Maintainer decision, 2026-07-30: rein-aharness is executor-worker's
real, live successor - no coulomb/executor-worker Forgejo repo will
be created. Local directory moved to
archive/260717-executor-worker-retired/ (timestamped to its actual
retirement commit date) to get it out of the active workstation
directory listing; git history preserved intact by the move.
the-custodian: TRSL applied per explicit maintainer confirmation
(superseding its prior Proprietary and Confidential license) - all ~90
repos now have TRSL.
executor-sandbox: local ~/executor-sandbox directory turned out to be
a stale, disconnected clone (unrelated git history, no origin remote
configured at all) - the real Forgejo repo has entirely different
content (a rein-aharness smoke-test target). Worked against a fresh
clone of the real repo instead: established INTENT.md/SCOPE.md from
its actual observed purpose and applied TRSL, committed/pushed
directly to coulomb/executor-sandbox.git.
executor-worker: confirmed retired per its own README - adopted into
agent-harness (2026-07-17), which was itself later renamed
rein-aharness (glas-harness ADR-001, 2026-07-26). No
coulomb/executor-worker or coulomb/agent-harness repo exists on
Forgejo; rein-aharness is already the live, deployed successor.
Whether to still create a Forgejo repo for the retired prototype's
history is left as an open question, not decided unilaterally.
history/260730-ExecutorRepos-ArchitectureFindings.md records the full
architecture map verified against each repo's own SCOPE/README/ADRs:
activity-core -> issue-core -> glas-harness (router) -> rein-aharness/
rein-openweights (concrete backends) -> llm-connect (adapter engine),
sand-boxer (isolation, consumed by glas-harness), kaizen-agentic
(personas/memory, "prepare" not "execute"). Flags phase-memory's
relationship to kaizen-agentic/agentic-resources as unconfirmed, and
agentic-resources' own SCOPE.md as still an unrefined auto-generated
placeholder.
Maintainer decision, 2026-07-29/30: adopts TRSL V1C1 as the preliminary
governing LICENSE across every repo in the coulomb Forgejo org,
confirmed explicitly as "every repo, no exceptions" including
target-revenue itself and internal tooling repos. This is a
license-text adoption, not a Phase declaration - no Initial Target,
Trust Service registration, or Development Credit tracking exists for
any repo as a result. WP-0008-T05 (real Phase go-live) remains todo
and unaccepted.
Applies TRSL to this repo's own LICENSE (self-referential wording,
since target-revenue is the canonical source) and updates
pyproject.toml's license field from MIT-0 to TRSL-0.1.
history/260730-TRSL-OrgWideLicenseRollout.md is the full execution
record: ~90 repos adopted successfully, 2 committed locally only (no
git remote configured: executor-sandbox, executor-worker), and one
explicitly flagged exception (the-custodian - carried a pre-existing
proprietary/confidential license, deliberately not touched pending
separate confirmation, not silently folded into the blanket
instruction).
scripts/rollout/LICENSE.trsl-v1c1 is the deployed template used across
all repos (operative legal text only, points back to this repo's
specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md for the full candidate-status
banner and Appendix A rather than duplicating it ~90 times).
Maintainer decision (2026-07-29): full specialist legal review of the
TRSL/CUA is postponed until the framework moves out of beta, given
limited legal/commercial exposure during build/alpha. WP-0004-T10 and
WP-0005-T10 synthesize their jurisdiction research into adopted alpha/beta
working defaults (governing law -> arbitration at a neutral seat,
liability cap, data protection minimal-collection practice, and the
Enforcement Network's fee mechanics) rather than full resolution, and are
accepted on that basis. Propagates the decision to the License/CUA V1C1
Appendix A tables and status banners, SCOPE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, the
WP-0008-T05 go-live gate, and README.md.
Cross-cutting research (New York Convention enforceability, neutral-seat
arbitration practice, and a consolidated drafting principle) revises the
China finding from T06/TREN-T06: China has enforced the New York
Convention since 1986 (arbitral awards travel via a ~172-state regime
with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment
convention, relying on patchy bilateral treaties and evolving reciprocity
for court judgments specifically. Arbitration, not the litigation-focused
China rider previously recommended, is likely the more promising
enforceability path for a Chinese Customer - and for the Enforcement
Partner Agreement too, per a cross-reference added to
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md.
Also produces a consolidated drafting principle: write clarity-sensitive
clauses to satisfy Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA reasonableness,
and Australia's expanded Unfair Contract Terms regime simultaneously,
since research this program has already found separately shows none of
the three reduces to another.
Updates License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A item 1 accordingly.
WP-0004 now has 9 of 10 tasks done; only the human-gated T10 synthesis
remains.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Executes all remaining shared jurisdictions across both workplans:
Germany/EU (deepened contract-law angle), US (deepened), UK (deepened),
Argentina, India, China, Africa (South Africa + OHADA), and Asia-Pacific
(Singapore, Japan, Australia) - 13 new history/ research artifacts.
Highest-priority findings:
- Australia's Unfair Contract Terms regime (expanded Nov 2023) covers
standard-form contracts with any business under 100 employees/$10M
turnover by default - the CUA is exactly such a contract, and most
realistic Customers fall within this threshold. Unlike every other
jurisdiction's consumer carve-out, this is not an edge case.
- China requires a "foreign-related" contract even to select foreign
governing law, subject to a vague public-interest override even then -
confirms a dedicated China rider is needed for both the License/CUA and
the Enforcement Partner Agreement, not a shared global clause.
- India flatly prohibits advocate contingency fees (no exception gates,
stricter than Germany) while explicitly permitting third-party
litigation funding - the cleanest confirmation yet that the Litigation
Funder/Local Counsel split-role model is both necessary and legal there.
- Japan's Article 12 fee-splitting rule means even the split-role
fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring - the first case where
the workaround itself, not just the original mechanism, has an open
compliance question.
- Contingency Share ceilings vary widely where available: UK 50% (exact
match), South Africa 25%, Argentina 35% (50% only with risk assumption),
China 18% down to 6% on a sliding scale that shrinks as claims grow.
- Recurring cross-jurisdictional pattern (Germany, EU, US via CCPA,
Argentina): B2B governing-law/liability clauses are respected, but an
individual/sole-proprietor Customer's consumer-protection status is the
operative risk everywhere, not a one-off edge case.
Updates specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §8.1 with a full 12-jurisdiction
findings table and three cross-cutting conclusions. Updates both V1C1
documents' Appendix A items (governing law, liability cap, data
protection) with the most consequential findings. Both workplans now have
only their human-gated synthesis tasks (T09-T10 / T10) remaining.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed
Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3
violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery,
so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does -
through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New
terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency
Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement)
plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery
flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather
than a parallel bucket.
Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away:
lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four
executed this session with live web research:
- Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates,
none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is
very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result-
fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed
(2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted.
- US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely
copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory
damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue.
- UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category -
the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on
this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is
precisely validated rather than arbitrary.
- Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner
Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure
(single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment-
flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by
which structure applies.
Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa,
Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Persists the five prior-art/legal research artifacts and the original
draft skeleton as dated history/ records (260729- prefix, git mv to
preserve history), consistent with this repo's convention that history/
holds dated non-normative artifacts rather than living working documents:
- history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md
- history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md
- history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md
- history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (superseded)
Adds specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md: the first candidate written
as actual operative license text (11 sections: definitions, noncommercial
grant, commercial-use restriction, patent license, automatic conversion,
successive phases, termination/cure, warranty/liability, trademarks,
general provisions) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton. Carries a
prominent preliminary-status notice near the top and a non-normative
Appendix A tracking the nine items still needing legal resolution before
any candidate can become official Version 1.0.
Updates all cross-references (README, PRD, TSD, SCOPE, workplan) to the
new paths; the workplan's T06 human-accept gate now points at V1C1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Introduce SCOPE, expanded README, CONTRIBUTING, and provisional open-question
defaults. Rescope Trust Service work to offline schemas/fold/fixtures, add
normative core extraction workplan, and split PRD roadmap Phase 4 into
foundation vs hosted service. Sync workplans with State Hub.
