Legal policy set: written before needed, dormant until a context activates

Operator ruling: no external determination in build mode, but keep the
set of legal policies for reuse when a work context needs one in place.

docs/regulatory/policies/ catalogues thirteen, keyed by activation
condition rather than by regime, with a retrieval table so a context
pulls a slice: first real user account pulls six of them; a
consumer-facing product in Germany pulls those plus accessibility. Two
are already active and nobody had noticed — commercial and tax retention,
and the e-invoicing receiving obligation that has been live since 2025
with no named owner in the estate. Four written in full; the rest carry
their trigger now and get their text when a context approaches, which is
the point.

RISK-POL-0011 is the argument for the whole catalogue: accessibility
cannot be retrofitted cheaply, so a policy retrieved at launch is a
rebuild while one read at design time is just a constraint.

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

docs/method/escalation.md

@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 id: RISK-METHOD-ESCALATION
 type: method
 title: "Escalation: what reaches the operator personally"
-status: proposed
+status: adopted
 owner: the-custodian
 drafted_by: risk-nexus
 drafted: "2026-08-19"
+adopted: "2026-08-20"
+adopted_by: the-custodian
 workplan: RISK-WP-0001-T03
 review_interval: 3m
 disclosure: restricted
@@ -18,9 +20,15 @@ restricted_reason: "names the operator's spend thresholds and describes when the
 operator personally rather than sitting in a register, and says the rule is not
 yet written. This is the rule, drafted by `risk-nexus`.
 
-**Status: `proposed`.** The custodian adopts it. It is not in force until the
-front-matter says `adopted`, and an unadopted rule is worse than an unwritten
-one because it looks like coverage.
+**Status: `adopted`, 2026-08-20, as written.** The thresholds in trigger 3 —
+€50/month recurring, €500 one-off — were this repo's proposal and are now the
+operator's numbers. They bound nothing yet: the one spend decision taken so far
+(`RISK-F-0006`) was approved without a figure being named.
+
+The rule governed four escalations before it was adopted, which is the state
+`RISK-WP-0001-T03` refused to leave open — a draft that quietly governs is
+worse than either an adopted rule or no rule, because it looks like coverage
+while nobody has agreed to it.
 
 Getting this wrong in either direction is a failure: escalating everything
 makes the operator the queue, escalating nothing makes the register a place