Technical record
The complete evidence set, with its qualifications.
This page holds the detail deliberately kept off the main narrative: full metric qualifications, the complete lesson set, the handoff and release-integrity models, every boundary note, and the public artifact catalogue.
Governance model, role by role
- Step 1Human owner intent
- The named owner defines the objective, constraints, acceptance criteria, and decision rights.
- Step 2Bounded work package
- Scope and success conditions are made durable before implementation begins.
- Step 3AI-assisted implementation
- The implementation role changes the system within the authorized package; capability does not confer approval authority.
- Step 4Pinned handoff
- The source state submitted for review is identified so findings and evidence refer to the same object.
- Step 5Read-only technical audit
- An operationally separate, read-only role inspects the pinned state and records findings without modifying it.
- Step 6Resolution and owner decision
- Findings are addressed; criteria changes, residual-risk treatment, and the decision to proceed remain human.
- Step 7Controlled release
- The accepted state moves through release controls intended to preserve identity and provenance.
The audit role was operationally separated and read-only. This is not a claim of institutional independence or external certification.
Pinned state and handoff
The state submitted for review is identified and preserved so that implementation, audit, and owner decisions all refer to the same object across sessions.
- Work package with acceptance criteria
- Implementation output
- Pinned state identity
- Read-only audit against the pinned state
- Findings recorded against that identity
Release-integrity chain
A human decision applies to an identified state. The release path is what keeps that approved identity intact as it becomes a durable public artifact.
- Owner decision on residual risk
- Accepted state
- Release commit
- Annotated tag and checksums
- Immutable release and DOI archive
Recorded outcomes, fully qualified
- 3governed reviews represented
- The retained record preserves audit reports across three governed reviews.
- 7preserved audit reports
- Six were substantive; one attempted round was explicitly recorded as not auditable.
- 33recorded findings
- 11 HIGH and 22 MEDIUM. No CRITICAL finding was recorded.
- 32 · 1fixed · criteria revision
- 32 findings recorded as fixed; one settled through an owner-ratified revision of the criterion.
- 1,111tests reported green in two tiers
- The committed completion record reports 1,111 tests green in both the hermetic and explicit live-host tiers. The sealed private evidence set does not contain the exact final raw test log, JUnit output, or retained CI artifact for that run, so the result is reported rather than independently reproduced.
Three final-round findings were recorded as defects introduced by earlier corrective work, and a fix is still a new change and must earn its own confidence.
The full lesson set
Tempting shortcut
Working principle
Tempting shortcut: Treat a corrective change as evidence that the issue is closed.
Working principle: A fix is a new change, not proof.
Corrective work can introduce new defects. A closed finding is a disposition; confidence still depends on evidence about the state that actually changed.
Tempting shortcut: Collect evidence without making any action depend on it.
Working principle: Evidence collection is not enforcement.
A system can retain excellent evidence and still permit the wrong action. A control becomes meaningful when missing or invalid evidence blocks the side effect it is meant to govern.
Tempting shortcut: Check a condition only after publication or release has begun.
Working principle: Fail closed before the side effect.
Detecting a control failure after an artifact has been published, a release has moved, or an external state has changed is not equivalent to preventing it.
Tempting shortcut: Treat an approval as proof that the same state was ultimately released.
Working principle: Approval is not release.
A human decision applies to an identified state. Release discipline is what keeps that approved identity intact as it moves into a durable public artifact.
Tempting shortcut: Present the result without the boundaries of the evidence.
Working principle: Limitations belong in the result.
Honest boundaries make a claim more useful. A meaningful assurance statement explains what was not reviewed, retained, replayed, or independently validated.
Evidence boundary
Every boundary note, in full.
The independent-review package has been prepared; the independent review has not yet been performed.
The read-only technical audit role was separate from implementation, but this should not be confused with an external or institutionally independent audit.
The operational system source and sealed private evidence archive are not contained in the public repository. A public digest commits to a sealed manifest; it does not disclose or independently validate the private evidence.
The test count is a claim reported by the committed completion record. It was not independently replayed from preserved final raw logs.
The absence of a recorded CRITICAL finding is not equivalent to proof that no critical defect existed.
Independent-review package prepared; the independent review has not yet been performed.
Public artifact catalogue
Each material claim can be followed to a public source reference, evidence class, and qualification boundary.
docs/
System and evidence
release/
Identity and publication
review/
Prepared review materials
The independent-review package is prepared and public. The independent review has not yet been performed.
Each artifact is governed by the license stated in its source file; no repository-wide license claim is made here.
This map describes the public project record; it does not establish external certification, institutional audit independence, or production deployment.
| Artifact | What it contains | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Public project record | Overview, public evidence index, repository history | github.com · repository |
| System design | Authority model, role separation, evidence structure, release path | github.com · system overview |
| Assurance method | How findings, corrections, owner decisions, and release actions are distinguished | github.com · assurance method |
| Public claim register | Claims mapped to source references, evidence classes, and qualification boundaries | github.com · public evidence index |
| Signed immutable release | v1.0.0 release, annotated tag, checksums, release notes | github.com · release v1.0.0 |
| Release identity | Release commit and release-evidence workflow record | github.com · release commit |
| Limitations | Stated limitations and reassessment conditions | github.com · limitations |
| Independent-review package | Prepared review brief; the review has not yet been performed | github.com · review brief |
Citable archive
The current public record links the DOI issued for v1.0.0 and the all-versions concept DOI. The immutable release notes correctly retain the “pending” status that applied at publication.