16 — Self-Review vs Acceptance Criteria

Acceptance criteria (mission §19)

#	Criterion	Met?	Evidence
1	KB laws/designs were read	✅	Đ24/26/28/29/30/31/32/35/37 + Đ20/23/45 located; 3 GPT-direction docs; prior RP packages mined (docs 01,03,06–10)
2	Live PG governance substrate inspected	✅	30+ read-only queries: governance_registry/relations/audit_log, normative_registry, law_jurisdiction, dot_domains, approval spine, apr_approvals, taxonomy_facets, pivot_definitions, system_issues, event_type_registry, constraints, column-spread scan (doc 02)
3	Law / Authority / Approval SSOT separated	✅	doc 01 (A1/A2/A3) explicitly separates the six layers
4	Điều 37 interpreted	✅	doc 03 — 10 questions + §4.12/§1/§5 verbatim + candidate owners
5	Đ24/26/35/32 considered (+31/30/29/28/45)	✅	docs 06 (24/29), 07 (26), 08 (35), 10 (32), 09 (31/19), 01 (45/28/30)
6	Central vs local governance risks identified	✅	doc 01 cross-layer table + doc 04 island review
7	grouping/classification/pin/phantom/pivot/DOT mapped to central governance	✅	doc 04 per-artifact map + doc 05 unified model
8	Local-governance-island risks marked	✅	doc 04 (LGIR on display_policy #2, registry_pin #7) + doc 11
9	Gap matrix exists	✅	doc 11 (18 areas + roll-up)
10	Recommendation is clear	✅	doc 12 — Option 4, opinionated, with authority map
11	Go/no-go list exists	✅	doc 13 (4 buckets)
12	Law/design patch outline exists	✅	doc 14 (P1/P2/P-PIN/P-DRIFT/P-REG/P3–P7)
13	No unsafe mutation occurred	✅	read-only role + KB writes only; forbidden-compliance (doc 00)

Result: PASS.

Forbidden-list compliance (mission §18)

No PG mutation · no Directus mutation · no Qdrant/vector write · no Nuxt/UI implementation · no route change · no law enactment · no approval creation · no self-approval · no new governance owner created · no table created · no schema change · no event/job/notification emit · no hardcode introduced · no local-governance design as the final recommendation (Option 4 reuses central spine; the only "NEW" items are DOT rows authored under Đ35 + additive issue/event rows + law clauses — all approval-gated, all proposals). ✅

Method integrity / limitations

• Live-verify before authoring (per the project prompt standard): every numeric/structural claim re-queried against live PG 2026-06-01; subagent law reads were faithful and quoted.
• Subagent corrections folded in: the requested knowledge/dev/architecture/* law paths are deleted; canonical enacted laws live under knowledge/dev/laws/ (dieu24/26/28/29/30/31/32/35/37). Đ37 architecture-draft path returned deleted; the enacted v3.3 was read from laws/.
• Drift surfaced honestly: enacted Đ37 v3.3 vocabulary ≠ live governance tables (P-DRIFT); governance_docs UI index ≠ normative_registry; the live capability JSON is un-enacted. These are reported, not smoothed over.
• Counts are point-in-time (approval/issue/event counts fluctuate; e.g. apr_approvals=42, governance_registry=9, normative_registry=47, dot_domains=46, law_jurisdiction classification/pivot owners Đ24/26). The structural conclusions (agency-orphaned classification/pivot domains; no per-table gov columns; NO_APPROVAL_FOUND for RP artifacts; os_proposal_approvals=0) are stable.
• Source files (Nuxt) not directly read: read_file allowlist excludes the nuxt repo; Đ28-violation specifics are cited from prior grep-verified KB findings + memory, flagged as such (doc 01 A6).
• Đ32/Đ35 sections empty in PG: law text read from KB docs instead (kb_path NULL for those rows is itself a minor SSOT gap).

Confidence

• High: the six-layer SSOT separation; classification/pivot domains are agency-orphaned; no governed-object columns exist system-wide; approval spine is the only valid one and NO RP approval exists; Đ35 fully covers grouping DOTs; Đ24/Đ29 already centralize labels/classification.
• Medium: the exact best host law for the threshold (Đ24 vs Đ29) and pin (Đ28 vs new sub-domain) clauses — flagged for council; whether to adopt P3 object-edge widening system-wide.
• The recommendation (Option 4) is robust to those medium-confidence choices because it assigns ownership by existing law adjacency regardless of where the new clauses ultimately land.

One-line verdict

The central governance model is real and sufficient to govern grouping/classification/pivot without any local island — the missing pieces are agency-owner assignment (Council/SIV), three law clauses (threshold/phantom/pin), and additive issue/event types — all reuse/extend, all approval-gated, none to be built locally.