specs/PhaseProvenanceSpecAddendum.md synthesizes T02-T04's accepted
decisions into one reviewable document: the phase_manifest schema diff
(repo_hub/repo_hub_uri/repo_id/repo_name, base_phase_id), the
specs/policies/ + specs/profiles/ extraction with concrete file lists
and frontmatter shapes, the ledger UI change, a forgejo_hubs migration
sketch for the hosted hub registry, the three-example-manifest backfill
plan, and a suggested implementation task breakdown.
This is a proposal only, not yet accepted for implementation -- per
the maintainer's own established sequencing, this is the document to
discuss before any of it is filed as its own workplan. All five
WP-0012 tasks are done; workplan marked finished.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Registration form drops the ledger input entirely -- Trust Service
auto-computes the canonical /phases/{id}/ledger reference at
registration time, no human types it in v0. Schema field itself is
unaffected (still present, still federation-ready). Drill-down shows
only the raw reference + a live-data link when it resolves to this
instance; the existing Ledger entries table on phase_detail.html is
untouched and stays exactly as prominent.
All four T02-T04 decisions now feed T05's spec addendum draft.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Checked the maintainer's specific state-hub Reference mechanism before
deciding rather than assuming from the earlier discussion: it's a
dashboard/src/docs/*.md corpus built via Observable Framework into
static HTML, opened standalone or in a "?" context-help overlay. Real,
but a materially heavier static-site pipeline than this repo has or
needs. Decided to carry the spirit (markdown spec -> rendered read-only
view, linked from wherever the id appears) via a small server-side
markdown render route instead, matching the existing lightweight
FastAPI+Jinja2 stack.
Decided: new specs/policies/ and specs/profiles/ subdirectories, one
file per policy/profile, id+revision frontmatter, git's own history as
the audit trail (no new versioning infrastructure). Calculator concept
doc already conforms as-is. No files moved yet -- deferred to after
T04/T05 per the same implementation-after-addendum sequencing used for
T02.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Confirmed live against forgejo.coulomb.social before deciding rather
than assuming: repo ids are real and stable (target-revenue is 103),
but no instance-level hub identity exists (no nodeinfo endpoint), so
the hub identifier has to be minted, not read from Forgejo.
Decided: milestone_release gains required repo_hub/repo_hub_uri/
repo_id/repo_name; phase.base_phase_id is optional, absent for a
first-ever Phase. The hub-to-URI mapping is hosted Trust Service data
(a new table, parallel to licensor_identities), not a file in this
framework repo, per the maintainer's steer that target-revenue must
stay the generic framework rather than carry a specific deployment's
repo list. Backfilling the three example manifests is deferred to
after T03/T04/T05, since the schema change is shared across all three.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
specs/PhaseLifecycleUseCases.md enumerates all nine use cases from the
workplan systematically, grounded in the actual schema, code, and the
three real pilot-candidate manifests rather than abstractly. Two
findings surfaced beyond the original scope: first-Phase and
successive-Phase provenance turn out to be one shared modeling
question (both feed T02), and breach-record publication already has a
decided Operator+ rights tier per the Control Plane concept doc while
extension registration/canonicalization does not — recorded as an
explicit open question for WP-0014-T01 instead of an assumption.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
TREV-WP-0012 is the modeling-only workplan requested after using the
Control Plane UI surfaced real gaps: Phase registration has no
structured repo/provenance fields, the ledger URI is hand-typed, and
degeneration policies are opaque ids with no reviewable spec behind
them. It produces a use-cases document and a discussable spec addendum
before any schema/UI implementation.
Two of the use cases uncovered while scoping this turned out to be
bigger than documentation gaps and are tracked as their own workplans
per that direction: TREV-WP-0013 (nothing currently computes or writes
Remission Credit ledger entries at all) and TREV-WP-0014 (Extension
Registry, Breach Record, and Conversion Attestation backends already
exist from WP-0006 but have no Control Plane UI).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
