The advisor was structurally correct but unusable: every question showed a snake_case capability id plus a
single generic fallback reason ("Keine Anhaltspunkte im Unternehmensprofil — klären"). The expert text
already EXISTED in the transition patterns (why_asked / reviewable_claim) — the pipeline just dropped it.
- transition_reasoning: TargetRequirement gains `rationale`; assess_transition uses it as the request
reason when present, else the generic fallback (additive, backward-compatible for all consumers).
- onboarding_service._target carries the pattern's why_asked (delta) and reviewable_claim (likely_covered)
into the requirement rationale -> the question's `why`.
- knowledge/onboarding/capability_labels.yaml: curated DE labels (id -> human), reusable across targets;
labels_for() + response.capability_labels expose them; the frontend renders label || prettified id.
Now ISO27001->TISAX reads "Auftragsverarbeitung (Art. 28 DSGVO) — If a TISAX data label is in scope, you
must show Art. 28 GDPR processing-on-behalf controls; ISO 27001 does not establish these." instead of
"data_protection_processing_on_behalf — klären". why_asked text is still EN (existing knowledge; translation
is curation). 34 onboarding+transition tests pass, mypy --strict clean (13 modules), check-loc 0.
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>
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>
Benjamin Admin