GPT Direction — Governance Alignment Audit for Registries-Pivot Grouping

Date: 2026-05-31 Reviewer: GPT Council

Decision

Use Claude Code CLI first, not Claude Desktop, because this question requires live KB/PG/source inspection. The mission should be an audit and independent proposal, not implementation.

After Claude Code CLI produces the evidence-backed governance alignment report, a second critique can be sent to Claude Desktop/Cowork if desired.

Problem statement

Registries-Pivot grouping/classification/pin/phantom/pivot coverage is being discussed as if it were local Registries governance. That is dangerous. It must be integrated into the system-wide governance model: governance_registry, approval_requests, apr_approvals, workflow_change_requests, system_issues, event_outbox, DOT governance, and Điều 37 no-orphan/no-double-ownership principles.

Required audit

Claude Code CLI must independently inspect:

• Điều 37 and related governance laws;
• governance_registry and capability structure;
• approval spine;
• DOT governance;
• Pivot law;
• Label/taxonomy law;
• existing registries-pivot design/report packages;
• live PG artifacts for grouping/pin/phantom/pivot.

Expected output

A governance alignment report that answers:

1. What is the current governance architecture?
2. Where is it centralized and where is it fragmented?
3. Which Registries-Pivot proposed artifacts risk becoming local governance islands?
4. Which existing governance owner should own grouping/classification/pin/phantom/pivot-coverage policy?
5. What law/design patches are needed?
6. What should be implemented only after approval?
7. What should never be implemented locally?

No PG mutation, no UI implementation, no law enactment.