T01 fix tracking now reads the owner's workplan file and found two
findings the register should have known about. T02 incident and external
report intake, the latter routed since the address is not ours to create.
T03 the production transition defined by what is held rather than what
was announced. T04 the README stops claiming a surface. T05 escalation
carries a delivery state and is raised once when unacknowledged. T06
checked_by and a heartbeat, so a 1q rung cannot silently mean nobody
looked. T07 coverage: 7 of 117 repos have ever appeared in a finding.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
history/2026-08-21-intent-gap-analysis.md follows the estate's history
convention. RISK-WP-0005 carries the seven gaps, ordered so the one place
the register misreports goes first: fix_tracking is a string nobody
reads, so a stalled fix and a silent owner are currently the same thing.
The two INTENT claims with no implementation at all — incident intake and
external report — are T02. STATE.md now says both of those out loud
rather than leaving them to the assessment.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Escalation rule adopted as written. RISK-F-0008 accepted with the legal
policy set as the compensating control. Canon kinds packet sent to
the-custodian, with note offered lifecycle-free and verifications
deliberately withheld as an unsettled species.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
Adopting a rule is nobody's finding; neither is registering a canon kind
or publishing a document. Each obligation that lived outside the
mechanism was invisible to it. RISK-WP-0001 now carries both of its
custodian waits, and the escalation-rule one has the register's most
uncomfortable default pointed inward: unadopted by 2026-09-17 means
recorded as de facto in force but unratified, said on the face of every
escalation sent under it. A draft that quietly governs is exactly what
this register exists to notice.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Workplan status blocked rather than active: the only remaining task is a
custodian decision, and calling that 'active' would be the register
claiming progress it is not making.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T02 applies the dependency rule to this repo's own work: rather than wait
on audit-core's co-residency horizon, RISK-REG-0001 now states target
periods per category with the reasoning — 12 months for operator and
agent security records, 3 years to year-end for counterparty transaction
evidence, 8 years for accounting vouchers (shortened by BEG IV, flagged
as worth confirming), 10 years for books, 6 for commercial letters,
delete for anything with no ground. Targets, not achievements: the estate
cannot demonstrate any of them while the real horizon is the maximum
across every co-resident on platform-pg, and that gap is stated so the
table cannot be read as a compliance claim.
T03 writes the intake route from what audit-core did correctly without
one: the question as a question, what already depends on it, what becomes
expensive if the answer is no, and what you are not asking for.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Operator ruled both. Findings publish as the file a reader gets —
including RISK-F-0001's record that this register graded it critical
while its fix notice sat unread. A summary would be a second document per
finding kept in sync by hand, and drift is the failure this repo most
distrusts; and a published register containing only other repos' defects
reads as an accusation, while one containing its own reads as a record.
Method docs public except escalation, which is restricted because it
names spend thresholds and describes when the operator personally is
interrupted — a map of where attention is scarce, needed by nobody
judging a finding.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Written now rather than at the first lift, because publication arrives in
a trickle and a route improvised each time is one that eventually is not
taken. Also settles a T01 input: policy-nexus publishes a file from the
source repo, so whole-versus-summary is a question about what a finding
file contains, not about rendering.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The previous commit shipped the activity definitions but a script error
left the workplan file unedited, so the task states are recorded here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T02 inbox check, wired into make check and verified against the actual
2026-08-19 failure — replayed at that moment it surfaces all three
messages that were already waiting. T03 sweeps the rest of the
quietly-tolerated class: bad dates, cadence off the ladder, undefined
disclosure states, dangling constraint_on and related refs, embargoes
without conditions, escalations without triggers. T04 requests
verification of user-engine's tenant boundary — the first walk down the
on-request path, chosen as a consumer not already known to fail it. T05
established by trying what this register can verify: cluster yes, OpenBao
403. T06 puts regulatory records on the findings ladder.
T01 stays in progress: the procedure, make due and make checked exist,
but arming something that runs them on schedule is a standing compute
commitment and the operator's to make.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Cluster reads work from this host; OpenBao returns 403, the same wall
ops-warden hit. So the register can check what the cluster admits and
cannot check what the secret store permits, and every grade touching an
OpenBao policy is a grade on a document. That asymmetry is recorded
rather than closed: a risk register holding production secret-store
access would have traded a verification problem for a worse one.
RISK-V-0001 is the first verification. It confirms RISK-F-0001's ingress
claim against the live cluster — the first grade here standing on
evidence this repo gathered — contradicts the 'egress: []' claim, which
live shows as 443/6443 to anywhere, and surfaces a third policy created
the day of the fix whose Ingress policyType carries no rules, which bears
on whether enabling ops-warden's gate would fail closed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Publication handover (two findings ready, three tasks, one of which is a
paragraph); regulatory intake as a working remit rather than one record,
carrying RISK-REG-0001's open items; and running the register, where
every task traces to something that actually went wrong in week one —
grading before reading the inbox, a status the tooling did not know, an
id collision, two gradings resting on file comparison because a token
expired, and an on-request path nobody has walked.
All three are status: proposed. The custodian decides which become active
and in what order.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
work-record-types_v0.1 pins workplan ids to ^[A-Z]+-WP-[0-9]{4}$ and tasks
to that plus -TNN; a hyphenated RISK-NEXUS prefix trips the sidetrack
detector. RISK-WP also matches the register's existing RISK-F finding
prefix. Renamed before the workplan was indexed anywhere.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The three open findings all leave severity, disclosure and escalation
unset, correctly: those are this repo's to set and the instruments to set
them with do not exist yet. The workplan writes the severity scale, the
disclosure states (re-taking the deferral with RISK-F-0001 in hand), the
escalation rule INTENT.md says is unwritten, and the review/expiry rule —
then grades the three findings and rules on what is waiting outside the
register.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
