Pouya/adr-sml
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: rule Q62 by stating the truth; strike the /med-arb/ gloss; re-stamp R18

Browse Source 
Pouya's four rulings of 2026-09-01, applied 2026-09-02.

Q62 — RULED "state the truth", not "remove the access". /legal/privacy/
now says two people can read the intake table, names their role, and adds
the two stronger facts the false sentence had crowded out: the handler
role holds PutItem only, and adr-sml-deploy is implicitDeny on all seven
read and write actions. Wording is subject to Pouya's read-through —
Q63(a), with a TODO(pouya) beside the copy.

The ruling named one sentence; a vocabulary sweep found the falsehood in
three places, and the audit then found two more. Five paragraphs now
answer "who can see it" and change together.

The tripwire stays permanently, per ruling, and grew from two
alternatives to five. Every alternative is one string that reached dist/.
Proven both ways against the pre-correction page rebuilt from bd282aa:
exit 1 with 5 matches at dist/legal/privacy/index.html:54,67,67,68,72;
exit 0 on the corrected page, self-test 12 patterns / 36 approved
strings.

/med-arb/ — the gloss is struck with no replacement, per ruling. The
strike left "the section above" pointing at the ADRIC rule set and "the
agreement" with no antecedent; both fixed. The bare designations line
sitting under ADRIC's quoted competence requirement is also struck, which
goes beyond the ruling and is flagged for Pouya.

R18 — re-stamped, two-tier: (a)(c)(d) re-verified against a source,
(b)(e)(f)(g) held on a cadence judgement. All seven hold, no shipped
sentence changed. R18's trigger had NO cutover checklist item and had
stamped five extracts of seven; both fixed. Candidate limb (h) flagged.

R10 — fired and unsatisfied; left open on instruction.

The evidence behind the new privacy sentence was weaker than the
sentence. Re-measured: 33 of 33 roles simulated (23 of 26 carried inline
policies nobody had read; the two CDK lookup roles can read the table),
four trust policies, the CloudFormation escalation path for all five
users, 0 federated providers, root recorded. Every read path terminates
at the same two people.

Two review rounds, 36 findings. 35 fixed, 1 declined. Five of round 2's
were defects in round 1's own fixes; stopped at two per D19.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5
This commit is contained in:
Pouya Lajevardi
2026-09-02 07:59:50 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent bd282aa47d
commit 6aaf089b05
16 changed files with 1181 additions and 126 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/06-deployment.md
+124 -16
View File
@@ -395,19 +395,49 @@ Then invalidate `/*`.
> reversing them puts 22 of 23 pages behind a 403 for as long as a CloudFront
> deployment takes.
> 🛑 **THREE THINGS BLOCK THIS ENTIRE LIST AS AT 2026-09-01, AND TWO OF THEM WERE
> FOUND BY READING THE RUNNING SYSTEM RATHER THAN THE SPECS.**
> 🛑 **TWO THINGS BLOCK THIS ENTIRE LIST AS AT 2026-09-02, AND ONE OF THEM IS A
> WAITING PERIOD RATHER THAN A TASK.**
>
> 1. **`/legal/privacy/` states something false about who can read the intake
> table** — §9 **Q62**, evidence in
> `docs/reference/intake-table-access-verification.md`. A privacy policy is
> the wrong page to be wrong on, and this one is wrong about third parties'
> dispute information.
> 2. **Q60 is still open** — TTL is `ENABLED` and no record has been watched to
> disappear, and the same page asserts the mechanism. `docs/09` Part 10 is the
> test and its answer arrives days after it starts, so **start it early**.
> 3. **`claims-auditor`'s D20 pass returned six copy findings on 2026-09-01;
> five are corrected and one is a ruling** — the `/med-arb/` gloss, below.
> *(This said ONE for part of 2026-09-02, and that was a defect: the wording
> approval Pouya reserved had been recorded only inside records marked closed —
> the `TODO(pouya)` deleted, Q62 struck, this callout ticked — so when Q60 passed,
> nothing would have stopped unapproved copy publishing. `adversarial-reviewer`,
> D20 pass round 1.)*
>
> 1. **Q60 — the retention MECHANISM has still not been observed.** TTL is
> `ENABLED` and no record has been watched to disappear, and
> `/legal/privacy/` asserts the mechanism, not merely the period. `docs/09`
> Part 10 is the test; its earliest useful reading is **48 hours** after the
> record is written and it does not call failure before **7 days**, so
> **start it before anything else on this page.** It is the one blocker that
> is a waiting period rather than a task.
> 2. **Q63 — `/legal/privacy/` needs two answers from Pouya**, both in the same
> read-through: **(a)** approval of the §Who can see it wording, which he
> reserved when he ruled Q62 (*"Pouya gives final approval on wording during
> his page read-through"*), and **(b)** who else can read
> `info@smlcompany.ca`, which this repository does not establish. (b) is
> written so nothing false publishes either way; (a) is a straight gate. See
> the unticked item under **Copy and claims** below.
>
> ✅ **CLOSED 2026-09-02 — Q62.** `/legal/privacy/` no longer states anything
> false about who can read the intake table. Pouya's ruling was **state the
> truth**, not remove the second administrator's access: the page now says two
> people can read it, names their role, and adds the two stronger facts the
> false sentence had been crowding out — the writing function cannot read the
> table, and the deploy credential has no access to it at all. The
> `sole-administrator-q62` tripwire in `check-claims.mjs` **stays permanently**
> by the same ruling, extended from two alternatives to **five**: the clause the
> first form could not see two sections up the same page, the summary that would
> have re-asserted the struck number four lines below the corrected paragraph,
> and the sentence that carried the false count. Proven both ways against the
> pre-correction page rebuilt from `bd282aa` — **exit 1 with 5 matches**, exit 0
> on the corrected page.
> **Wording is subject to Pouya's read-through — §9 Q63(a), and it has its own
> unticked item below.**
>
> ✅ **CLOSED 2026-09-02 — the `/med-arb/` gloss.** Struck, with no replacement
> and no competence claim, per ruling. The ADRIC-sourced material carries the
> section.
**Cutover prep — deferred maintenance, done BEFORE the checklist below**
@@ -464,8 +494,28 @@ the decision is re-readable rather than re-litigated.
instruments its extract checked — and its own note then disclaimed that
conclusion as the Commissioner's words; `/med-arb/` said the ADRIC Med-Arb
Rules were presented to the membership where the source says a **discussion
draft** was). Three remain and each has its own item below or above:
the `/med-arb/` gloss (a ruling), Q60, and Q62.
draft** was). ✅ **Two of the three remaining were ruled and closed
2026-09-02** — Q62 (the page now states the measured truth) and the
`/med-arb/` gloss (struck, no replacement).
⚠️ **AND THE PASS WAS RE-RUN OVER THOSE TWO FIXES ON 2026-09-02, WHICH IS
WHAT MAKES THE ITEM CLOSEABLE — IT RETURNED FAIL WITH EIGHT MORE.** This is
the same pass completing, not a per-step audit reinstated: a FAIL whose
fixes are never re-audited leaves *"findings resolved"* asserted rather than
checked. **Five of the eight were in the fixes themselves** — the
replacement copy reintroduced an absolute third-party negative of the
shape struck from this page on 2026-08-31, claimed an enumeration the
evidence file did not support, asserted *"the one other place a copy
exists"* when the inquirer's confirmation carries the whole submission,
left `LAST_UPDATED` at 31 August on the change set that rewrote the page's
central disclosure, and left *"your IP address"* standing when `docs/09`
Part 7.2 had said in terms to fold it into the Q62 edit. Two were on
`/med-arb/`: the struck gloss left *"the section above"* pointing at the
ADRIC rule set and *"the agreement"* with no antecedent, and the bare
designations line was left sitting directly under ADRIC's competence
quotation. One was declined with a reason (§Rules' heading — see the
Change Log). **All corrected or declined; the pass is clean on findings
and the item is open only on the human halves above.**
**Two things about that result are worth carrying forward.** The pass found
no defect in any claim about Pouya, his credentials or his designations —
@@ -478,6 +528,26 @@ the decision is re-readable rather than re-litigated.
have flagged correct copy and demanded the struck form. It read §4 instead.
That is the fifth stale claim found in that file and it is not the agent's
to fix
- [ ] 🛑 **POUYA HAS APPROVED THE `/legal/privacy/` §Who can see it WORDING —
§9 **Q63**(a).** Separate from the item below and narrower: Q62's ruling
settled what that section must **say**; he reserved the **wording**. The
draft is in `dist/` and quoted in
`docs/reference/intake-table-access-verification.md`.
⚠️ **THIS ITEM EXISTS BECAUSE THE GATE HAD NO MECHANISM.** On 2026-09-02
the `TODO(pouya)` was deleted from the source, Q62 was struck in §9 and the
blocker in the callout above was ticked — all correctly, and the net effect
was that the only surviving record of an **open** approval requirement was
prose inside three records marked ✅ CLOSED. When Q60's TTL test passes,
nothing mechanical or visual would have stopped copy Pouya has not read.
`adversarial-reviewer`, D20 pass round 1. The `TODO(pouya)` is reinstated
beside the copy and §9 Q63 is open; this is the third surface, and it is
the one a person following this list at cutover actually reads
- [ ] **Q63(b) answered, or accepted as unanswerable** — who else can read
`info@smlcompany.ca`. **Not a gate on truth**: the copy asserts no access
list, so nothing false publishes either way. It is a gate on **standards** —
the page answers the table half with a measured number and the mail half
without one, and a reader is entitled to the specific on both. If he
answers, the fact goes in §7 and §12 **R21**'s trigger covers it
- [ ] **Pouya has read every page against `AGENTS.md` §4.** The human pass. It is
the other half of D20 and it is not delegable — his reading is what the
per-step audit was traded for.
@@ -502,6 +572,29 @@ the decision is re-readable rather than re-litigated.
**§4 records yearly renewal for the OBA sections and the CTF only** — it
says nothing about ADRIC's or ADRIO's period, and an earlier version of
this line asserted "all renew yearly", which §4 does not support.
⚠️ **STILL OPEN AS AT 2026-09-02 AND IT IS A ONE-LINE ANSWER.** Pouya was
asked on 2026-09-02. It is **one of three** items waiting on him that are
not waiting periods — the other two are Q63(a)'s wording approval and his
own read-through, both above; the earlier form of this line called it the
only one, in a change set that added the other two
(`adversarial-reviewer`, round 2). The question: *"are ADRIC, ADRIO, the three OBA sections and the
CTF all still current?"* Answer it, then re-stamp §4 and `schema.ts` with
the cutover date. Do not tick this from the 2026-08-28 stamp — a stamp is
not a renewal receipt, which is the whole of R10.
- [x] ✅ **THE SEVEN VOLATILE `docs/reference/` EXTRACTS RE-CHECKED — `AGENTS.md`
§12 R18, whose trigger is the same "before any cutover" event R10 uses.** ⚠️ **THIS ITEM DID NOT EXIST UNTIL 2026-09-02 AND THAT
WAS THE DEFECT**: R18 names a cutover as its trigger and the cutover
checklist carried no item to fire it, which is Q22's shape — a documented
control living somewhere it cannot run. R10 was on this list; R18 was not.
**Re-checked 2026-09-01 by Pouya. All seven hold and no shipped sentence
changed.** Three were re-verified against a source and four are held
unchanged on a cadence judgement rather than a fresh retrieval — the
distinction is stamped per limb in `AGENTS.md` §12 R18 and in each
extract, because "re-checked" and "not looked at, judged slow" are not the
same stamp and collapsing them is how OCNI lapsed.
**Re-fire this on the next republish that turns on one of them**, and note
that the fastest mover — Bill C-36 — needs no page edit while it sits at
second reading and needs one the day it does not.
- [ ] **The OBA sections stay listed; the LSO stays out** — a check that nobody
has tidied the two into one list, not an open question. `AGENTS.md` **Q51
answered 2026-08-28**: the Law Society is the **regulator**, so membership
@@ -814,8 +907,23 @@ the decision is re-readable rather than re-litigated.
Not a conformance failure of the same shape as Q61: a partial obscuring is
not SC 2.4.11, which is about a component **entirely** hidden. `docs/02`
§Reflow carries the 777-cell grid
- [ ] ⚠️ **THE `/med-arb/` GLOSS NEEDS A RULING — `claims-auditor`, D20 pass,
finding 1.** §Why this practice says *"Med-arb is not a third service
- [x] ✅ **THE `/med-arb/` GLOSS — RULED AND STRUCK, 2026-09-02.** Pouya:
*"strike the gloss sentence. The ADRIC-sourced material carries the page.
No replacement claim, no competence claim."* Applied: the definitional
gloss is struck. ⚠️ **AND SO IS THE DESIGNATIONS CLAUSE THAT THE FIRST
VERSION OF THIS ITEM SAID WAS "NOW THE LEDE" — corrected 2026-09-02,
`adversarial-reviewer` round 2, which found this line describing a page
state the same change set had deleted.** Round 1 of the closing claims
pass found that a bare `DESIGNATIONS_HELD_LINE` sitting directly beneath
§Rules' quotation of ADRIC requiring *"a high level of practitioner
competence"* read as meeting that bar. **§Why this practice now carries an
acceptance sentence and no credential claim at all**; `/about/` publishes
the designations and the JSON-LD carries them. The constraint is recorded
in the section's own comment in `src/pages/med-arb.astro`. **The original
finding is kept below unstruck**, because it is the reasoning behind a
paragraph that is deliberately thin, and a later reader who cannot see why
will fill it.
`claims-auditor`, D20 pass, finding 1: §Why this practice said *"Med-arb is not a third service
bolted onto mediation and arbitration; it is the two of them run under one
agreement"*, and one section above the page publishes ADRIC's own words:
med-arb is *"not merely the merging of separate mediation and arbitration