risk-nexus/docs/method/escalation.md

id	type	title	status	owner	drafted_by	drafted	workplan	review_interval
RISK-METHOD-ESCALATION	method	Escalation: what reaches the operator personally	proposed	the-custodian	risk-nexus	2026-08-19	RISK-WP-0001-T03	90d

Escalation

INTENT.md gives the-custodian the duty of deciding what must reach 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.

Getting this wrong in either direction is a failure: escalating everything makes the operator the queue, escalating nothing makes the register a place where serious things go quiet.

What escalation is

A message to the operator personally — inbox message to the-custodian, and said out loud in whatever session is running — containing exactly four things:

1. the finding id and one sentence of what is true;
2. the decision being asked for;
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.

The operator is expected to rule, or to defer explicitly with a date. Silence is not resolution: an unanswered escalation past its date goes back into the register as an open item on this repo, visible in REGISTER.md, and is raised again once. It is never quietly dropped, and it is never repeated weekly until someone answers to make it stop.

The triggers

Each of the five candidates from INTENT.md is adopted, dropped, or bounded. A trigger without a threshold is not a rule.

1. Real tenant data — adopted, bounded

Escalate when a finding exposes real data belonging to a real counterparty, or the decision that governs access to it, while live and unfixed.

The bound matters: INTENT.md asks whether governing the access counts as exposing the data. It does. An authorization oracle that can be forged is not one step removed from the data; it is the step. Test data and empty tenants do not trigger it — the word is real.

2. Legal or regulatory obligation — adopted, unbounded

Escalate when a finding creates or reveals an obligation with an outside counterparty: a notification duty, a retention or erasure requirement, a contractual commitment, an in-scope determination under a regime.

No threshold. The estate cannot decide unilaterally that an obligation is small, and this repo is explicitly not the place where legal advice is given.

3. Spend — adopted, bounded

Escalate when remediation needs money that is not already committed: recurring above €50/month, or one-off above €500.

Below those, the owning repo decides and records it. The numbers are a starting proposal from this repo; the operator owns them and should overwrite them on adoption if they are wrong.

4. Ownership disagreement — adopted, bounded by one exchange

Escalate when two repos disagree about who owns a fix and one routing exchange has already failed to settle it.

Disagreement itself is normal and is the register's job to route. What needs the operator is a stuck disagreement, because only the operator can assign work across repos that will not take it. One exchange, then escalate — not three, and not zero.

5. Stalled remediation — adopted, bounded by the bottom rung

Escalate when a finding has sat at the instant rung of the cadence ladder for more than fourteen days (docs/method/review.md).

The bottom rung means one of two things: every check keeps finding something wrong, or no check is happening. Fourteen days of either is a stall, and the escalation does not have to know which — the operator will.

This replaces the original severity-keyed interval. It is strictly better: a medium finding that keeps resetting is stalling visibly, and the old rule would have waited 180 days to say so.

low findings are not exempt. Under the ladder, severity does not set cadence at all, so there is no rung a low finding sits on that a critical one does not.

What does not escalate

Stated so the rule bites in both directions.

• Known, owned, and moving. However bad. A critical finding with an active fix and a responsive owner is register work.
• Severity alone. There is deliberately no "escalate everything critical" trigger. Severity drives review cadence, not the operator's attention. RISK-F-0002 argued its own case for not escalating and was right on triggers 1-5; it reaches the operator only through trigger 6, and only once.
• The reporter asking for it. A repo can flag that it thinks something needs the operator. That is input, not a decision. This repo rules.
• Anything this repo can decide itself. Severity, disclosure, filing shape, review dates. Asking the operator to confirm a judgement that is this repo's to make is how the operator becomes the queue.

Testing the rule against the register

The draft was tested against the first three findings before it was proposed (docs/rulings/2026-08-19-first-grading.md) and then against the four filed out of the backlog the same day (docs/rulings/2026-08-19-second-grading.md).

Finding	Escalates	Trigger
RISK-F-0001 flex-auth oracle	yes	1 — governs access to tenant data
RISK-F-0002 signing gate off	yes, once	6 — ordering hazard, jointly with RISK-F-0001
RISK-F-0003 ungraded lanes	no	known, owned, tracked, moving
RISK-F-0004 tenant-engine reads	no	no real tenant data yet
RISK-F-0005 audit-core reads	no	known, owned, tracked, moving
RISK-F-0006 apps-pg no backup	yes	3 — recurring spend nobody can self-authorise
RISK-F-0007 unverified boundary	yes	4 — estate-wide and unowned

RISK-F-0002 is the case worth reading: ops-warden judged it did not need the operator, the register agrees on triggers 1-5, and it escalates anyway on 6. That disagreement is the reason the rule was worth writing down.

The ratio, and what it would mean

Four of seven escalate. That is more than this rule should produce in steady state, and it is not evidence the rule is loose — it is what a first sweep looks like. Three of the four are the backlog: items that sat outside the register precisely because nobody had decided them, and undecided items are exactly the population that needs the person who can decide.

The test therefore applies to intake, not to sweeps:

If more than one in three newly reported findings escalates over any rolling ninety days, the rule is wrong, not the register.

If that trips, the first suspects are triggers 3 and 4 — spend thresholds set too low, and "unowned" being read where "not yet routed" is meant.

Escalations are batched

Four escalations are one conversation, not four interruptions. Open items go to the operator together, in register order, each with its own decision and its own default-if-no-answer. Escalating is not the same as escalating separately, and a rule that produces four messages in an afternoon has made the operator the queue by a different route.

make check lists everything awaiting an answer, so the batch is a report and not somebody's recollection.