dot-iu-cutter v0.1 — Governance Closure Batch Review: G-1 / G-5 / G-3 / G-4

Date: 2026-05-15
Reviewer: GPT
Files reviewed: G-1 Threading Roles, G-5 Access-Control Authority, G-3 Capability-Intake Reviewer, G-4 DOT-Pair Signing Authority
Scope: Review only. No implementation, no migration, no PG mutation.

---

1. Verdict

batch_review_status: PASS_WITH_RATIFICATION_PACKAGE_REQUIRED
agent_revision_needed: false
implementation_planning_allowed: false
implementation_execution_allowed: false
next_step: create_council_ratification_package_for_all_5_governance_gaps

The four closure artifacts are acceptable and correctly scoped. They preserve the dependency chain, do not mark any gap as resolved prematurely, and keep G-5 as HIGH risk requiring council/risk ratification.

---

2. Gap Status Summary

Gap	GPT review	Current status
G-2 Backlog Custodian	PASS	proposed_closed_pending_council_ratification
G-1 Threading Roles	PASS	proposed_closed_pending_council_ratification
G-5 Access-Control Authority	PASS_WITH_HIGH_RISK_GUARDRAIL	proposed_closed_pending_council_and_risk_ratification
G-3 Capability-Intake Reviewer	PASS	proposed_closed_pending_council_ratification
G-4 DOT-Pair Signing Authority	PASS	proposed_closed_pending_council_ratification

---

3. Key Findings

1. Dependency chain is preserved: G-2 → G-1 ∥ G-5 → G-3 → G-4.
2. G-5 correctly treats audience-scope and wrong_audience_result as HIGH risk.
3. G-5 fail-closed default is correct: block + log + immediate Council notification when authority/deputy unavailable.
4. G-1 preserves user/AI disagreement routing and does not allow ungoverned thread creation.
5. G-3 correctly keeps TAC/KG capability intake in governance review and does not execute changes.
6. G-4 correctly requires dual-signature and blocks valid REPORT PASS without executor + verifier co-signing.
7. No file claims final resolution before Council ratification.
8. No implementation, DDL, SQL, migration, PG mutation, Qdrant change, or UI build was introduced.

---

4. GPT Decisions on Agent-Raised Issues

Issue 1 — G-5 User confirmation for Decisions 3 + 6

Decision: Require explicit User acknowledgement in the Council ratification package.

Reason: Decisions 3 and 6 are HIGH risk and affect information exposure. Even if formal governance says User confirmation is not strictly required, the safer operating decision is to record explicit User acknowledgement at ratification time.

Issue 2 — Mapping to existing Đ37 SOP vs new SOP sub-entry

Decision: Council must first attempt mapping to existing Đ37 roles. If mapping is insufficient, create only a SOP sub-entry, not a new governance organization.

Issue 3 — G-4 boundary policy via G-3 D4 intake

Decision: Accept indirect path via G-3 D4 capability intake, but require final Council co-sign for the executor/verifier boundary policy.

G-3 may prepare the capability-intake record; Council must ratify the boundary.

Issue 4 — G-5 fail-closed default

Decision: Accept fail-closed default.

If Access-Control Authority and Deputy are unavailable, wrong_audience_result handling defaults to block + log + immediate Council notification. It must never fail open.

---

5. Required Next Step

Create one consolidated Council Ratification Package covering all 5 governance gaps:

• G-2 Backlog Custodian
• G-1 Threading Roles
• G-5 Access-Control Authority
• G-3 Capability-Intake Reviewer
• G-4 DOT-Pair Signing Authority

The package must not mark gaps as resolved. It must prepare a Council ratification agenda and decision matrix.

---

6. Status

closure_artifacts_ready_for_council: true
council_ratification_package_needed: true
implementation_allowed: false
migration_design_allowed: false