Add A17, the knowledge store contract (Outline) #22

Merged
dongar merged 2 commits from a17-knowledge-store into main 2026-09-08 19:25:00 +00:00
2 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5 9362a134c9 Give A17 its canonical event, and point Part G at the contract
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 58s
Two loose ends in the A17 amendment, both found by asking whether the
build order needed changing:

- A17 requires retrieved content to be snapshotted into the canonical
  log, but A10's event table — the authoritative list — had no row for
  it, so an implementer reading A10 would never know to add one.
  knowledge_retrieved now carries the text as read, the document ID,
  its revision, and when it was read
- Part G step 10 already scheduled Outline, so the ordering does not
  change; it now names A17 rather than only Part D, and says which
  half arrives first — the world model, with operator procedures
  waiting on the C2 taxonomy they bind to

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-08 19:23:17 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5 b8ba683595 Add A17, the knowledge store contract (Outline)
CI / checks (push) Skipped
CI / checks (pull_request) Successful in 1m3s
Part D said what Outline is for but never how to build against it —
the only external integration with no A-series component, while
Transport, LLM, Browser, Secrets, SSO and Logging all have one. A17
supplies the contract.

Settled here:

- Sharing is read access, never write access. Every document has
  exactly one writer, so concurrent writers never exist and Part D's
  last-write-wins objection disposes of itself. Default shared
  membership is operator + nisse-ops; nisse-dev gets private space
  only, since B3 seals it from the LAN and a shared network map is a
  map of what it is sealed from
- Agent-owned knowledge is always a cache, never authority: rely on
  it to know what exists and where to look, verify a specific fact
  against the live system before acting on it
- Enforcement is structural, because a prompt is not enforcement. A
  model cannot be stopped from believing what it reads, so the
  enforceable goal is narrower — an unverified belief must not become
  an irreversible action — and four mechanisms carry it, leaning
  hardest on surfacing provenance at the human gate that C2 already
  requires
- Never an instruction channel and never an approval channel, stated
  both here and in A4 where approvals are specified
- Corrections flow through transport rather than direct edits, which
  is better provenance: a hand edit is invisible to the agent's
  record, an instruction is authenticated, logged, and reconcilable.
  Break-glass reuses Part F's idle flag
- Retrieved content is snapshotted into the canonical log, since A10
  forbids a mutable provider handle being the only reference — with
  the A3 consequence that boot must re-fetch snapshots for resumed
  tasks
- Outage posture is asymmetric: write failures never block, but a
  failed read of a procedure bound to a confirm-first action gates,
  because proceeding is acting unconstrained on exactly the operation
  someone wrote a procedure for

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-08 19:20:43 +00:00