The inbox round: two grades corrected, one note promoted
Read the repo inbox after grading, which is the wrong order and is now recorded as such. flex-auth had answered the NetworkPolicy question on 2026-08-18 (narrow ingress, not default-deny — L3 becomes L2, critical becomes high) and reported RISK-F-0001 fixed at 12:35 today with live 401 probes. F-0001 closes fixed and public; its escalation is withdrawn before it was ever sent. RISK-F-0002's ordering constraint lifts with it and its trigger-6 escalation is withdrawn. audit-core had routed the erasure-versus-audit legal question here on 2026-08-18 asking for an owner. RISK-N-0002 was wrong to call it a note: the remedy is not retrofittable, so the decision can only be taken early. Promoted to RISK-F-0008, owned by this repo as regulatory intake, escalated on trigger 2. Accepted rapp-postgres's record format and ops-warden's typed-act escalation vocabulary. Reading the inbox is now question zero of every review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
37906c3a22
commit
7d6ded5743
10 changed files with 431 additions and 67 deletions
|
|
@ -34,6 +34,22 @@ said out loud in whatever session is running — containing exactly four things:
|
|||
3. what happens if no answer comes;
|
||||
4. by when.
|
||||
|
||||
Point 2 is a **typed act**, not a topic: `approve` (spend, a target, a plan),
|
||||
`rule` (a question only they can settle), `assign` (name an owner), or
|
||||
`accept` (record that the estate knowingly carries it, and for how long).
|
||||
Naming the act is what stops an escalation from becoming a notification —
|
||||
`INTENT.md`'s candidate triggers are conditions, and a condition without an act
|
||||
tells the operator something is wrong without telling them what they are being
|
||||
asked to do.
|
||||
|
||||
The typed-act shape is `ops-warden`'s, offered on 2026-08-18 from their
|
||||
`warden plan` classifier (`WARDEN-WP-0029`), which returns `autonomous |
|
||||
founder_required | unroutable` plus the reasons that produced the verdict and
|
||||
the act to perform. Two of its properties are adopted here: escalation is
|
||||
decided by properties of the thing rather than the assessor's mood, and every
|
||||
verdict carries its reasons so a misfire is visible afterwards. The vocabulary
|
||||
is theirs; the design is deliberately not re-invented.
|
||||
|
||||
It is **not** a copy of the finding, not a status report, and not a request for
|
||||
the operator to do the work. If the operator's answer would not change
|
||||
anything, it was not an escalation.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue