GPT Review — 23-P3D4 Prompt rev2 Law Jurisdiction Patch Required

Date: 2026-05-08
Reviewer: GPT-5.5 Thinking / Incomex Hội đồng AI
Reviewed: knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/prompts/23-p3d4-directus-exposure-design-review-prompt.md rev2

Verdict

Rev2 is substantially improved, but do not dispatch yet. Rev3 required.

Opus correctly applied the 9 requested fixes: mandatory law pre-read, Directus DOT-only boundary, Directus UI view-only, user no content editing in Directus, Nuxt no-code/TreeView standard, stricter read-only inventory, safer next pack naming, compliance checklist, and report evidence.

However, the User added a governing principle that must be explicit before P3D4 runs:

Each law owns its specialty. Use the correct tools/rules for that specialty. Do not overlap, duplicate, or let one layer invade another layer’s jurisdiction.

P3D4 is user-interaction/exposure design, so it must explicitly map law jurisdiction and prevent cross-layer drift.

Accepted rev2 improvements

• Mandatory law pre-read exists.
• Directus DOT-only boundary exists.
• Directus UI is view/inspect only.
• User does not edit IU content in Directus.
• Nuxt is no-code/no-business-logic.
• TreeView 2/3 column standard is documented.
• Directus and PG inventory are read-only.
• Recommendation options mention DOT/change package and controlled mark-read.
• Verification has law/compliance flags.

Required rev3 fixes

P1 — Add explicit “law jurisdiction / specialty ownership” section

Add a section after law pre-read:

Step 0B — Law Jurisdiction Map

It must state:

• PG/runtime notification logic belongs to PG-first / Assembly First / IU laws.
• Directus exposure belongs to Directus/DOT/data-connection rules.
• Nuxt display belongs to display-law / Điều 28 / TreeView rules.
• Human interaction rules belong to UI/display + data-connection boundaries.
• Agent/Codex dispatch belongs to user-approval/agent-operation rules.
• Hermes automation belongs to a later Hermes-specific review, not P3D4.

Hard rule:

No layer may solve another layer’s problem by bypassing that layer’s law/tooling.

Examples:

• Do not solve Directus exposure by coding Nuxt.
• Do not solve user interaction by editing PG directly from Nuxt.
• Do not solve workflow approval by manual Directus content edits.
• Do not solve Directus config by clicking UI; use reviewed DOT/change package later.
• Do not solve Hermes automation inside P3D4.

P2 — Add “no double / no overlap” compliance checklist

The design review note must include:

Law jurisdiction compliance:
- PG work stays in PG domain: PASS/FAIL
- Directus exposure stays in Directus/DOT domain: PASS/FAIL
- Nuxt display stays in display-only domain: PASS/FAIL
- User interaction does not bypass Directus: PASS/FAIL
- Directus does not become content-edit workflow: PASS/FAIL
- Nuxt does not become workflow/business logic: PASS/FAIL
- Hermes/agents not mixed into Directus exposure design: PASS/FAIL
- No duplicate implementation across PG/Directus/Nuxt: PASS/FAIL

P3 — Clarify Directus inventory may be API read-only, not UI operation

Rev2 already says Directus API read-only. Add one stricter sentence:

Do not use Directus UI as an operational/configuration surface. If Directus UI is opened at all, it is view-only inspection, equivalent to read-only inventory.

P4 — Make the report prove law pre-read was not superficial

Add report fields:

law_jurisdiction_map_included=PASS
law_overlap_check=PASS
constitution_no_violation=PASS
law07_pg_directus_nuxt_order_respected=PASS
data_connection_no_bypass=PASS
display_law_treeview_respected=PASS

P5 — Strengthen output recommendations to avoid implementation language

In recommendation options, use wording:

• “recommend next reviewed package” rather than “implement”;
• “candidate DOT/change package” rather than “Directus implementation”;
• “optional display assembly review” rather than “Nuxt work”.

This keeps P3D4 as review/inventory and avoids accidental execution mindset.

Directive to Opus

Patch P3D4 prompt rev2 to rev3 with P1–P5.

Path:

knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/prompts/23-p3d4-directus-exposure-design-review-prompt.md

Do not dispatch after patch. Return for GPT/User final review.

Hard boundaries remain

• No dispatch.
• No PG mutation.
• No Directus config mutation.
• No Directus content operation.
• No manual Directus UI changes.
• No Nuxt code.
• No Nuxt business logic.
• No proposal that makes Nuxt a source of workflow logic.
• No direct PG from Nuxt.
• No Codex dispatch without user approval.
• No Hermes production start.
• No law/tooling jurisdiction overlap.

Summary

P3D4 rev2 is strong but must explicitly encode the User’s governance principle: every specialty stays under its governing law and tooling. Rev3 should add a law jurisdiction map and no-overlap compliance checks so future execution cannot drift into Directus UI work, Nuxt code, or cross-layer shortcuts.