Missing capability, not a defect — same instrument that made the
noisy-neighbour characterisation a note. Records the requirement, the
three findings that already wait on it (F-0003 maturity default, F-0008
zone guarantees, F-0007 boundary verification scoping), and four consumer
needs, including that unknown must read as unknown rather than as a low
default — otherwise the facility repeats the defect F-0003 is about.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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 F-0001 closes fixed and public; its escalation is withdrawn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and its trigger-6 escalation is withdrawn.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>
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>
