06 — No-Hardcode / No-Local-Governance-Island Check + Forbidden-Compliance

Verifies this patch against the constitutional guardrails (prompt-muc-tieu-mo §5: no_hardcode_absolute, discover_first_reuse_first, five-layer sync, Design-Only Macro Mode) and the mission §4 forbidden list.

6.1 No-hardcode check (the patch content itself)

The concept layer is the anti-hardcode layer; the patch was checked so it does not itself introduce a hidden hardcode.

Check	Result
No fixed axis array introduced	✅ — open-axis model (M-DEF-8/9) is explicitly "no fixed axis array anywhere"; future axis = Axis-Registry row, not code.
The one existing substrate hardcode is surfaced, not hidden	✅ — SB-3 (iu_three_axis_envelope hardcodes 3 axes) is named in canon 01 §8, 02 §3, 03, Reg-Pivot 07, and the IU patch. The patch states "no fixed axis array" concept-true, substrate-false until SB-3 generalized — it does not pretend the substrate is already open.
No fixed object-class list pretending to be code	✅ — 13 classes + Class 0 are a data registry (M-DEF-2); new type = data row.
No literal owner/threshold baked into a concept	✅ — ownership is relational (no owner_gov_code column; canon 01 §2); the 50-ceiling is a per-species policy value in the Axis Registry, not a hardcoded constant (Reg-Pivot 07 patch).
count>1 not hardcoded as a mandate	✅ — M-DEF-10 makes it a candidacy trigger; the rule is data/predicate-driven (shared-truth + grain), not a fixed action.

6.2 No-local-governance-island check

Check	Result
Did the patch create a second governance roof?	✅ No — the concept canon centralizes under Điều 37 (one roof); surfaces reference it (anti-bloat), they do not mint local owners/approvals.
Did any patched surface doc declare a local owner/approval/lifecycle?	✅ No — Reg-Pivot 00 explicitly states the surface "mints no local owner/approval/policy/lifecycle" and that any such declaration = LOCAL_GOVERNANCE_ISLAND.
Is the island definition itself carried (dual PG + CI detection)?	✅ — canon 01 §5; Reg-Pivot 06 patch names both channels.
Is the new concept canon itself an island?	✅ No — it is the Điều 37 OWN layer (the central definitions), not a parallel governance authority. It binds no owners and creates no approvals; it is a concept proposal awaiting the council/human surface.
IU island risk	✅ Carried, not created — the IU patch states IU "must not maintain a governance island" and defers owner-binding (OP-B) rather than minting a local IU owner. The live 54-command dot_iu_command_catalog island and free-text owner_ref are flagged as the existing condition OP-B must resolve, not endorsed.

6.3 discover_first / reuse_first

✅ The patch discovered the canonical design home (knowledge/dev/design/) and the real targets before editing (doc 02). It reuses the existing surface docs (append-only concept sections) and the existing Round-4 clause cards (transcribed into the canon), rather than authoring duplicate governance content. Ownership stays relational (reuses governance_registry + relations + law_jurisdiction), not new columns.

6.4 Five-layer sync impact

✅ None. The patch touches only the AgentData/KB layer (concept design docs). PG, Directus, Nuxt, and Qdrant are untouched. There is no cross-layer divergence to reconcile because no other layer changed.

6.5 Forbidden-action compliance (mission §4 + §6)

Forbidden	Complied?
PG schema implementation	✅ none
DOT implementation	✅ none
scanner SQL / view / function	✅ none
issue / event registration	✅ none
apply / remediation binding	✅ none
object/axis ownership table design beyond approved concept references	✅ none — table is referenced as a C-1/SB-2 blocker, not designed
IU surface / binding technical design	✅ none — IU concept-only; OP-B/SB-3 held
production UI / API / route	✅ none
law enactment	✅ none
normative_registry / law_catalog / governance_docs write	✅ none
approval / self-approval	✅ none
version numbers / status change	✅ none (see §6.6)
anything that pretends blockers are solved	✅ none — §3.7 deferred-technical declaration + every Blockers line
PG / Directus / Qdrant / Nuxt mutation	✅ none — KB document patch/create only

6.6 The "no version bump" nuance (transparency)

patch_document advanced each edited doc's KB revision field (1→2). This is the KB store's automatic per-edit counter — it is not a semantic version bump:

• No design document's declared version was changed (Registries-Pivot stays v0.1; IU foundation carries no version; the canon docs are new, no prior version).
• No status line was changed (all remain DESIGN-ONLY / DRAFT / NOT ratified).
• No law version (Đ37 v3.3, etc.) was touched; normative_registry was not written.

The revision increment is unavoidable when appending a section and is recorded here for completeness, not as a violation of "no version bump."

6.7 No-mutation confirmation

• PG / Directus / Qdrant / Nuxt: zero mutation — no such tool invoked for writes this session.
• KB: 13 writes = 4 concept-canon upload_document (new) + 9 report upload_document (new) + 7 patch_document (append-only sections on existing canonical docs). No delete; no existing content removed.
• Net effect on system truth = zero new enacted/ratified state. Additive concept-design + reporting only.