"vollständig" still implied fulfillment. potentially_addresses now reads
"… adressiert N Pflichten direkt und M teilweise; K werden durch die Aussage
nicht berührt. … Dies ist keine Konformitätsaussage." Enum value kept
(potentially_addresses chosen over addresses_claimed for product clarity).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Architecture-validation finding: the implementation mode produced compliance-
flavored output ("teilweise erfüllt", "covered") from a mere customer claim,
blurring the line to the Execution layer. This is a design decision, not a text
fix — the reasoning layer judges only the customer's STATEMENT, never conformity.
- CoverageStatus -> ClaimCoverage; values are claim-relative + carry "potential":
potentially_addresses / partially_addresses / does_not_address /
insufficient_information.
- ImplementationAssessment -> ClaimObligationMapping (coverage_status ->
claim_coverage); ImplementationResponse -> ImplementationReasoningResponse
(assessments -> mappings, + explicit `disclaimer`); request renamed; engine
entry assess_implementation -> reason_implementation_claim.
- Endpoint /reasoning/implementation-assessment -> /reasoning/implementation-reasoning.
- Summary/explanations reworded: "adressiert wahrscheinlich N Pflichten … für
eine Bewertung der tatsächlichen Umsetzung sind Nachweise erforderlich (keine
Konformitätsaussage)". No "erfüllt"/"abgedeckt" leaks.
- New guard test asserts no compliance verdict leaks (no "erfüllt"; disclaimer
separates ClaimCoverage from ComplianceStatus). 23 tests green, mypy clean.
Discovery (scope/obligations) was already structurally claim-free and unaffected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Deterministic reasoning layer ON TOP of the Legal Knowledge Graph (obligation
registry) and the Compliance Execution Graph (control mapping/evidence). Answers
which regulations apply to a concrete product, which obligations follow, whether
the customer's implementation covers them, and whether a customer interpretation
is too narrow/broad/plausible.
- ProductProfile with tri-state facts (Optional[bool]=None => uncertain, never
false security); safe predicate evaluator (no eval).
- 6 regulation triggers (CRA/MaschinenVO/RED/EMV/DataAct/NIS2) with missing-fact
prompts; 24 obligation scope rules.
- CRA obligation_ids RE-USED verbatim from the registry (93 ids) — never re-minted
(control_uuid trap); Machine/Data-Act flagged proposed=True.
- required_evidence constrained to the framework-agnostic shared evidence catalog;
capabilities echo the planned Obligation->Capability layer.
- Overlap groups (CRA<->MaschinenVO cyber-safety) + evidence-for-multiple (USP).
- 4 endpoints POST /reasoning/{scope,obligations,implementation-assessment,
interpretation-assessment}; thin handlers, registered in api/__init__.py.
- 22 tests (5 machine-builder scenarios + 10 acceptance questions). No DB
migration, no RAG, no new controls.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds SI-7/SI-2/CM-7 to controls_for_obligation_mapping.json (7 OWASP -> 10),
mapping_type=primary_implementation (the single canonical control per obligation).
proposed_obligation_id left empty for the Registry to assign. Notes aligned to the
updates family (join_keys 93): SI-2 -> provide_security_updates (strong),
SI-7 -> signed_update_integrity (partial; SI-7 broader), CM-7 ->
remote_access_attack_surface_min (partial; CM-7 broader).
Origin-only (data/tooling; backend does not load obligations/* at runtime) -> no Orca.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
V6.x->user_authentication_required, V11.2.1->credential_confidentiality_protection,
V11.7.1->auth_key_management; semantisch (NICHT CRA-Anker, die sind approximativ).
V16.x pending bis Logging-Cut. anchor_quality_note dokumentiert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
obligations/controls_for_obligation_mapping.json — the Compliance Execution
Graph's accepted controls (V6 auth / V11 crypto / V16 logging) handed to the
Obligation Registry to propose the SEMANTIC control->obligation_id, replacing
the coarse citation_unit interim join (Befund 1). Registry fills
proposed_obligation_id; we then adopt it into control_mapping.obligation_id.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Macht meine Seite des Cross-Session-Vertrags konkret: obligation_id ist der stabile Join-Key
zwischen Legal Knowledge Graph (citation_spans -> obligation_id) und Compliance Execution Graph
(control_mapping.source_norm -> obligation_id). Export aller 47 obligation_ids (CRA: 11 sbom +
7 vuln + 29 auth) mit citation_units als Interim-Brücke. Disziplin: obligation_id nie neu
vergeben (re-link, Pendant zu span_id/control_uuid).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The last edge of the compliance graph: what concrete, fresh evidence proves a
framework control is met (config_export/test_report/sbom/audit_log/pentest/...
from github/ci/scanner/manual_upload, with a freshness requirement).
Seeded for all 7 accepted CRA->OWASP controls (Auth/Crypto/Logging). A graph
test enforces connectivity: every accepted control must carry >=1 required
evidence — no dangling node in Obligation -> Control -> Evidence.
This is what will let the Advisor state "the CRA requirement is fulfilled" from
present evidence, not from the mere existence of a document.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
7 accepted, 13 rejected (reviewed_by=benjamin, 2026-06-25). The accepted set is
the first audited ground truth of the compliance graph:
(2c) Zugriff -> V6.3.1, V6.1.1 (Auth)
(2d) Crypto -> V11.2.1, V11.7.1 (corrected from the retriever's wrong V14)
(2k) Logging -> V16.3.3, V16.3.4, V16.1.1
Rejected stay as audit trail. (2e) integrity, (2l) updates, (2i) attack surface
rejected with reason "OWASP ASVS not the right target standard, map via NIST/BSI"
— architectural proof for the multi-framework framework_* layer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- DROP confidence from the persisted mapping: a curated mapping is a
professional statement, not an AI guess (retriever score -> rationale only).
- ADD mapping_status (candidate|accepted|rejected|superseded) — the review state.
- ADD audit trail (reviewed_by/review_date/review_reason); accepted/rejected
fail-closed without it.
- EXTEND mapping_type: + implements, + contradicts.
- Advisor truth = mapping_status=accepted (acceptedOnly filter).
- migrate the 18 CRA->OWASP rows to mapping_status=candidate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
18 retriever_candidate mappings generated via the sdk-dev control-intent
retriever. All marked retriever_candidate (NOT curated truth) — the review
step turns the good ones into human_curated.
Empirical validation of the A-decision: the retriever proposes, but produces
wrong candidates (e.g. encryption -> V14 Config instead of V11 Crypto;
V14.2.4 over-appears) that only human review catches. Review notes inline.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Versioned JSONL store + Go model for Regulation->Control mappings, per the
A-decision: the retriever only PROPOSES candidates; the curated mapping is the
audited truth the Advisor uses at runtime, never re-invented per query.
- ControlMapping struct (source_norm/source_role/target_framework/target_control/
mapping_type/confidence/provenance/rationale/version)
- enum validation (rule layer), fail-closed loader, forward+reverse index,
curated-only filter (IsCurated)
- seed: 2 retriever_candidate rows CRA Annex I -> OWASP ASVS (not yet curated)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Schließt die Lücke Obligation→Procedure→Control→Evidence (Schritt 3, Compliance-OS-Ebene).
Procedure = Umsetzungs-/Nachweisebene EINER Obligation, KEINE neue Pflicht (LEGAL_MINIMUM
bleibt an der Obligation; Procedure beschreibt Umsetzung; Evidence belegt sie).
- 11 Procedures (5 SBOM + 6 Vuln), 2 Worked Examples; source_role=procedural_requirement
(Konvergenz mit der Legal-Knowledge-Engine der anderen Session)
- fulfills_obligations[] referenziert die cra.json-Obligations (alle gültig, volle Abdeckung)
- steps/controls/evidence je Procedure; KEINE tier/legal_basis-Felder (kein Pflicht-Duplikat)
- citation_spans: [] / pending_span_anchor (Join folgt mit dem zitierfähigen Re-Ingest)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
9 docs + index in docs-src/architecture/ documenting the deterministic
retrieval engine: retrieval pipeline, authority rerank, source_class,
source_role, control-intent + diversity, assessment, confidence,
explainability + supersede, framework_* layer. Each doc carries the exact
constants, the rationale behind them, code refs, and the failure class
it addresses. Audit/onboarding reference.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
On an implementation question impl_guidance (ENISA) keeps its earned semantic
Top-1, but the top-K now surfaces the best operational_requirement and
control_standard from the pool (ensureControlDiversity) — so different source
roles are visible instead of one role flooding the list, without forcing the
binding sources to Top-1.
A recognised standard NAME (NIST/OWASP/ISO 27001/CIS/CSA CCM/Grundschutz) now
overrides a mis-applied supervisory_guidance source_class in classifyAuthority,
so those standards classify and rank as technical_standard (control_standard
role). The corpus tags many standards as guidance (weight 70); the name wins.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
11 human-reasoned Beziehungskanten in cra.json gemerged (dedupliziert gegen die
Pipeline-Kanten), getaggt review_status=proposed / source=human_reasoned_preview /
confidence=high. Nur die kleine Sprache depends_on / supports / produces_evidence_for;
gerichtet. Cross-Family SBOM→Vuln-Kanten erlauben dem Advisor Ursachen-/Wirkungsketten.
Damit ist der CRA-v1-Baustein vollständig: Obligations · legal_basis · guidance_basis ·
out_of_scope · relationships · pending citation anchors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Phase 1 complete. GT #3 recall 84% -> 100% (25/25 matched), no regression:
- HP2207 backflow / potable-water contamination (EN 1717) + measure M2209
(Rueckflussverhinderer / Systemtrenner) — the only genuinely new hazard.
- HP2208 cut on sharp edges/screens (new sharp_edge tag from scharfe-Kante/Sieb).
- HP2209 unexpected restart during maintenance (dedicated dom_warewashing pattern;
avoids flooding the log via the broad moving_part tag).
- Spray-arm contact now covered by the enclosure-re-scoped contact patterns.
Kistenhub 97.1% and Bremse pinned mappings unchanged; 0/28 hazards without a
measure. Completes the commercial-dishwasher (white-goods Phase 1) coverage.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Phase 1 of the commercial white-goods expansion (EN ISO 10472 family). Extend
GT #3 with 8 completeness hazards a Fachmann expects but that were neither in
the GT nor previously questioned: dry-run boiler overheating, residual/stored
electrical energy, sharp-edge cut, tipping, interlock-failure, unexpected
restart, backflow (EN 1717), microbial/legionella. Enrich the UC-M narrative
with the real features so existing library patterns can fire.
Result: 4/8 auto-covered by existing patterns (dry-run, residual voltage,
tipping, interlock-failure) — recall 84% (21/25). Remaining gaps documented:
spray-arm contact (4.3), sharp-edge cut (4.6), backflow (2.3), restart (6.4).
Gate the re-surfaced CNC leak ("spanende Bearbeitung", high_temperature-only)
via dom_cnc. Kistenhub 97.1% and Bremse pinned mappings unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Schreibt das Zielmodell fest: Legal Obligation = gemeinsame Sprache zwischen
Legal Knowledge Graph (Chat) und Compliance Execution Graph (Engine).
- Registry-Schema v1 (id/tier/legal_basis/guidance_basis/facets/citation_anchor_ids/
relationships/decision_method)
- Zitierfähigkeit hängt an der OBLIGATION, nicht an Controls (Regulierungsänderung =
Anchor tauschen, Controls unverändert)
- legal_basis (Primärrecht) vs guidance_basis (NIST/OWASP/...) + source_role
(LEGAL_BASIS/GUIDANCE/EVIDENCE/IMPLEMENTATION/OUT_OF_SCOPE)
- HARTE Regel: LEGAL_MINIMUM nur mit Primärrechts-Anker
- Beziehungsgraph: requires/implements/supports/produces_evidence_for/depends_on/derived_from
- Citation-Anchor-Pipeline Document→Obligation (KEIN Re-Ingest zum Control-Neubau)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Class E1. A multi-category pattern (e.g. "Motorueberlast" [electrical, thermal],
"Lagerschaden" [mechanical, thermal]) created one hazard per category, so the
same scenario+zone appeared twice in the CE hazard log under different labels.
InitializeProject now breaks after the primary (first eligible) category — one
hazard per pattern.
This aligns production with the GT benchmark, which already scores one hazard per
matched pattern. Cyber-skip, per-category cap and cross-pattern measure-merge
still use continue (unchanged). Handlers + iace suites green; Kistenhub/Bremse
unchanged.
Note (E2, not fixed): some scenarios exist as TWO separate patterns (e.g.
"Sicherheitssoftware manipuliert" in hazard_patterns_final_c.go and _final_d.go)
— library redundancy that E1's per-pattern break cannot merge. Left for a
separate, GT-guarded library-dedup audit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Class D (generic keyword hygiene, GT-guarded). Two over-broad keyword->component
mappings produced ghost components:
- "kuehl"/"cool" -> Kuehlaggregat (C095) matched product variants
("Cool-Ausfuehrung") and outputs ("kuehle Glaeser"). Narrowed to cooling-UNIT
terms (kuehlaggregat, kuehlanlage, kuehler, kaeltemaschine, chiller, rueckkuehl).
- "filter" -> Absauganlage/Oelnebelabscheider (C124) matched any filter
(Laugen-/Wasser-/Oelfilter). Keep "filteranlage" only.
No pattern or GT test depends on these mappings (Kistenhub/Bremse use hand-crafted
inputs). UC-M now parses 6 plausible components (was 8 incl. the two ghosts).
Warewashing GT recall 82.4% and Kistenhub/Bremse pins unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Class C (phase-aware, generic EN ISO 14120). A contact/entanglement hazard from
a moving part is removed during NORMAL operation when the part is behind an
interlocked guard; it remains only when the guard is open (maintenance/cleaning).
- New HazardPattern.GuardableByEnclosure flag; set on HP096 (friction at
rotating surfaces) and HP101 (entanglement of hair/clothing).
- Narrative emits interlocked_enclosure for an interlocked door/hood.
- pattern_enclosure.go: suppressedByEnclosure (drop in normal-op-only contexts)
+ guardedLifecycles (re-scope to maintenance/cleaning).
- GT #3 gains the maintenance-phase entanglement/friction rows.
Generic + regression-safe: machines that do not emit interlocked_enclosure are
unaffected. GT #3 recall 80% -> 82.4%, one false positive removed (Aufwickeln).
Kistenhub 97.1% and all 26 Bremse pinned mappings unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add ground_truth_warewashing.json + TestWarewashing_GTCoverage. The test runs
the UC-M narrative through the SAME chain as production (ParseNarrative ->
engine -> relevance + cyber filter), so keyword/gating fixes are measured on
the real hazard set, and false positives show up as "extra".
Class A (generic keyword hygiene): spuelarm/spuelfeld no longer map to library
component C004 ("Drehtisch" / rotary table) — that mislabelled the spray arm.
Keep the rotating_part tag. Removes the bogus "Drehtisch" hazard.
GT #3 baseline -> after Class A: recall 80% (unchanged), one false positive
(Drehtisch) removed. Kistenhub 97.1% and Bremse pinned mappings unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
InitializeProject created hazards for every matched pattern, so native
cybersecurity/AI topics (unauthorized access, firmware manipulation, missing
SBOM, ...) mixed into the ISO 12100 hazard log. Route the security categories
(frontend groups I. Cyber/Netzwerk + J. KI) to the CRA module instead —
generically for EVERY project, enforced centrally in InitializeProject.
The split is by the nature of the hazard, not the component: functional-safety
control faults stay in CE (software faults, lost safety functions, config
errors, bus failures, botched updates) — they are random/systematic faults,
not attacks, and feed the CRA safety-function bridge. This holds whether the
controller is a bought-in CE-marked PLC or the manufacturer's own control.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add commercial-dishwasher hazard patterns (HP2200-HP2206): hot-water/steam
scald on door opening, hot surfaces, hot ware, corrosive detergent/rinse-aid
burn, respiratory irritation, door pinch and wet-floor slip — each gated by
dom_warewashing so they never leak into other machine classes. Add the
matching warewashing protective measures (M2200-M2208).
Tighten capability-domain gating: emit dom_flame/dom_glue and add welding
surface-form gate terms (schweissarbeitsplatz, schweissfunke, lichtbogenzone,
...) so the welding/flame/glue burn patterns stop leaking into thermal-capable
machines such as a dishwasher.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reichert die Obligation-Shadow-Telemetrie um zwei Felder an für die Cross-Firmen-
Auswertung: met_count (abgedeckte Obligations) + recall_limited_obligations (welche
Obligations recall-limitiert sind) — erlaubt die Konzentrations-Analyse über Firmen.
7-Firmen-Shadow: 136 Control-Findings → 29 Obligation-Findings (4,7×); recall_limited
nur 6/29, konzentriert auf third_country/safeguards in 2/7 Firmen → LLM-Fix bounded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Benjamin Admin
Benjamin_Boenisch