KB-1354
12 — Self-Review vs Acceptance Criteria
5 min read Revision 1
self-reviewacceptancegovernanceregistries-pivotfact-finding
12 — Self-Review vs Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria (mission §6)
| # | Criterion | Met? | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GOV-SIV status resolved or blocker documented | ✅ | doc 01 — GOV_SIV_READY (active, Đ31, 22 DOTs) |
| 2 | GOV-MOUT status resolved or blocker documented | ✅ | doc 02 — GOV_MOUT_DRAFT_OR_INCOMPLETE (draft, Đ7 not Đ28, no edges; Đ28 orphaned) |
| 3 | GOV-COUNCIL policy authority resolved or blocker | ✅ | doc 03 — GOV_COUNCIL_NEEDS_CAPABILITY_PATCH (assignor ready; threshold/phantom/pin need law) |
| 4 | GOV-DOT status resolved or blocker | ✅ | doc 04 — GOV_DOT_READY (Đ35 A/B + ops + pairing live) |
| 5 | Audit spine resolved or blocker | ✅ | doc 05 — USE_EXISTING_AUDIT_SPINE_INSTEAD + governance_audit_log ready-but-dormant |
| 6 | Approval spine capability resolved or blocker | ✅ | doc 06 — APPROVAL_SPINE_READY (object changes) + law-enactment handler RESERVED exception |
| 7 | Direct-PG exception resolved or blocker | ✅ | doc 07 — DIRECT_PG_EXCEPTION_UNRATIFIED_BLOCKER (no approval, no vps_deploy_log, Đ41 orphaned) |
| 8 | Capability gap matrix exists | ✅ | doc 08 |
| 9 | Issue/event type gap exists | ✅ | doc 09 |
| 10 | Design impact recommendation clear | ✅ | doc 10 — PARTIAL; confirmed vs needs-approval vs needs-law |
| 11 | No unsafe mutation occurred | ✅ | read-only role context_pack_readonly; only SELECT/information_schema/pg_catalog; KB writes = this report package only |
Overall: PASS.
Forbidden compliance (mission §5)
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 · no table creation · no schema change · no event/job/notification emit · no hardcode · no design doc patched. ✅ All observed.
Method notes & honesty flags
- Re-verified live, did not trust prior docs. ~30 live read-only queries. Where live diverged from the prior audit, I corrected it: (a) GOV-MOUT born of Đ7, not Đ28 (prior said "law Đ28"); (b) Đ28 and Đ41 are agency-orphaned (no owner edge, no/▏1 enforcing DOT); (c)
approval_requests= 211 live (prior doc said 195); (d) the law-enact-via-APR requests (id 204–210) arerejecteddespite 21 apr_approvals —amend_law/enact_nrmhandlers areunimplemented. - New finding not in prior audit: the RP production ship has no
vps_deploy_logentry (18 rows, all S178-Fix) → the direct-pg path is not merely unapproved, it is un-ledgered under Đ41. - Limitation flagged: the direct-pg source (
rpGatewayDb.ts,server/api/registries-pivot/*) is at/opt/incomex/docker/nuxt-repo/web, outside theread_fileallow-list (/opt/incomex/docs,/opt/incomex/dot/specs,/var/log/nginx) and compiled into the Nuxt image. Q7's code-presence facts are documented (KB + memory), not re-read live — explicitly marked as such in doc 07. The runtime read pool's exact DB role (RP_PG_*) could not be independently confirmed via the read-only channel. pg_schemaMCP tool is broken (uncast$1parameter,AmbiguousParameter); schema facts obtained viainformation_schema/pg_catalogSELECTs throughquery_pginstead.
Biggest remaining uncertainties
- Render-owner path. Activating GOV-MOUT and resolving Đ28's orphaned ownership is more work than a one-line assignment; the cleanest binding (MOUT owns Đ28 vs Council holds Đ28 and delegates) is a Council decision, not derivable from PG.
- Direct-pg ratify vs replace. Whether to ratify a read-only adapter (Đ41/Đ33 clause) or eliminate it via Directus view-PK exposure depends on the Directus PK-less-view 403 constraint's fixability — not testable read-only here.
- Law-enactment mechanics. With
amend_law/enact_nrmhandlers unimplemented, the exact sanctioned manual-enact procedure for P1/P2/P-PIN (ADMIN-fallbackdot-nrm-enactvs a future handler) needs Council confirmation. - Object-edge decision (prior P3). Whether to widen
governance_relations.target_typeCHECK or canonicalize domain-ownership is a system-wide call beyond RP.
Confidence
High on all PG-observable facts (agency statuses, edges, schemas, counts, vocab, deploy ledger, approvals). Medium on the direct-pg code specifics (documented, not re-read). The four uncertainties above are decisions, not missing facts.