Close out RISK-WP-0001: task notes, README, repo classification

T01, T02, T04-T08 done. T03 stays in progress: the escalation rule is
written and proposed, and it is not adopted until the custodian rules on
it — an unadopted rule is worse than an unwritten one because it looks
like coverage.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.repo-classification.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+repo_classification:
+  standard: Repo Classification Standard
+  version: "1.0"
+  classified_at: "2026-08-19"
+  classified_by: agent
+  category: project
+  domain: infotech
+  secondary_domains:
+    - government
+  capability_tags:
+    - governance
+    - security
+    - knowledge
+  business_stake:
+    - technology
+    - operations
+  business_mechanics:
+    - coordination
+    - operation

README.md

@@ -11,4 +11,29 @@ register.
 It does not fix things: findings route to the repo that owns the defect. It
 does not host: `policy-nexus` is the publication surface.
 
+## Where things are
+
+- **`REGISTER.md`** — the whole register, one screen. Generated; do not edit.
+- **`findings/`** — one file per finding. `findings/README.md` is the filing
+  contract for reporting repos.
+- **`notes/`** — seen, deliberately below the floor. Not graded, not reviewed.
+- **`docs/method/`** — how this repo decides:
+  [severity](docs/method/severity.md),
+  [disclosure](docs/method/disclosure.md),
+  [escalation](docs/method/escalation.md),
+  [review and expiry](docs/method/review.md).
+- **`docs/rulings/`** — the reasoning behind each grading, dated.
+- **`workplans/`** — the work.
+
+## Using it
+
+```
+make register   # rebuild REGISTER.md from findings/
+make check      # verify the index, then report what is going quiet
+```
+
+`make check` reports ungraded findings, overdue reviews, stalled remediation,
+embargoes due for re-decision, escalations awaiting the operator, and what is
+owed at the production transition. It changes nothing.
+
 - Intent: `INTENT.md`

workplans/RISK-WP-0001-make-the-register-decidable.md

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ publishable through `policy-nexus` later; this workplan does not publish it.
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T01
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 ```
 
@@ -114,11 +114,13 @@ Constraints it has to satisfy, taken from the findings already here:
 
 **Output:** `docs/method/severity.md`.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `docs/method/severity.md`: impact `I1`-`I4` x likelihood `L1`-`L4` on a grid, the fidelity modifier (+1 impact band where the failure produces a false record rather than none), the headline-versus-constraint split, the build-mode double grade, and the floor. Amended the same day by T07 — build mode lowers impact as well as likelihood, and non-adversarial findings read likelihood as event probability.
+
 ### T02 — Disclosure states
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T02
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 ```
 
@@ -138,11 +140,13 @@ Whichever way it goes is a recorded decision, not a habit.
 
 **Output:** `docs/method/disclosure.md`, including the re-taken deferral.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `docs/method/disclosure.md`. The deferral was re-taken and **narrowed**: build-mode default stays publish, the live-and-reachable exception exists now and costs one front-matter field, the *mechanism* stays deferred as originally reasoned. All seven findings sit at `embargoed` with observable lift conditions.
+
 ### T03 — The escalation rule
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T03
-status: todo
+status: progress
 priority: high
 ```
 
@@ -168,11 +172,13 @@ The custodian adopts the rule. Ask, do not assume.
 
 **Output:** `docs/method/escalation.md`.
 
+In progress 2026-08-19. `docs/method/escalation.md` is written and `status: proposed`. All five INTENT triggers settled — 1 adopted and bounded, 2 adopted unbounded, 3 bounded at EUR 50/month or EUR 500 one-off, 4 bounded by one failed routing exchange, 5 bounded at twice the review interval — plus trigger 6 (ordering hazard producing a false attestation), added because `RISK-F-0002` produced the case. Tested against all seven findings before proposing. **Not done until the custodian adopts it**, and the spend numbers are the operator's to overwrite.
+
 ### T04 — Review dates and expiry
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T04
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 ```
 
@@ -190,11 +196,13 @@ picks which.
 **Output:** `docs/method/review.md`; the finding front-matter contract extended
 with `review_by` and `last_reviewed`.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `docs/method/review.md`: 7/30/90/180-day intervals by severity, the four questions a review answers — including `RISK-F-0002`'s "a blocker is a claim about the world at a date" as question 2 — what a missed review produces, the production re-score as an event rather than a date, and the three ways a finding may close.
+
 ### T05 — Register index
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T05
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 ```
 
@@ -210,11 +218,13 @@ arriving, and it is worth a note in the residuals rather than a wider table.
 **Output:** `REGISTER.md`, its generator, and the front-matter contract the
 generator relies on written down where a reporter will see it.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `REGISTER.md`, generated by `tools/register_index.py` from the finding front-matter, with separate Constraints, Embargoes and Notes sections so a lower headline cannot hide a higher constraint. The filing contract is in `findings/README.md`, where a reporter will meet it. `make check` fails if the index is stale.
+
 ### T06 — Grade the three open findings
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T06
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 ```
 
@@ -240,11 +250,13 @@ message to that repo, not as an edit in it.
 
 **Acceptance:** no `unset` field remains in `findings/`.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `docs/rulings/2026-08-19-first-grading.md`. `RISK-F-0001` critical, embargoed, escalated on trigger 1 — the INTENT question about whether governing access counts as exposure is answered yes. `RISK-F-0002` medium today with a `high` constraint on `RISK-F-0001`'s remediation, filed as a **peer**, and escalated only on the ordering, against the reporter's own reading. `RISK-F-0003` high, embargoed, no escalation. No `unset` field remains.
+
 ### T07 — Rule on what is waiting outside the register
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T07
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 ```
 
@@ -267,11 +279,13 @@ The last three live in NetKingdom's *Tenancy Posture*, a draft, and filing them
 here does not amend it. A finding may say a standard is wrong; it cannot change
 one.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `docs/rulings/2026-08-19-second-grading.md`. Four filed — `RISK-F-0004` (tenant-engine), `RISK-F-0005` (audit-core), `RISK-F-0006` (apps-pg, escalated on spend), `RISK-F-0007` (the unverified tenant boundary, escalated on ownership, `fix_owner` deliberately `unset`). Two ruled notes — `RISK-N-0001` noisy neighbours, `RISK-N-0002` erasure-versus-audit — each with an event to be re-read at rather than a date. Filing `RISK-F-0007` does not amend *Tenancy Posture*.
+
 ### T08 — Nag
 
 ```task
 id: RISK-WP-0001-T08
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: low
 ```
 
@@ -285,6 +299,8 @@ nothing. A human or the custodian acts on the output.
 Runs from a `Makefile` target in this repo, in the same shape as the sibling
 `policy-nexus` `make check`.
 
+Completed 2026-08-19. `tools/register_check.py` behind `make check`: ungraded fields, overdue reviews, stalls at twice the interval, embargoes overdue for re-decision, escalations awaiting the operator, and what is owed at the production transition. Report only — it writes nothing and changes no field.
+
 ## Sequencing
 
 T01 first — the floor it sets is what T02, T04, T05 and T07 lean on.