risk-nexus/findings

Filing a finding

One file per finding: findings/RISK-F-NNNN-<slug>.md, YAML front-matter, then prose.

Ids are allocated by risk-nexus. Take the next id past the highest you can see and file — that is the right thing to do — but if two reporters take the same one, the earlier commit keeps it and the newcomer is renumbered here, with the original id recorded as filed_as. This happened on 2026-08-20 (RISK-F-0009, filed as RISK-F-0004), which is why it is written down. Do not renumber your own finding after filing; the register does it and tells you.

What the reporter fills in

id: RISK-F-0004
type: finding
title: "one line, what is true — not what should be done"
status: open                  # open | fixed | accepted | withdrawn
reported_by: <repo>           # who found it
reported_via: <repo>          # who routed it here, if different
date_reported: "YYYY-MM-DD"
system: <repo>                # the system the defect is in
environment: production       # production | build | both
fix_owner: <repo>             # who owns the fix — never risk-nexus
fix_tracking: <WP-ID or unset>
related: [RISK-F-0001]        # optional

What risk-nexus fills in — leave these out

severity, severity_at_production, impact, likelihood, fidelity_modifier, production_rescore, disclosure, embargo_*, escalation*, constraint*, last_checked, next_check, cadence, clean_streak, graded_by, ruling.

cadence is the check-frequency rung, and it is earned rather than assigned: a clean check climbs one rung (instant → 1h → 8h → 24h → 48h → 96h → 7d → 14d → 1mo → 1q), and anything moving drops it straight back to instant. So the rung on your finding is a public statement about how settled the matter has been — which is why it is not yours to set.

Setting them yourself is not an error to be corrected — it is a boundary this repo would rather keep. The reporter says what is true; this repo says how bad it is and who hears about it (INTENT.md). Leaving them out, or writing unset, both work; the nag reports either way until they are graded.

What makes a good finding here

• State exposure only as far as you can support it. "Not established" is a complete answer and grades better than a guess. RISK-F-0001 declining to assume a NetworkPolicy is the model.
• Say how it was found. Provenance is a grading input.
• Suggest a direction if you have one, marked as a suggestion. The fix is yours; the grade is ours.
• A note is fine. If it would not change anyone's decision, it belongs in notes/ — see the floor in docs/method/severity.md.

Asking for a tenant-boundary verification

Separate from filing. The estate carries RISK-F-0007 — no consumer's tenant boundary is verified anywhere — as an accepted risk until production, on the operator's ruling of 2026-08-19, with verification available on request.

Message risk-nexus naming one consumer boundary and what would have to be true of it. The owning repo of that consumer does the verification; this repo scopes and records it and verifies nothing itself. A boundary that holds is evidence; one that does not is a finding with its own owner.

After filing: make check. Then this repo grades it.