +02:00
}