The estate has built multi-tenancy across five documents that each cover a
slice and do not compose. This records the whole model and names what is
missing.
Core framing: multi-tenancy here is four orthogonal planes — identity,
authorization, data isolation, placement — not one property. Identity and
authorization are ratified and solid. Data isolation is stated but
unverified. Placement is owned by nobody and is precedent-by-accident.
Three findings that motivated the draft:
- R0 -> R1 -> R2 does not improve tenant isolation at all. Those rungs buy
consumer isolation and capacity. Only R3 makes the tenant boundary
structural. A plan tier selling R2 as isolation would be false.
- No fleet mechanism verifies that any consumer actually enforces the tenant
boundary it is obliged to enforce. A missing WHERE tenant_id would be a
cross-tenant breach that no probe fails and no log shows as an error.
Highest-severity gap; needs an appointed owner.
- platform-pg holds roughly six consumers (100 max_connections, 14 each) and
memory likely binds before connections do. Two are provisioned. The runway
is shorter than the ladder implies.
Also reconciles two already-ratified and contradictory defaults:
instance-per-client for business apps, pooled for platform services, with no
rule for telling a new service which it is.
Proposed, not ratified. Carries a ratification path so it does not join the
shared-platform-relational-storage draft in limbo.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
d7d1a490f9