Commit graph

24 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
7f1424dbcf Sweep risk inbox and reconcile findings
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-5.6-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a058f3-8ba0-7692-a042-9a870fc3d663
2026-09-01 02:41:32 +02:00
e482423523 Five owner replies worked through: one fix closed, two grades corrected, one control retired
RISK-F-0006 fixed and public — railiance-platform's restore evidence was
read, not taken: 56s restore, all 13 coulomb_social row counts matching,
plus the BestEffort QoS this register had graded on, plus a failed first
WAL attempt recorded alongside the successful one.

RISK-F-0004 high -> medium. tenant-engine corrected in both directions:
payloads are returned (worse than graded) but there is no HTTP event-read
route, so the live network-reachable read this register wrote down does
not exist. L3 was a reachability claim inherited from a summary and never
tested.

RISK-F-0002: reading (c) confirmed — nothing blocks policy.enabled, it is
off by decision. ADR-0006 retires it in favour of zone-scoped
enforcement. Ruled: the framing is superseded, the risk is not. A control
retired before its replacement exists is still an absent control. The
successor's blocker is 26 of 27 lanes having no identifiable workload,
which is RISK-N-0004 with a number on it.

RISK-F-0009: uncovered count 8 -> 6, corrected by the reporter against
themselves; the token was never expired; and the deployed policy differs
from the file, which moves 'a file is not a safe proxy for the server'
from suspicion to evidence and amends verification.md — including the
admission that fix_tracker.py reads records, and a record can be stale.

RISK-V-0001 reconciled: ops-warden reaches the pin from the node through
a tunnel, so a podSelector ingress rule does not constrain it. The
observation was right and the inference was not.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 09:32:32 +02:00
a05ca6822b RISK-WP-0005 finished: the seven gaps closed
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>
2026-08-21 08:34:30 +02:00
449307bea2 RISK-WP-0005 T02, T03, T04: intake, the transition, and an honest README
T02: docs/method/intake.md names all four sources INTENT claims and
builds the two that had none. An incident files first and grades within
the hour, carries first_observed because obligations run from it, sits at
instant until it is over, and escalates immediately rather than batched —
a 72-hour notification clock outranks the rule that protects the
operator's attention. External report has no address anywhere in the
estate, and where one lives is policy-nexus's and the custodian's, so it
is routed with a proposal rather than invented here.

T03: the production transition defined by what is held rather than what
was announced — the first moment any system holds real external data,
which can happen by accident and cannot be reversed. Declared by the
custodian; noticed and asked about by this register. Lists what fires:
five re-scores, two acceptances ending, six policies activating.

T04: the README no longer claims a surface this repo does not have.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:31:44 +02:00
0ff87c22d8 Persist the gap analysis to history/, open RISK-WP-0005
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>
2026-08-21 08:19:57 +02:00
ace941ef05 Assess STATE against INTENT: seven gaps, one sharp failure
The 'a regulation that applies was found before it was needed' test is
not met and cannot be retro-fitted: the policy set found two obligations
already live, the e-invoicing one by about nineteen months. The catalogue
makes the test passable going forward; it does not make that instance a
pass.

Also: remediation tracking does not track — fix_tracking is a string
nobody reads, so an owner who goes quiet and a fix that goes quiet look
identical; there is no intake path for incidents or external reports, so
the register is a self-assessment aggregator rather than what INTENT
claims; and no coverage model, so a system with zero findings is
indistinguishable from one nobody assessed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:16:43 +02:00
02a17e601d Record all three rulings; RISK-WP-0003 finished
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>
2026-08-20 23:37:45 +02:00
7f135f9e0f 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>
2026-08-20 23:36:22 +02:00
3a0ba5d427 Waits attach to any record, not just findings
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>
2026-08-20 23:18:52 +02:00
aeb56e3711 RISK-WP-0003 T02/T03: state the retention periods, and write the intake route
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>
2026-08-20 23:16:51 +02:00
d3aefefdc0 Waits outlive statuses
RISK-F-0001 is fixed and still owes a publication entry; it fell out of
the waiting list because that list was built from watched findings only.
A closed record with an open obligation is exactly the thing that goes
quiet, since nothing prompts anyone to look at it any more.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 22:45:36 +02:00
f0db7c83ca RISK-WP-0002: findings publish whole; method docs public except escalation
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>
2026-08-20 22:43:48 +02:00
7dc8d01a63 RISK-WP-0002-T03: the standing handover route
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>
2026-08-20 22:41:18 +02:00
d5147bfaea Typed, dated, defaulted waits — and cut the four-hop chain
The register had nine waits in four days, one four hops deep: F-0003's
embargo waited on F-0009, which waited on railiance-platform, which
waited on live OpenBao verification, which waited on a credential nobody
has. No single link was wrong, which is why it needed a rule.

docs/method/dependencies.md: the register never waits to decide, it
decides and revises. Every wait carries who, what, since, what it would
change, what happens if nobody answers, and the date that default
applies. Depth one — a record never waits on a record that is itself
waiting. Defaults are dates and are pessimistic: silence costs the grade
the evidence supports rather than buying a softer one, and owners are
told the default in advance because a default nobody was warned about is
an ambush.

Applied: F-0009's embargo now lifts on railiance-platform reporting
coverage, with live verification as a refinement rather than a condition,
cutting the F-0003 chain from four hops to two. All eight open waits are
typed with defaults. make check reports them with age, owner and default
date, flags defaults come due, and catches depth-two violations.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 22:34:56 +02:00
56b8d61583 Work the register due list, and add the one-check-per-sitting rule
Nine records checked. Five clean and climbed to 1h: RISK-F-0003, 0004,
0005, 0006, 0009 and RISK-REG-0001. Three moved and stay at instant —
RISK-F-0002 (RISK-V-0001 found the flex-auth-ops-warden policy admits no
ingress, so the live question there is now availability rather than
attestation), RISK-F-0007 (the on-request path walked for the first time
as RISK-V-0002), RISK-F-0008 (the determination now exists).

The rule: a finding recorded as moved is not clean-checked in the same
sitting. Re-reading your own keystrokes and climbing produces a rung that
says the world held still when what held still was the last five minutes.
The rung carries stability information or it carries nothing.

record_check.py now handles regulatory records as well as findings.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 12:03:12 +02:00
5b9a0e98fe RISK-WP-0004-T01: schedule the checks on activity-core
Two activity definitions, in the shape activity-core's own definitions
use. hourly-register-inbox-watch fires only when an unread message waits
for risk-nexus — the inbox is the trigger rather than the clock, because
an unread message is by construction a claim that something may have
moved, and 2026-08-19 proved the register will otherwise grade without
looking. daily-register-check-sweep is the unconditional floor at 07:15.

Both emit an instruction to a session that can exercise judgement, and
both say in their own text that they must never grow the ability to
record an outcome: stamping clean without doing the five questions
produces a 1q rung that is a lie about stability.

RISK-WP-0004 is finished.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 08:55:48 +02:00
36b707f0c3 RISK-WP-0004: five of six tasks done; the executor is the operator's call
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>
2026-08-20 08:49:23 +02:00
97fcc56a4d RISK-WP-0004-T05: establish what this register can verify, by trying it
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>
2026-08-20 08:46:06 +02:00
c73848250c Record the 2026-08-20 ruling: OpenBao layer, id collision, silent-drop defect
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 07:44:21 +02:00
42bbf5d2dc Adaptive check cadence: the interval is earned, not assigned
Operator ruling 2026-08-20. Severity no longer sets the review interval.
A check that comes back clean climbs one rung — instant, 1h, 8h, 24h,
48h, 96h, 7d, 14d, 1mo, 1q — and anything wrong drops straight back to
instant. A quarter is the ceiling. The operator may defer an instant
finding to a stated date; that is the only other way off the bottom rung.

The rung is the point: it says how stable the estate has been on that
matter, which is information severity does not carry. Volatile things get
attention automatically; quiet things stop consuming it; neither
judgement has to be made by a person who might be busy.

Escalation trigger 5 rebased onto the ladder — fourteen days at the
bottom rung, whether that is failing checks or no checks.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 07:43:51 +02:00
7a3d97ecfe RISK-REG-0001: write down the retention basis, and open regulatory intake
The outstanding half of RISK-F-0008 that needed no authorisation. Grounds
stated per category rather than as a blanket exemption: Art 6(1)(f) with
Art 32 for operator and agent records, Art 17(3)(e) for counterparty
transaction evidence, Art 17(3)(b) only where a commercial or tax duty
independently applies. The weak part is named as duration rather than
existence, and audit-core's co-residency horizon is identified as the
most likely point of failure in the whole position. Not legal advice, and
the record says so.

Also opens docs/regulatory/ with the record format — dated, sourced, and
reviewed, because a regulatory answer expires.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-20 07:25:42 +02:00
7d6ded5743 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>
2026-08-19 23:38:07 +02:00
4daff5503f 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>
2026-08-19 23:33:08 +02:00
d5a3953f2e RISK-WP-0001 T01-T06,T08: the four instruments, the index, and the first grading
Severity (impact x likelihood, fidelity modifier for controls that lie,
headline-vs-constraint, build-mode double grade, the floor), disclosure
(publish/embargoed/restricted, and the build-mode deferral re-taken and
narrowed with RISK-F-0001 in hand), escalation (the five INTENT triggers
settled plus an ordering-hazard trigger the RISK-F-0002 case forced;
proposed, awaiting the custodian), review (intervals, what a review is,
what missing one produces, the production re-score).

Then applied: RISK-F-0001 critical/embargoed/escalated, RISK-F-0002
medium with a high constraint on RISK-F-0001's remediation, filed as a
peer and escalated only on the ordering, RISK-F-0003 high/embargoed/no
escalation. No unset field remains.

REGISTER.md is generated; make check reports overdue, stalled, ungraded
and unanswered escalations without changing anything.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-19 23:29:39 +02:00