dot-iu-cutter v0.1 — Đ32 P0 Risk Review Master

Date: 2026-05-15 Status: Đ32 P0 RISK REVIEW PHASE — ACTIVE (RISK REVIEW ONLY) Trigger: GPT review of P0 Migration Design Package returned PASS (see reviews/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-migration-design-package-gpt-review-2026-05-15.md). User has explicitly authorized opening of the Đ32 P0 Risk Review phase. Per GPT §3.1, run review in two lanes: Lane A standard items + Lane B HIGH-risk joint review for P0-3 / P0-4. Scope: RISK REVIEW ONLY. No code, no DDL, no SQL, no migration, no PG mutation, no Qdrant/vector mutation, no implementation planning, no implementation execution.

---

1. Phase Scope

This phase converts the 8-file P0 Migration Design Package (master + 6 per-item + 1 risk/coverage report) into a Đ32 risk review record. It records risk assessment per P0 item, consolidates cross-cutting decisions, and emits an explicit gate status for the next phase (implementation planning).

phase_id: dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-dieu32-p0-risk-review
phase_type: risk_review_only
phase_authorization: User prompt 2026-05-15 (post GPT PASS on P0 migration design package)
phase_inputs:
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-migration-design-master-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-migration-design-risk-coverage-report-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-1-canonical-address-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-2-manifest-envelope-unit-block-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-3-cut-change-set-rollback-key-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-4-verify-result-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-5-decision-backlog-entry-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - migration-design/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-6-review-decision-migration-design-2026-05-15.md
  - reviews/dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-migration-design-package-gpt-review-2026-05-15.md
phase_outputs:
  - this master (Đ32 risk-review master)
  - Lane A standard-items risk review (P0-5, P0-1, P0-2, P0-6)
  - Lane B HIGH-risk joint review (P0-3 + P0-4)
  - cross-cutting decision register (8 decisions)
  - Đ32 P0 risk review report (final gate status)
phase_completion_signals:
  - 5 files produced under knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/risk-review/
  - per-item risk class confirmed
  - per-item approval recommendation recorded
  - cross-cutting decisions classified by gate
  - explicit implementation_planning_allowed flag set in the report
phase_does_not_advance_to: implementation_planning OR implementation_execution
next_phase_gate: explicit prompt approval to open implementation planning (only if this review's report sets implementation_planning_allowed=true AND user prompts the next phase)

2. Hard Boundaries

no_code: true
no_ddl: true
no_sql: true
no_create_table: true
no_alter_table: true
no_column_ddl: true
no_index_ddl: true
no_constraint_ddl: true
no_trigger_function_or_rls_policy: true
no_migration_executed: true
no_pg_mutation: true
no_qdrant_mutation: true
no_directus_mutation: true
no_data_writes: true
no_implementation_planning: true
no_implementation_execution: true
no_modification_of_migration_design_files: true
no_modification_of_prior_design_planning_closure_ratification_review_files: true
output_form: risk_review_documentation_in_markdown_only

Risk-review documentation includes: risk-class confirmation, risk catalogue per item, required mitigations expressed at logical level, approval recommendation per item, blockers classified by gate (design / planning / execution), residual risk register, cross-cutting decision register.

Risk-review documentation EXCLUDES: SQL syntax, CREATE/ALTER statements, signing-scheme primitives, canonicalization-rule pseudocode, migration scripts, capacity plans, deploy schedules, run-books.

3. Review Method

3.1 Two-lane structure

Per GPT §3.1 of the migration-design-package review:

lane_a_scope:
  items: [P0-5, P0-1, P0-2, P0-6]
  risk_class: Standard
  review_unit: per-item
  approval_form: approve | approve_with_notes | reject
  reviewer: Đ32 (Standard path)
  co_reviewers:
    P0-5: G-2 Registry Custodian
    P0-1: Đ24 vocab owner + Đ0-G birth-gate owner
    P0-2: Đ44 family registry custodian + Đ24 vocab owner
    P0-6: Đ44 + Đ37 + G-5 (PII handling)

lane_b_scope:
  items: [P0-3, P0-4]
  risk_class: HIGH
  review_unit: joint (shared DOT-pair signature + shared rollback/verify safety)
  approval_form: approve | approve_with_notes | reject
  reviewer: Đ32 (HIGH-risk path)
  co_reviewers:
    P0-3: G-4 DOT Registry Custodian + Đ44 + Đ37
    P0-4: G-4 DOT Registry Custodian + Đ44 + Đ24 + Đ37

cross_cutting_decision_register:
  scope: 8 cross-cutting decisions per GPT §3.2
  recorded_in: dot-iu-cutter-v0.1-p0-cross-cutting-decision-register-2026-05-15.md
  decision_form: option list + recommendation + gate classification (must-resolve-before-planning vs must-resolve-before-execution)

3.2 Per-item risk-review fields

Each per-item review records:

risk_class: Standard | HIGH
main_risks: prioritized list, severity-tagged
required_mitigations: logical mitigations (no implementation)
approval_recommendation: approve | approve_with_notes | reject
blockers_before_implementation_planning: list (each item classifies whether it is design-level or planning-level)
residual_risk: items that persist past Đ32 approval; carried into planning and execution phases

3.3 What this review evaluates

evaluated:
  - risk-class assignment correctness (Standard vs HIGH)
  - per-item risk catalogue completeness vs source per-item designs §11 and §14
  - cross-law dependency coverage
  - rollback safety (HIGH-risk items only)
  - verify safety (HIGH-risk items only)
  - signature-related safety (HIGH-risk items only)
  - cross-cutting decision exposure
  - whether design-level decisions remain that must close before planning can begin

not_evaluated:
  - DDL form (out of scope; planning phase)
  - migration order in execution time (out of scope; planning phase)
  - operational seat naming for governance gaps (parallel operational phase)
  - cryptographic scheme primitives (deferred per P0-3 §9 item 2; out of scope here)
  - canonicalization rule v0.1 prose (deferred to Đ24 ratification; out of scope here)
  - dev/staging/prod migration scheduling (planning phase)

4. Risk Class Confirmation

GPT review §3.3 confirms the following classes; Đ32 master accepts them as the basis for Lane A vs Lane B routing.

P0 item	Risk class	Lane	Rationale
P0-5 decision_backlog_entry	Standard	A	Anti-forgetting infra; no direct data exposure
P0-1 canonical_address	Standard	A	Identity field; backfill carries data risk but no signature surface
P0-2 manifest_envelope + manifest_unit_block	Standard	A	Bootstrap-risk; new tables; vocabulary discipline surface
P0-6 review_decision	Standard	A	Mild PII surface (reviewer_identity); independence rule sits adjacent
P0-3 cut_change_set + rollback_key	HIGH	B	Criterion 28 binding; rollback authority; DOT-pair signature schema
P0-4 verify_result	HIGH	B	Criterion 28 concurrent; verify gate; canonicalization rule binding

Classes are not contested. Distribution: 4 Standard, 2 HIGH.

5. What This Review CAN Approve

within_scope_of_approval:
  - risk class per P0 item
  - logical-design completeness vs the per-item §11 risk catalogue
  - dependency graph integrity (P0-5 → P0-1 → P0-2 → P0-6 → P0-3 → P0-4)
  - joint-design preservation (P0-2 envelope+block; P0-3+P0-4 dot_pair_signature)
  - approval form per item (approve | approve_with_notes | reject)
  - classification of open decisions by gate (design-level vs planning-level vs execution-level)
  - whether implementation planning may open conditionally
  - residual risk register
  - cross-cutting decision register: which decisions block planning, which block execution

6. What This Review CANNOT Approve

out_of_scope_of_approval:
  - DDL / SQL / migration scripts (none exist; planning phase)
  - cryptographic signing scheme (deferred per P0-3 §9 item 2)
  - canonicalization rule prose (deferred per Đ24 ratification path)
  - axis_2 threshold elevation (D4 capability intake)
  - DOT-pair verifier separate execution-context implementation boundary (G-3 D4 capability intake)
  - operational seat naming for G-1..G-5 (parallel operational phase)
  - migration execution authorization (post implementation planning + final risk review + rollback dry-run)
  - retrieval-layer implementation (P1+ scope)
  - audience filter implementation (G-5 operational handoff)
  - P1/P2/P3 schema work (P0-only scope)
  - Đ44 Step 4 semantic_thread family (P2 phase)
  - PG-constraint enforcement of dual-signature rule (v0.1 application-layer is accepted; PG FUTURE)

7. Default Approval Stance

Per the user's expected stance:

lane_a_default_stance: approve_with_notes when risks are controlled at design level
lane_b_default_stance: approve_with_notes (not clean approve) unless every HIGH-risk mitigation is fully closed at design level
implementation_planning_gate_default: closed; may open only if Đ32 explicitly states all remaining blockers are planning-level (not design-level)
implementation_execution_gate_default: closed; remains closed regardless of this phase's outcome

8. File Skeleton (every Đ32 risk-review file follows this)

1. Purpose
2. Source inputs (controlling files reviewed)
3. Lane / item scope
4. Per-item risk class confirmation
5. Per-item main risks (prioritized)
6. Per-item required mitigations
7. Per-item approval recommendation
8. Per-item blockers before implementation planning (classified by gate)
9. Per-item residual risk
10. Joint-review surfaces (Lane B only)
11. Explicit "no DDL / no SQL / no migration / no PG mutation / no implementation" confirmation

9. Status

master_document_status: COMPLETE
files_in_package_target: 5 (this master + Lane A + Lane B + cross-cutting register + final report)
implementation_planning_allowed: false
implementation_execution_allowed: false
gpt_input: PASS verdict on P0 migration design package (2026-05-15)
no_code: true
no_ddl: true
no_sql: true
no_pg_mutation: true
no_qdrant_mutation: true
no_migration_design_file_modified: true
no_previous_phase_file_modified: true