KB-7C01

Supertrack C — RP-02 Retention Authority Review

3 min read Revision 1
fix7architecturet1-reviewrp02retentionsupertrack-c

03 — Supertrack C: RP-02 retention authority review

Verdict: RP02_VERIFIED.

Codex selected T1 option i (preferred): retention lives inside the already-counted authority surface storage_class_manifest #05 — no 28th surface, no separate retention table.

Checklist

Criterion Result Basis
retention authority in storage_class_manifest #05 fields retention_interval_seconds, partition_capacity_rows, archive_required, archive_storage_class_id (doc 04)
no 28th hidden authority surface option i; "Exactly 27 authority surfaces remain" (doc 04); cross-impact "no retention table" (doc 08)
retention fields sealed / versioned / hash-bound / owner-controlled storage-class item hash flows through manifest payload into H01/H02; "retention change is a new sealed version with quorum/epoch/evidence"
Directus cannot edit storage_class_manifest is owner-only control-plane; Directus no DML
values enter readiness / control-state hash storage-class item → manifest_set payload → H01 (plan-content) + H02 (control-state)
no numeric literal controls retention outside manifest "No numeric policy literal or separate retention table exists"; generic partition/archive engines read only the ACTIVE sealed row
partition / archival coherent at scale RP-01 high-volume tables bind storage_class_item_id; CP-08 doc 09 archive flow (copy → readback → hash-verify → detach bytes, retain metadata/URI/sha256/lifecycle); failure to read archived evidence invalidates dependent proof; seal rejects archive-required row with no valid immutable-versioned archive target

Notes / coherence with CP-08

CP-08 doc 09 states retention "is advisory for current scale because growth follows plans/runs, not business-object count, but it becomes blocking before any retention action or when evidence partitions exceed their sealed capacity threshold." This is a scale-gated escalation, not a routed-later authority hole: the policy values are sealed now; only the maintenance action is operator-gated and evidence-bound. Consistent with fail-closed posture.

Conclusion

RP-02 is fully resolved with zero new authority surface and no retention literal. No proposal.

Back to Knowledge Hub knowledge/dev/reports/architecture/t1-fix7-rp-corrected-design-short-review-2026-06-07/03-rp02-retention-authority-review.md