tegwick
a05ca6822b
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>
2.6 KiB
| id | type | title | date | source | floor_reason | revisit | ruling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RISK-N-0003 | note | Every defect in this register was found by reading, none by monitoring | 2026-08-19 | rapp-postgres, routing RISK-F-0001; restated in RISK-F-0002 | no owner and no defect — it is an argument about where to invest detection, and the register cannot route an argument | when a finding arrives that monitoring plausibly should have caught and did not | RISK-RULING-2026-08-19-C |
RISK-N-0003 — found by reading, not by watching
rapp-postgres raised it when routing RISK-F-0001 and left the call here:
all four defects in that round were found by repos reading their own code
against a ladder, within a day of each other, and none by monitoring.
RISK-F-0002 is a fifth, found by re-reading an answer this estate had just
given. RISK-F-0003 is a sixth, found while counting fields for a zone model.
Ruled a note, not a finding, on 2026-08-19.
It is true, it is worth knowing, and it clears neither floor test cleanly. No repo owns "the estate's ability to notice its own defects", and there is no defect to route — the observation is an argument for investing in detection, and the register that files arguments as findings stops being readable.
There is also a reading of it that is not alarming. Reading code against a ladder is a detection method, it worked six times in a week, and the estate has been doing it deliberately. What is unproven is whether it would find anything nobody thought to look at.
It comes back the first time a finding arrives that monitoring plausibly should have caught and did not. That is the evidence this note is missing, and until then filing it would be the register asserting a conclusion it cannot support.
Update — 2026-08-21: the denominator
RISK-WP-0005-T07 built the smallest possible coverage report, and it puts a
number on what this note could previously only gesture at:
7 of 117 registered repos have ever appeared in a finding. 110 never have.
That is not 110 clean repos and this note does not claim it is. It is 110 repos about which the register knows nothing, and the estate's own evidence — two for two on tenant boundaries, four defects in one review round — says that looking tends to find something.
The note stays a note. There is still no owner for "the estate's ability to
notice its own defects", and nothing here is a defect to route. What changed is
that the gap now has a size, and make coverage prints it, which is the
difference between an argument and a measurement.
It comes back as a finding the first time something is found in one of the 110 that a reasonable sweep would have caught earlier.