One contract example (Mission #3's public tender) is not enough to safely generalise: it risks
baking tender-shaped assumptions into the later Scope→Journey selector. This mission runs TWO
deliberately different contract sub-types against the same company through the IDENTICAL engine:
- public tender (procurement: pentest report, references, support SLA, SBOM) -> delta 4
- private OEM spec (Lastenheft: CSMS, functional safety, SUMS, ASPICE) -> delta 3
The two deltas are completely DISJOINT (no shared missing capability), proving the contracts are
genuinely different — yet there is no per-contract code: assess_transition treats each as a plain
Required set, exactly like a regulation or a certification. Evidence-Relevance is target-relative
even between two contracts (TISAX worth more to the automotive OEM than to the generic tender).
Conclusion: "Contract" as a requirement source is now covered by >=2 diverse cases, so the later
selector can treat any contract uniformly. Synthetic company + synthetic contracts (NO real names).
Non-runtime -> no deploy. 5 tests pass.
Turn the architecture inside-out: instead of refining classes/registries/journeys, force the whole
platform to behave as ONE expert system and run a real consulting project end-to-end — measuring how
often the consultant has to "jump" (special-case glue instead of a clean engine-to-engine handoff). A
Reference Scenario asks "is the knowledge correct?"; a Customer Mission asks "can a customer WORK with
it?". This is the last big architecture test before broad corpus expansion.
- reference_scenarios/mission_machine_builder.py: a synthetic machine builder (ISO9001 + ISMS + CE +
PLC + remote maintenance + cloud + 80 devs + EU; no real names) asks "what must I do in the next 6
months?". Runs the REAL engines: Regulatory Map -> Journey selection -> Capability Delta (RS-005) ->
Roadmap (leverage) -> Playbooks -> Evidence -> Verification -> Completeness, and produces the 6-month
consulting answer ("the top-5 measures close 9/16 = 56%, starting with the ones that satisfy CRA AND
MaschinenVO at once").
- Flow-Continuity audit (the actual test): 5 CLEAN, 2 JUMPS, 2 deliberate DEPENDENCIES. The two real
seams: (1) Scope -> Journey (no `certs x targets -> journeys` selector engine; the data exists in
transitions.yaml, only the selection is glue); (2) Evidence -> Verification (parked, Vision V2). The
two dependencies (cert->capability map @Execution, corpus_status curation) are intended ownership
boundaries, not architecture breaks.
- Finding: the platform carries the WHOLE consulting flow end-to-end. Once the Scope->Journey selector
exists, the foundation is essentially done — from there the work is knowledge, not architecture.
4 end-to-end tests (mission runs, exactly two known jumps, full flow present, no real company names).
check-loc 0. Non-runtime harness -> no deploy (ADR-001).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Before the next Journey: the LANGUAGE. With 5 knowledge objects but no vocabulary, the same reise gets
named four different ways (ISO9001->MaschinenVO vs Quality Management->Product Safety vs ...). The spec
answers ONE question: which terms are IDENTITIES and which are REPRESENTATIONS of the same meaning?
- spec docs-src/architecture/domain-vocabulary-spec-v1.md (PROPOSAL): identity hierarchy
(Requirement RQ / Capability MCAP [Registry 2C] / regulation-source-target / Journey Class MJRN
[PROVISIONAL] / Journey instance / Playbook MPLB); canonical name + aliases; capability vocabulary =
the Capability Registry (not rebuilt); reorder Vocabulary -> Transition #2 -> #3 -> Rule of Three.
- knowledge/vocabulary/regulations.yaml: regulation/standard IDENTITIES (id + canonical + aliases).
SOLVES the regulation-ID normalization the KPIs flagged: CRA == "Cyber Resilience Act" == "Regulation
(EU) 2024/2847" all resolve to `cra`; ISO9001/QMS -> iso9001; etc. Shared artifact (@Legal-KG/@Execution
please adopt).
- knowledge/vocabulary/journey_classes.yaml (PROVISIONAL): clusters our transitions into classes
(Information Security -> Product Cybersecurity; Quality Management -> Product Compliance/Safety).
Finding: ISO9001->MaschinenVO is an INSTANCE of an existing class (like ISO9001->CRA, ISO13485->MDR),
not a new kind -> avoids duplication. Journey Class is a new abstraction -> its own Rule of Three (no
MJRN minting yet).
- reference suite: both KPIs now read aliases from regulations.yaml instead of hard-coded maps; the
"Regelwerk-ID-Normalisierung" line flips TODO -> PASS. KPI numbers unchanged (vocab is a superset).
- Side effect = Requirements Intelligence: a Tender "Security Patch Procedure" resolves to MCAP-0017.
7 vocabulary tests (17 with domain programs), check-loc 0. Knowledge data + spec + reference harness =
non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). No new module, no runtime change, no minting (Freeze).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Customers don't buy "EMV domain"; they buy "we have ISO 9001, help us with the CRA". The sellable
unit of knowledge is the TRANSITION (from -> to), not the law and not the capability. This reframes
the backlog from "model EMV next" to "the top demanded transitions". No new runtime framework (ADR-010).
- knowledge/programs/transitions.yaml: the Operational Knowledge backlog — the ~20-30 actually demanded
transitions (of ~N*(N-1) possible) with priority. ISO27001->CRA, ISO9001->CRA, ISO9001->MaschinenVO
(all 5-star), IEC62443->CRA, TISAX->CRA, ISO27001/IEC62443->NIS2, ISO14001->Umweltrecht.
- Transition Coverage KPI (reference suite, computed-not-stored): per transition a status DERIVED from
the transition-pattern corpus (reviewed/validated/proven -> Gold, draft -> 🟡, none -> ⚪). Honest
current state: ISO27001->CRA ✅ reviewed, ISO9001->CRA 🟡 draft, rest ⚪. Highest-priority gap =
ISO9001->MaschinenVO (the next Track-B work) — a far stronger product indicator than "EMV 30% modelled".
- Three knowledge layers documented: Regulatory -> Operational (transitions/playbooks/deltas, the
biggest differentiator) -> Verification (Vision V2). A domain is a TRANSITION PROGRAM with two tracks:
Track A breadth (model sources, @Legal-KG/@Execution) + Track B product (transitions/playbooks/RTS
per source, @Reasoning).
- ADR-010: the transition is the unit of knowledge; Transition Coverage KPI; three layers; two tracks.
10 program/transition-contract tests, check-loc 0. Knowledge data + ADR + reference harness =
non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). No new module, no runtime change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The real bottleneck is domain MODELLING. Phase B is organized as one program with sub-programs per
domain, each run through the SAME 7-stage production line. No new runtime framework, no new module
(ADR-009, Freeze v1.0) — only program data + a derived reporting view.
- Customer enters by INDUSTRY, not regulation: Industry -> Domain Model -> Requirement Sources ->
Requirements -> Capabilities -> ... -> Completeness.
- 7-stage checklist identical for every domain (Domain Model / Requirement Sources / Capability
Registry / Transition Patterns / Playbooks / Reference Scenarios / Completeness) with per-stage
ownership. README generalized to the framework.
- Each domain lists typical_requirement_sources + typical_certifications -> pre-onboarding capability
HYPOTHESIS (the ETO insight; feeds Company 2A as inferred, never confirmed).
- Backlog v1 (by customer value): 1 Industrial Automation, 2 Environmental, 3 Automotive, 4 Medical,
5 Energy. Five domain-definition shells (environmental restructured to the unified shape, law-first
preserved).
- Per-domain KPI is DERIVED from the real corpus (computed-not-stored; sources modelled / transition
patterns / playbooks / reference scenarios), NOT a curated number. Reference suite renders maturity
bars: Industrial Automation 43% (3/7 sources) leads, Environmental 0% (work ahead). Backlog (value)
and KPI (corpus state) are deliberately separated.
- ADR-009: Domain Knowledge Program framework. Honest known refinement: regulation-ID normalization
(CRA vs Cyber Resilience Act) aliased in the KPI.
7 program-contract tests (backlog order + industry-first + derived-not-stored), check-loc 0.
Knowledge data + ADR + reference harness = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The architecture is stable; from here the value comes from DOMAINS, not more software. Phase B is
organized as law-first Domain Knowledge Programs, each delivering the same production line: Corpus ->
Obligations -> Capabilities -> Transition Patterns -> Playbooks -> Reference Scenarios -> Completeness.
No new runtime framework (Freeze v1.0).
- knowledge/programs/README.md: reusable Domain Program blueprint (production line, per-stage ownership,
law-first ordering, planned programs Environmental/Automotive/IEC62443/Functional-Safety).
- knowledge/programs/environmental.yaml: the Environmental domain as DATA. Law-first: B1 Environmental
Regulatory Corpus (water/chemicals/emissions/energy/waste/product-responsibility — law + obligations
only) -> B2 Capability Model -> B3 Transition Patterns (ISO 14001 -> corpus, built LAST). ISO 14001
is a source state, NOT the domain.
- Ownership handoffs: B1 -> Legal Knowledge, B2 -> Compliance Execution, B3+/playbooks/reference ->
Reasoning. Coordinate via the board; no session builds another's artifacts.
- reference suite: "Domain Knowledge Programs" section renders the program stages + a measurable
Completeness baseline (6 areas, 0 assessed today) that flips automatically as stages land.
- ADR-008: from architecture to domains; Phase B as law-first programs; architecture frozen.
6 program-contract tests (law-first order + ownership pinned), check-loc 0. Knowledge data + ADR +
reference harness = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). No new module, no runtime change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Phase A½. The move from feature to product development: for every assessment, answer "how sure are
we that this answer is COMPLETE?" — different from confidence. The product never claims full coverage;
it makes its own knowledge state transparent and auditable. Shows what we do NOT know and why.
- compliance/completeness/: assess_completeness(identified, corpus_status, uncertain, assumptions,
assessed_obligations) -> CompletenessReport. Separates IDENTIFIED from ASSESSED (validated corpus
AND determined applicability) and justifies every gap. Two kinds of open: corpus gap (future_corpus)
and applicability uncertainty (query_required + deciding question, e.g. Data Act / generates_usage_data).
- The metric is COUNTS, never a single percentage: "Identifiziert N · bewertet M · offen K ·
Unsicherheiten U · Begründung ja" + an honest audit statement.
- ADR-007: auditable honesty; phase order A factory -> A½ Completeness -> B new domains; the
transparency selling point. Deterministic, no LLM; corpus status + obligation count injected.
- reference suite: "Regulatory Completeness" section runs an industrial-dishwasher assessment
(assessed CRA/MaschinenVO; open EMV/Environmental=future_corpus, Data Act=query_required) and notes
Environmental flips open->validated automatically once the corpus lands.
11 completeness tests (54 with adjacent modules), mypy --strict clean (15 files), check-loc 0.
Product code with no app caller + ADR/reference = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). Freeze-safe.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Phase A1. The real knowledge production is not writing — it is TARGETED UPDATING: when 20 documents
arrive, which 5 change our knowledge and which 15 are ignorable? Before the parser, Knowledge Intake
classifies a new document (no content extraction) and intersects its signals with an index of the
existing knowledge to emit a Knowledge Package (an impact analysis).
- compliance/knowledge_intake/: build_knowledge_index(patterns, playbooks, reference_scenarios,
obligation_index) + assess_document_impact(descriptor, index) -> KnowledgePackage. Deterministic,
NO content extraction, NO LLM. Surfaces affected capabilities / playbooks / transition patterns /
reference scenarios / (injected) obligations, whether it is a new domain, and a triage level
(HIGH / LOW / NONE / NEW_DOMAIN) with a recommendation.
- ADR-006: Knowledge Intake = classify + impact before extraction; full factory Intake -> Package ->
Parser -> Draft -> Review -> Published; phase order A1 Intake / A2 Draft / A3 Review.
- reference suite: "Knowledge Intake" section triages 3 example documents (CRA SBOM-FAQ -> high,
14C/2PB/3RTS/2Obl; environmental guidance -> new_domain; marketing blog -> ignorable). Section
lives in _helpers.py to keep generate.py under the 500-LOC budget.
- Honest known refinement surfaced by intake: regulation-ID normalization (CRA vs Cyber Resilience Act).
10 intake tests (60 with the adjacent modules), mypy --strict clean (16 files), check-loc 0.
Product code with no app caller + ADR/reference = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). Freeze-safe.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The bottleneck is not content, it is knowledge PRODUCTION. Instead of writing 200 playbooks by
hand, generate drafts deterministically from data the software already owns, then have an expert
review them. Mirrors the legal pipeline (Gesetz -> Parser -> Obligation -> Review) for BreakPilot's
own knowledge: new Capability -> Registry -> Transition Pattern -> Playbook Draft Generator ->
Expert Review -> versioned Playbook.
- compliance/knowledge_production/: generate_playbook_draft(capability, requirement, control_links)
+ drafts_from_pattern(pattern) -> one PlaybookDraft per delta capability. Owned fields (why /
closes_regulations / expected_evidence / typical_controls) are assembled with per-field provenance;
the practitioner know-how (tools / process_steps / how_others) is left as an explicit TODO.
- DraftStatus lifecycle (Freigabestatus): draft_generated -> in_review -> reviewed -> validated ->
proven. Deterministic, NO LLM in the core (any model enrichment stays offline/advisory/propose-only).
- ADR-005: extends "the engine does not change, the corpus grows" with "and the corpus is not written
by hand — it is deterministically prepared, then curated".
- reference suite: "Knowledge Production" section turns the convergence pattern into 12 auto-assembled
drafts (why/closes/evidence filled, tools/steps TODO) -> review 12 drafts, don't write 12 playbooks.
10 tests (50 with playbook/optimization/transition/company), mypy --strict clean, check-loc 0.
Product code with no app caller + ADR/reference = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). Freeze-safe.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Roadmap item 4. After WHAT applies / WHAT is missing / WHICH first, the GF asks HOW. The
Implementation Playbook renders, for one capability, the full journey — why / which regulations
it closes / tools / process / evidence / controls — and chains the Optimization Roadmap into
per-measure playbooks. Another renderer over the same Capability spine (ADR-003/004), not a new
engine: ~95% of the data already exists, it just needs a different rendering.
- compliance/playbook/: build_playbook() + playbooks_for_plan() (chains optimization -> playbook,
acyclic; reuses leverage for "closes which regulations"). Capabilities without curated content
render as honest status:missing stubs — the content-owed signal.
- knowledge/implementation_playbooks/: curated knowledge layer (Reasoning Knowledge Acquisition),
two deep expert drafts (SBOM, CVD/PSIRT, status draft, expert-draft-not-normative) + README.
The bottleneck is now CONTENT, not software; Playbook (own knowledge) != regulatory domain.
- ADR-004: Implementation Playbooks = renderer + knowledge layer; content is the bottleneck.
- reference suite: "Implementation Playbook" section renders the SBOM journey + Roadmap->Playbook
table (high-leverage caps flagged "fehlt (Inhalt)" — content backlog, highest leverage first).
- refactor: extracted markdown helpers to reference_scenarios/_helpers.py to keep generate.py
under the 500-LOC budget.
9 playbook tests (40 with optimization+transition+company), mypy --strict clean, check-loc 0.
Product code with no app caller + knowledge/ADR/reference = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Roadmap item 5. GAP analysis and measure-prioritisation are the SAME computation: Required −
Known = the Capability Delta. The Capability Delta Engine (RS-005) computes it once; renderers
read that ONE delta. Interview Renderer (missing info → questions) was already built; this adds
the Roadmap/Management Renderer (missing capabilities → measures ranked by regulatory leverage).
- compliance/optimization/: regulatory_leverage() + select_within_budget() (pure leverage math)
+ roadmap_from_delta(assessment, ...) — the keystone binding optimization to the RS-005 delta
(dependency optimization → transition_reasoning, acyclic; the delta engine stays hermetic).
leverage(measure) = number of regulatory requirements it closes at once (e.g. patch management
→ CRA+MaschinenVO+IEC62443+ISO27001 = 4). No new corpus, no new meta-model class (freeze v1.0).
- Welt-1 honesty: percentages are exact count ratios over the IDENTIFIED requirements (the known
delta), never "% gesetzeskonform".
- reference suite: "Regulatory Optimization" section runs the SAME convergence delta → ranked
measures + budget answer + the management sentence "of N identified requirements you close M
with the top-K measures (X%) — highest regulatory leverage".
- ADR-003: Capability Delta Engine — one delta, many renderers; rename Gap → Capability Delta.
13 optimization tests (31 with transition+company), mypy --strict clean, check-loc 0.
Product code with no app caller + ADR/reference = non-runtime → no deploy (ADR-001).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Roadmap item 2: the RTS now pin MaschinenVO + convergence Expected Outcomes, so the
convergence USP is a living regression, not just a one-off section.
- RTS-003 (machine + ISMS, networked): full multi-regulation archetype — maschinenvo
expected_delta + convergence expected_multi_target (links TP-ISO27001-CRA-MaschinenVO-v1).
Generator runs the convergence pattern through RS-005: 4/4 machine-safety delta MISSING +
4/4 expected multi-target caps converge. PASS.
- RTS-001 (component): MaschinenVO modeled as `uncertain` (a pure component is usually not a
machine; deciding question is_safety_component) — engine must never assert it applies. Honest,
parallel to the Data-Act handling.
- RTS-002 (machine, QMS-only): MaschinenVO `applies` (is_machine) but LOW convergence — no ISMS
means the cyber side is entirely delta, so few caps are shared. The honest contrast that the
convergence USP rewards companies who already run an ISMS.
- generator: per-RTS maschinenvo/convergence Soll-Ist checks; convergence pattern run once and
reused. Data Act stays `uncertain` everywhere, never asserted.
All 3 RTS PASS. 18 tests (transition+company), mypy --strict clean, check-loc 0.
Non-runtime (knowledge + reference harness) -> no deploy (ADR-001).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The first multi-regulation pattern: each capability declares `covers_targets`, so we
can answer the convergence USP — "which capability satisfies CRA AND MaschinenVO at once?"
- knowledge: transition_pattern_iso27001_to_cra_maschinenvo_v1.yaml (pattern_type:
regulatory_convergence, status draft). The cyber-safety bridge = MaschinenVO Annex III
1.1.9 "protection against corruption" overlapping CRA integrity. 4 convergence
capabilities cover BOTH; 5 CRA-only; 3 MaschinenVO-only.
- product: compliance/transition_reasoning/convergence.py — regulatory_convergence()
pure/deterministic/computed-not-stored, no new graph/class (freeze v1.0 untouched).
No app caller yet -> non-runtime, no deploy (ADR-001).
- reference suite: Cross-Regulation Capability Mapping section renders the customer
sentence "von N neuen Massnahmen erfuellen M gleichzeitig CRA und MaschinenVO".
- README: term -> Regulatory Transition / Convergence Pattern; covers_targets documented.
- tests: test_regulatory_convergence (18 transition+company pass), mypy --strict clean.
Curated expert knowledge, AI first draft (L1/draft) — Annex/Article refs indicative,
review_required by a machinery-safety expert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three ANONYMIZED reference transition scenarios (no real company names stored) = canonical
regression scenarios that test the KNOWLEDGE, not just the engine. Each pins an Expected
Outcome (expected_likely_covered + expected_delta); every commit must reproduce it (identical
or better).
- RTS-001 automotive supplier (TISAX+ISO27001) -> CRA: mature ISMS, standard CRA delta.
- RTS-002 classic machine builder (ISO9001) -> CRA: only process discipline -> MUCH larger delta
(10 missing vs 3 covered). New TP-ISO9001-CRA-v1 pattern (different shape).
- RTS-003 networked machine builder (ISMS) -> CRA: highlights the Data Act.
Data Act is modelled as UNCERTAIN (a hypothesis), never a fixed gilt/gilt-nicht: the generator
checks the engine SURFACES the uncertainty + the deciding question (generates_usage_data) and
never wrongly ASSERTS applicability. All three RTS PASS.
Non-runtime knowledge + reference harness -> no deploy (ADR-001). Names deliberately absent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Transition KNOWLEDGE Patterns (renamed term -- curated knowledge, not an algorithm):
- 4 maturity levels: draft -> reviewed -> validated (domain expert) -> proven (field). "approved"
dropped; target is validated. TP-ISO27001-CRA set to reviewed (L2).
- 3 enrichments per pattern: confidence_source: relationship (curated, not an LLM estimate ->
computed-not-stored); why_asked (customer-facing: why the source does not suffice here); dropped_if
(what makes the question unnecessary). Applied to TP-ISO27001-CRA.
- New TP-ISMS-TISAX (draft): different character -- info-security module mostly covered; delta is
automotive-specific (prototype protection, TISAX labels, VDA ISA self-assessment, ENX assessment,
Art. 28 data protection). Proves the architecture is GENERIC, not CRA-tailored.
- Reference scenario 4 generalized to loop over ALL patterns through RS-005: both carried (CRA
17->17, TISAX 13->13) -> a living genericity + regression test for every future pattern.
Non-runtime knowledge + reference harness -> no deploy (ADR-001). Next: ISO9001->IATF16949.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
(1) Harden the first Transition Pattern to the gold-standard template per quality checklist:
versioned transition_goal (ISO27001:2022 -> CRA, applies 2027-12-11), source_state_variants
(certified/isms_introduced/expired/limited_scope), each likely_covered assumption with a typed
relationship (supports|partially_supports, never equivalent) + verification + rationale (the Warum)
+ an auditor-checkable reviewable_claim, delta as missing-capability + needed-info, an explicit
rejected_assumptions section, and a determinism_goal. README schema updated to match.
(2) New Reference-Suite scenario 4 (Transition): the generator READS the pattern YAML and runs it
through the RS-005 Planning Engine + Company 2A -> coverage + question requests. Proves the
architecture fully carries the pattern (17 caps -> 17 coverage + 17 requests; 9 HIGH delta = the
real CRA gaps, 8 probably-covered from the ISMS). Now a living regression test: every future pattern
runs through the same engine.
Non-runtime knowledge + reference harness -> no deploy (ADR-001). Next: ISMS->TISAX once approved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reasoning session's new Knowledge Acquisition responsibility (re-charter): build and curate
the Transition Knowledge Base under backend-compliance/knowledge/transition_patterns/ (beside
reasoning/, not under it -- it is knowledge, not an engine).
First professional pattern TP-ISO27001-CRA-v1 (status: draft): separates what a mature ISMS
likely covers at the ORG level (probably_covered, needs product-level confirmation, never
auto-"erfuellt") from the CRA-specific delta with no ISO 27001 analogue (SBOM, support period +
secure signed updates, coordinated vulnerability disclosure, Art. 14 authority reporting,
product cyber risk assessment, CE conformity / technical documentation). Expert draft, not a
normative proof; review_required before customer use.
Non-runtime knowledge -> no deploy (ADR-001). Next: ISMS->TISAX.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Second reasoning mode, scope per user: the engine owns the INFORMATION GAPS, not the
questions. assess_transition(context, target_requirements, company_profile) emits
ranked TransitionQuestionRequest {capability, control, reason, question_intent,
expected_evidence, priority, information_gain} -- NOT rendered question text. Rendering
(intent+subject->sentence) is a separate swappable layer (RS-005.1), not here.
Consumes the Company Capability Profile (2A) as "have" + injected TargetRequirement
(Execution-owned placeholder) as "required" -- no required-capability data in product
code (EMPTY_REQUIREMENTS, mocks only in tests). A certification-derived capability is
probably_covered (Welt 1) -> a confirmation request, never already_covered/"erfuellt".
Deterministic, computed-not-stored, no percentages.
Activates 2A/2C/RCI (first consumer of the Company profile). Freeze-respecting: additive
package, no new graph/base class/meta-model class. 9 tests, mypy --strict clean, LOC ok.
No endpoint/UI/RAG; question rendering deliberately deferred to RS-005.1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three real customer scenarios driven through the DEPLOYED engines (scope/map/
interpretation, RCI, company 2A, capability registry). Each scenario emits an
Architecture Coverage table DERIVED from the real run, so cells flip automatically
as domains land (e.g. Sz2/Environmental UNSUPPORTED -> PASS). The roll-up answers
"is BreakPilot better than six months ago" by real customer situations, not LOC.
Gaps captured as epics (NOT implemented): RS-001 Interpretation Pattern Library,
RS-002 Environmental Corpus, RS-003 Capability Linking (cap<->MCAP) + Company-Gap,
RS-004 MaschinenVO/EMV Registry Linking.
reference_scenarios/generate.py = reproducible source (ruff/mypy-exempt, NOT product
code, not imported by the app); reference_scenario_suite_v1.md = generated artifact.
No new product code; CRA patterns deliberately NOT built — the suite is now the measure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Third instance of the identity-machine pattern (after Master Controls and Master
Obligations). New compliance/capability/ package: MasterCapability with stable MCAP
ids, CapabilityCandidate minting, seven typed relation types, a VERSIONED derivation
policy, and identity lifecycle (merge/split/deprecate/redirect with provenance).
Stored: identities, sources, relationship types, policy versions, lifecycle events,
provenance. Derived (never stored): confidence/status via evaluate_relation under a
policy version. Hard rule (structurally guarded): a certification alone can never
yield CONFIRMED — only CONFIRMS + concrete artifact (or expert) does.
Built from the Reasoning session per user directive but this IS the Compliance
Execution model (Execution owns Capability) — handed off via the board. Metadata-first:
CapabilityRelation is registry metadata, NOT a new meta-model class (freeze v1.0
untouched). No Company-Gap, no real ISO/cert mappings, no UI/RAG, no generic
canonicalization engine. 11 tests; mypy --strict clean; LOC ok.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
HEAD of the spine Company->Capability->Product->Regulation->Obligation->Procedure
->Evidence. New compliance/company/ package: CompanyContext container + a four-state
trust model (declared/inferred/confirmed/unknown).
Hard rule (structural): a certification yields at most an INFERRED candidate and is
never auto-treated as CONFIRMED/"erfuellt". A certification produces evidence-of-
capability; only real ExistingEvidence promotes a capability to CONFIRMED.
Ownership: Reasoning owns the container + trust-state; the Certification->Capability
mapping is Execution's domain, consumed via an injected contract. No mapping data in
product code (tests inject mocks). No endpoint/UI/RAG/new regs/controls; no meta-model
classes (freeze v1.0 untouched). 8 tests; mypy --strict clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
RCI/Delta as a read-/reasoning layer ON TOP of the product-first pipeline. Answers
"what changes relative to my existing Regulatory Map?" — NOT "what does the new
law say in general". No UI, no ingestion (newsletter/mailbox), no RAG, no new
regulations/controls, no legal evaluation outside the stored map.
- 4 core objects (compliance/rci/schemas.py): ComplianceBaseline (snapshot of
profile + map + registry obligations + required/present evidence), RegulatoryChange
(simulated/provided INPUT), ObligationDelta (delta_type NEW|CHANGED|REMOVED|
ALREADY_COVERED|NEEDS_REVIEW|NOT_APPLICABLE), ChangeImpactSummary. delta_type is a
THIRD vocabulary, disjoint from ClaimCoverage (Welt 1) and ComplianceStatus (Welt 2).
- create_baseline() snapshots the existing pipeline once; assess_change() computes
deltas deterministically against the snapshot (no re-evaluation).
- 12 tests = the 5 acceptance questions (affects product? new/changed? already
covered by evidence? needs human review? not relevant?) + repeal/uncertain-reg/
missing-evidence/boundary. Existing pipeline tests stay green; mypy clean; LOC ok.
- App/reasoning types only — no compliance-meta-model classes (freeze v1.0 untouched).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Thin adapter — it judges the customer's reading WITHIN the already-built
RegulatoryMap, it does not assess abstract legal questions and it is not RCI.
- Reuses the existing assess_interpretation (no new legal reasoning); the 6
verdicts (plausible/too_narrow/too_broad/partially_correct/unsupported/uncertain)
pass through unchanged.
- Restricts affected_regulations/affected_obligations to those present in the map
(intersection); links to the map's uncertain regulations.
- Touched unsupported domains (wastewater/chemicals/...) are reported as
future_corpus_domains (future_corpus_needed) — never pseudo-evaluated.
- Customer-readable explanation ("Ihre Interpretation ist wahrscheinlich zu eng. …
Betroffen in Ihrer Map: CRA.").
- POST /reasoning/interpretation-in-map (renders the map, then interprets).
- 7 tests; 63 green (existing reasoning MVP stays green), mypy clean, LOC ok.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The Map Renderer explains the engine's state, it does not extend it. Pure
composition of resolve_product_scope (scope verdict) + derive_obligations
(registry-linked obligations + overlaps) into one RegulatoryMap.
- product_summary, trigger_facts, applicable/uncertain/excluded regulations,
unsupported_domains, overlaps (shared_obligations), shared_evidence, and a
customer-readable executive_summary.
- No own legal decisions: applicable/uncertain mirror the scope verdict exactly.
- Obligations shown ONLY when registry-linkable (registry_anchor) — MaschinenVO/
EMV obligations are proposed, so they render empty + a note, never as linked.
Overlaps/shared_evidence likewise filtered to registry-linked members.
- Uncertain regulations link to the navigator question that would resolve them
(RED -> has_radio_module, DataAct -> generates_usage_data).
- Environmental appears only as unsupported_domain; executive_summary has NO
percentage (counts + "no further regulations identified" instead).
- POST /reasoning/regulatory-map (thin handler). Response types are presentation-
level, not meta-model classes (freeze v1.0 untouched).
- 9 tests; 56 green (existing reasoning MVP stays green), mypy clean, LOC ok.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Connects the Navigator's fact-gate to the existing reasoning discover_scope —
the Scope Engine decides only once the minimum (P0) facts are released.
- resolve_product_scope(canonical): if not ready_for_scope -> NEEDS_FACTS
(missing_facts + suggested_questions, discover_scope NOT run); else project
canonical->reasoning profile and run the EXISTING discover_scope exactly once
-> RESOLVED with applicable/excluded/uncertain regulations.
- Environmental triggers surface ONLY as unsupported_domains (future_corpus_needed),
never as a legal evaluation — transparency, no false completeness.
- POST /reasoning/product-scope (thin handler) returns case NEEDS_FACTS or RESOLVED.
- No new scope rules, no new regulations, no environmental-law evaluation, no UI,
no Go, no RAG, no percent-compliance. Response types are application-level, not
meta-model classes (freeze v1.0 untouched).
- 6 tests incl. discover_scope spy (0 calls when gated, exactly 1 when ready),
category separation, environmental-as-unsupported-only. 47 tests green (existing
reasoning MVP tests stay green), mypy clean, LOC ok.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Step 2 of the convergence sequence. The Navigator sits over the
CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile (prefilled from company-profile / ProductWizard)
and reports ONLY which facts are still missing + prioritized questions to collect
them. It decides which facts are needed, NEVER what applies — that stays with the
Scope Engine (step 3). No regulation logic, no UI, no Go, no RAG.
- NavigatorQuestion (interaction type, NOT a compliance-meta-model class — freeze
v1.0 untouched): question_id, target_field, label, why_needed,
regulatory_domains_unblocked (static metadata), answer_type, options, priority.
- QUESTION_CATALOG: 12 questions over canonical gaps — P0 (markets, role,
lifecycle, machine/component), P1 (radio, usage-data, security-function,
environmental wastewater/air/chemicals triggers), P2 (structured BOM).
- engine: navigate() -> missing_facts + suggested_questions (priority-sorted) +
completeness_summary (ready_for_scope = no P0 missing); apply_answers() ->
updated profile. Pure field-presence; no scope import.
- 8 tests: <=10 questions for a filled company-profile, known facts not re-asked,
environmental = trigger questions only (no law evaluation), apply round-trip,
P0 ordering, ready_for_scope. 41 tests green, mypy clean, LOC ok.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ONE canonical product profile so the Go gap engine and the Python reasoning
engine stop diverging ("SPS mit Remote Access" means the same everywhere).
gap.ProductProfile LEADS; the reasoning ProductProfile becomes an adapter/DTO.
Types + mappers only — no regulation logic, no Go changes, no UI, no new questions.
- CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile mirrors gap.ProductProfile + the Navigator
gaps the audit found: economic-operator role, radio_module, generates_usage_data,
lifecycle_phase, structured BOM (ProductComponent), safety-vs-security split,
machine-vs-component + a forward-looking EnvironmentalImpact domain (wastewater/
air/chemicals triggers — fields only, no rules yet).
- Mappers: from_product_wizard (lossless), from_company_profile (prefill incl.
the machineBuilder block), to_gap_profile (emits the unchanged gap JSON shape),
to_reasoning_profile (projects into the reasoning ProductProfile; AI stays
delegated to ai-act/ucca). Only profile->reasoning is coupled; reasoning stays
hermetic.
- 10 tests = the 10 acceptance criteria incl. ProductWizard round-trip lossless,
markets no longer forced ['EU'], and canonical->reasoning->discover_scope
proving one semantic profile drives the engine. 33 tests green, mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
"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>
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>
gpt-oss-120b is a reasoning model: it spends output tokens on chain-of-thought
before the answer. deep_check called _call_ovh with max_tokens=400, which
length-capped it mid-reasoning -> content=null -> the OVH tier returned nothing
and the cascade always skipped Tier-2. Floor the OVH budget to >=2000, fall back
to reasoning_content when content is null, and raise the client timeout to 90s
for the slower reasoning path.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Generalise "Embedding finds, Claude decides" into the shared Pruefer-Library:
- router.route_and_check dispatches control -> sensor_classification -> Checker.
- build_spec reads sensor_classification (CONTENT/LLM -> judge=haiku, the
validated sufficiency tier; the Qwen-first cascade is disproven for sufficiency).
- LLMChecker gains a Haiku-direct tier (reuses the validated deep_check prompt).
- Cookie Layer-3 now routes through route_and_check instead of bespoke code, so
cookie is the first real router consumer -- proves the architecture end-to-end.
Reproduces the validated result via the shared path: FN 159->14, recall
0.13->0.92, precision 0.89 (vs bespoke 12/0.93/0.90 -- within Haiku noise).
Tests: 10/10 (router dispatch + build_spec + haiku tier + cookie rewire).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The embedding/boost auto-rescue is intentionally optimistic (finds the topic, not
fulfilment) -> 159 FN over-rescues vs Opus-GT (recall 0.13). Layer-3 re-judges
exactly the rescued passes with the validated Haiku judge (cohort
cookie_sufficiency_v1 P0.89/R0.91) -- NOT the Qwen-first cascade (local is
disproven as a sufficiency judge) -- and un-passes them when the obligation is
not concretely met. Gated to the full check (not skip_llm).
Measured (5-firm Opus-GT, engine+L3): FN 159->12, recall 0.13->0.93,
precision 0.96->0.90 (276 rescues corrected). "Embedding finds, Claude decides."
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The cookie agent loaded 100 controls, 11 of which have no COOKIE_POLICY in
applicable_artifacts -- Security/TOM/Audit (PROCESS) or Banner-behaviour
(BEHAVIOR) controls that produce nonsense findings against a cookie policy
(e.g. "TOMs not documented"). Add a cookie classification gate (analogous to the
DSE gate, keyed on COOKIE_POLICY, without the needs_review carve-out since the
artifact signal is decisive and the set is inventory-verified). Controls are
routed out, not deleted. Effect vs Opus-GT: FP 16->11, FN 179->159; the
remaining FN=159 over-rescue is a separate (judge/criteria) question, not routing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
compliance.doc_check_controls war auf prod historisch trippliziert
(Dump-Artefakt ohne PK/Unique: jede (doc_type, control_id)-Zeile 3x,
5622 statt 1874 ueber alle 8 doc_types). Die Migration dedupt idempotent
(kleinste ctid behalten) und setzt UNIQUE(doc_type, control_id), damit
sich die Triplikation nicht wiederholen kann.
Auf prod bereits direkt angewandt und in _migration_history registriert
(read-only verifiziert: 1874, alle doc_types total=distinct, Constraint
aktiv); dieser Commit codifiziert die Migration in der Deploy-Kette,
damit ein Restore aus einem aelteren Dump sie automatisch re-appliziert.
[migration-approved]
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
#1 _machinery_obligations: SET statement_timeout=4s + run_in_threadpool — auf
prod hing die maschinen-Query ~30s (langsame/unindizierte DB nach DB-Swap)
und blockierte den async-Worker. Jetzt: bei Langsamkeit graceful 'keine
Maschinen-Pflichten' statt Hang. (Fehlender prod-Index = Controls/DB-Session.)
#2 parse_grenzen_json: tolerant ggue. ```json-Fences / Prosa-umschlossenem JSON
(gehostete Modelle wie OVH ignorieren z.T. response_format) → Datenblatt-
Extraktion liefert auch ueber den OVH-Fallback Felder.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1) createProject las proj.id, der Create-Response ist aber {project:{id}} →
'Projekt anlegen' war kaputt. Jetzt proj.project?.id. E2E verifiziert
(create→put limits_form→get→delete = 200).
2) MaschinenVO-Sicherheitspflichten wurden in die CRA-Cyber-Buckets
(Code/Prozess/Doku) gemischt → fehl-kategorisiert (Maschinen-Safety ≠
CRA-Annex-I-Cyber). Jetzt eigene Response-Liste machinery_guideline +
eigener Frontend-Abschnitt 'Maschinensicherheit (MaschinenVO 2023/1230)';
geklebtes 'MaschVO'-Badge entfaellt damit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
qwen3.5:35b-a3b ist ein Thinking-Modell → generierte erst Reasoning, riss das
90s-Timeout → leere Extraktion. llm_cascade additiv um think-Param erweitert
(Cache-Key kennt think); Datenblatt-Extraktor setzt think=False → sauberes JSON
in ~1s. Default fuer alle anderen Cascade-Nutzer unveraendert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
llm_cascade additiv modell-faehig (optionaler model-Param, Cache-Key kennt
model_hint → keine Kollision; Default unveraendert für alle anderen Nutzer).
Datenblatt-Extraktor nutzt jetzt qwen3.5:35b-a3b (CRA_DATASHEET_MODEL, gleiches
Modell wie der Compliance Advisor) für bessere semantische Zuordnung. Plus
llm_status (ok|empty|unavailable) + Logging statt stillem except; Frontend zeigt
bei 'unavailable' einen Hinweis statt leerer Felder (wichtig auf prod ohne
lokales Ollama → Cascade-Fallback bzw. Hinweis).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Benjamin Admin
Benjamin_Boenisch