RISK-WP-0001-T07: rule on what was waiting outside the register

Four in as findings — tenant-engine unfiltered event read (high),
audit-core read path bounded by a flag not by code (medium), apps-pg with
no backup at all (high, escalated on spend), and the unverified tenant
boundary itself (high now, critical at production, escalated on
ownership, fix_owner deliberately unset). Two out as notes — noisy
neighbours and erasure-versus-audit, both real, neither changing a
decision this month, both carrying an event to be re-read at.

The round amended the scale twice: build mode lowers impact as well as
likelihood, and non-adversarial findings get their own likelihood
reading. The escalation rule gained a ratio test that distinguishes a
first sweep from steady-state intake, and a batching rule.

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

docs/rulings/2026-08-19-second-grading.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+id: RISK-RULING-2026-08-19-B
+type: ruling
+title: "What was waiting outside the register: four findings, two notes"
+status: recorded
+owner: risk-nexus
+date: "2026-08-19"
+workplan: RISK-WP-0001-T07
+---
+
+# What was waiting outside the register — 2026-08-19
+
+`INTENT.md` named six things as visible but unfiled, held back "pending this
+repo setting the precedent for what warrants a record of its own". The
+precedent now exists (`docs/method/severity.md`), so each is ruled here. "Still
+waiting on the precedent" is no longer an available answer.
+
+| Item | Ruling | Why |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `tenant-engine` unfiltered event read | `RISK-F-0004`, high | Live cross-tenant read, owner can act, ordering changes |
+| `audit-core` unfiltered read path | `RISK-F-0005`, medium | Bounded by a deployment flag, not by code |
+| `apps-pg` no backup | `RISK-F-0006`, high, escalated | Unrecoverable loss; needs spend nobody can self-authorise |
+| Unverified tenant boundary | `RISK-F-0007`, high, escalated | Estate-wide, unowned, two confirmed instances |
+| Noisy neighbours uncharacterised | `RISK-N-0001`, note | Measurement work, no decision changes today |
+| Erasure versus audit | `RISK-N-0002`, note | No obligation exists yet; regulatory-intake work |
+
+Four in, two out. If everything had cleared the floor, the floor would not be
+one.
+
+## The three from RISK-F-0001's unfiled list
+
+They were recorded inside another finding "so they are visible, not filed as
+findings, because filing them was not asked for". Filing is now asked for.
+
+Each is filed on the owning repo's own self-report, unverified by this repo,
+and says so in its own text. `risk-nexus` reads from everywhere and is
+downstream by construction; the system remains authoritative about itself.
+Each owner has been asked to confirm or correct, and two of the three
+(`RISK-F-0004`, `RISK-F-0006`) have `fix_tracking: unset`, which is a question
+put to the owner rather than a criticism.
+
+`RISK-F-0006` is the surprise of the round. It is the least dramatic item on
+the list — a missing configuration block — and it grades highest of the three,
+because it is the only one where nothing comes back afterwards. It also
+escalates, on spend, which is the trigger that most needed a real case to
+prove it is not decorative.
+
+## The unverified tenant boundary
+
+`RISK-F-0007`, and the one this register was arguably built to hold.
+`INTENT.md` calls it the estate's largest known gap and complains that it lives
+as open question 3 of an unratified draft, with no owner, no severity and no
+date. It now has three of the four; `fix_owner` stays `unset` deliberately,
+because the escalation is precisely about who owns it.
+
+Two design points, both deliberate:
+
+- **It is not a duplicate of `RISK-F-0004` and `RISK-F-0005`.** Those are two
+  instances; this is the absence of anything that would have found them. The
+  instances get fixed by their owners and this one does not go away when they
+  do.
+- **It grades `high` today and `critical` at production**, which is the first
+  real use of `production_rescore`. Today's consequence is bounded because the
+  estate holds no real tenant data. That bound is a fact about the calendar, so
+  it belongs in the build-mode column and not in a comfortable headline.
+
+## What the notes are for
+
+`RISK-N-0001` and `RISK-N-0002` are the floor doing its job: both are real,
+both are known, neither changes a decision this month. The note keeps "we saw
+it" without inflating a register that has to stay small enough to read.
+
+Both carry a `revisit` condition that is an event rather than a date, and both
+events are ones the estate cannot miss — two tenants sharing a saturating
+workload, and the first real person's data. Neither note is a promise to
+remember; both are promises to be re-read when the condition arrives.
+
+## What this round did to the instruments
+
+Two amendments, both dated in `docs/method/severity.md`:
+
+1. **Build mode lowers impact as well as likelihood.** The original text said
+   it was a likelihood input and never an impact one. `RISK-F-0007` broke that
+   in one sentence: what build mode changes for an unverified boundary is the
+   consequence of an occurrence, not the reach of it. Corrected rather than
+   worked around.
+2. **Non-adversarial findings get their own likelihood reading.** `RISK-F-0006`
+   has no attacker in it, and reading likelihood as "reach" produced nonsense.
+   Likelihood there is the chance of the triggering event inside one review
+   interval.
+
+An instrument that survives its first hard use unchanged has probably not been
+used hard.
+
+## Register size
+
+Seven findings, six open, two notes. `INTENT.md` requires the register stay
+small enough to read, and `REGISTER.md` is still one screen. The next thing
+that would break it is a batch — a review round producing ten entries at once.
+When that happens the answer is a harder floor, not a wider table.