User-Praezisierung: Domaene 2 ruht NICHT unbestimmt. Wake-up-Trigger (EINER reicht):
Feature Graph>=200 Features · Span-Anker verfuegbar · neue Regulierung ingestiert · Runtime
kennt neue Evidence-Typen. Erster Folgeauftrag (gated auf Feature Library v1):
FEATURE COVERAGE REPORT = Wissenslueckenanalyse pro Feature (Feature->cap.*->Obligation->
Procedure->Evidence -> Coverage %; zeigt fehlende Capability/Procedure/Evidence je Feature).
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>
User-Antwort auf „wie verteilen wir die Arbeit": nach BESITZ der Datenmodelle, NICHT nach
Regulierung. 3 Domaenen (Legal Knowledge / Compliance Execution / Product Knowledge), jede
besitzt EIN Modell (andere read-only). 3 Vertraege: Legal->Compliance citation_span->legal_basis ·
Product->Compliance Feature->Capability (WICHTIGSTE Schnittstelle) · Compliance->Legal
obligation_id->legal_basis. Product Knowledge Graph = naechster Meilenstein (Reasoning-Session
umfokussieren, besitzt schon CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile+Navigator). NIS2 verschoben.
Offene Fragen: Legal-KG-Owner, IACE-4.-Session, Compliance-2-Branch-Split.
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>
evidence_required lists only required:true rows; repo_scan was required:false so
attack_surface_minimization surfaced config_export alone. An attack-surface scan
IS required to evidence a minimized attack surface. Adds a test pinning the curated
evidence_required set per NIST obligation (the table test only checked control count).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Registry materialized the generic CORE security objectives (#5b, Modell C), so
the two broad NIST controls now point at their canonical parents instead of the
domain-scoped matches:
SI-7 -> software_integrity_protection (CORE, Annex I (2)(f))
CM-7 -> attack_surface_minimization (CORE, Annex I (2)(j))
Non-breaking: the domain-scoped obligations stay valid and specialize the CORE.
SI-7 evidence = sbom + config_export (SBOM evidences component/supply-chain
integrity; config = signing/secure-boot). Export proposed_obligation_id + handler
test (2 CORE cases) updated. go test green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
User-Entscheidung: Metamodell als v1.0 einfrieren (nur META-SEMANTIK: 6 Klassen + Kanten-
Vokabular + Attribute; NICHT Registry/Capabilities/Procedures). Architektur-Freeze in Kraft:
neue Regulierung = DATEN nicht Architektur; 0 neue Objektklassen erwartet; reopen nur bei
nachgewiesenem Scheitern (Hazard/Threat = einzige bekannte künftige Öffnungs-Ursache, nur fuer
FMEA). Reuse-Metrik-KPI definiert (Wissens-Akkumulations-Beweis). Validiert gegen 5
Regulierungsarten (DSGVO/CRA/MaschVO/Data-Act/NIS2). Erster Live-Durchlauf: MaschVO.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
User-Stresstest VOR der naechsten Regulierung: passt MaschVO/Data-Act/AI-Act/NIS2 ins
6-Klassen-Modell (Obligation/Capability/Procedure/Control/Evidence + Guidance) OHNE neue
Objektklasse? Ergebnis 4x NEIN -> Compliance Meta Model steht. 2 Verfeinerungen
(realized_by Capability OPTIONAL; Risiko-Niveau/Frist/Hazard-Schwere/Risiko-Tier = Attribute,
keine Klassen). 1 Watch-Point: Hazard/Threat (erst noetig bei quantitativem FMEA-Risiko als
First-Class-Knoten, nicht fuer Compliance-Abbildung). Kein Code, keine Regulierung ingestiert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Registry grew to 95 (Capability materialization #5b added CORE obligations).
Keep the ai-sdk build-context copy current so obligation-status reflects the
live registry contract.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Prior gitea push's build-ai-sdk failed on a transient registry push (arm64 built
clean on macmini; amd64 cross-compile is green) and last-build/main got poisoned
to that SHA, so a plain re-run scopes to nothing. A real touch in ai-compliance-sdk/
re-scopes the build. Also documents the synced-copy contract for
data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json.
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>
Aligns provide_security_updates -> SI-2 evidence to the curated acceptance set:
config_export (secure-update mechanism config) + test_report (patch verification).
For "provide updates" the patch-verification test is more on-point than a vuln
scan; repo_scan stays on CM-7 for attack-surface.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Schema-Papier statt capabilities.json (User-Entscheidung). Befund: die 8 SHARED_CAPABILITY-
Cluster zerfallen in Typ-1 (technische Capabilities: mfa/tls/code_signing/session/anomaly)
und Typ-2 (Sicherheitsziele: attack_surface_min/software_integrity = die #4-Gaps). Empfehlung
Modell C: Capability = EINZIGE neue Klasse; Sicherheitsziele = CORE Legal Obligations
(CORE/DOMAIN existiert bereits). Kanten-Graph (realized_by/specializes/...). guidance_basis
gehört konzeptionell an die Capability. 4 Entscheidungen offen (User). #5b Materialisierung
GEGATED auf Modell-Annahme — keine Daten verschoben.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Registry filled proposed_obligation_id for the 3 NIST primary_implementation
controls: SI-7->signed_update_integrity, SI-2->provide_security_updates,
CM-7->remote_access_attack_surface_min. Adopted onto cra_nist.jsonl so the join
is now EXACT (obligation_id) instead of the coarse citation_unit fallback.
obligation-status now surfaces SI-2 under provide_security_updates; test extended.
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>
Vertical slice over the Compliance Execution Graph: obligation_id -> accepted
controls -> required evidence -> status. NEVER auto-asserts fulfillment - with
no evidence collection wired (MVP), a mapped obligation is "not_assessed" and
every required evidence is "missing". Fail-closed: no id -> 400; unknown id ->
unknown_obligation; mapped-but-no-control -> unmapped; graph not loaded -> 503.
- ComplianceGraphHandlers (separate from the DB-backed ObligationsHandlers):
loads Registry join keys + accepted control mappings + evidence once at start.
- LoadComplianceGraph: candidate-path resolution across dev/container/test.
- Data plumbing: Dockerfile now COPYs data/{control_mappings,evidence_requirements,
obligations}; data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json is a SYNCED COPY of the
repo-root Registry contract (re-sync on Registry growth).
- Table-driven handler test (mapped/unmapped/unknown/400 + no-fulfillment-claim).
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>
CRA Annex I Part I (2)(e)/(2)(l)/(2)(i) had no clean OWASP target (rejected:
"Mapping ueber NIST/BSI erforderlich"). Their NIST home, curated + accepted:
(2)(e) Integritaet -> SI-7 (Software/Firmware/Information Integrity)
(2)(l) Sichere Updates -> SI-2 (Flaw Remediation)
(2)(i) Angriffsflaeche -> CM-7 (Least Functionality)
New mapping_type=primary_implementation = the single canonical control per
obligation (stronger than implements/supports); related controls (SC-3(3),
RA-5, AC-6, SI-16, ...) follow later as supports.
Evidence is framework-AGNOSTIC: SI-7/SI-2/CM-7 reuse the shared evidence_type
catalog (config_export/test_report/repo_scan) - same types carry CRA, NIST,
ISO 27001, IEC 62443, BSI. (framework,control) is only the link, not the type.
obligation_id left empty: the Obligation Registry assigns it (exported via
controls_for_obligation_mapping.json), then we adopt. go test ./internal/ucca green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The Obligation Registry filled proposed_obligation_id (7/7) + cut the logging
family (obligations 47->66). Adopted obligation_id onto our 7 accepted CRA->OWASP
mappings; the join now prefers the EXACT obligation_id over the coarse
citation_unit (which stays as fallback for not-yet-adopted rows).
Effect: semantic coverage 2->4 (user_authentication_required,
credential_confidentiality_protection, auth_key_management,
event_logging_security_events). Befund 1 resolved: V11.2.1 crypto now sits under
credential_confidentiality_protection, not user_authentication_required.
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>
AssessObligationStatus traverses obligation_id -> (citation_unit) -> accepted
controls -> required evidence -> status (erfuellt|offen|unklar). Evidence
presence is a callback; MVP passes nil (nothing collected yet) -> offen.
citation_spans = "pending" until the Legal-Knowledge-Graph session attaches
them. This is the vertical slice that makes the graph a product feature:
"CRA obligation fulfilled because evidence X/Y/Z is present", not "a doc exists".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Consumes the cross-session contract obligations/obligation_join_keys.json (47
obligation_ids). Interim bridge = citation_unit (our source_norm <-> registry
citation_units), to be hardened to the stable obligation_id (field now optional
on ControlMapping).
ComputeObligationCoverage joins the 47 registry obligations to our accepted
control mappings: covered=2 (user_authentication_required, firmware_software_
authentication), mapped_rejected=3 ((2)(e) -> our OWASP mappings rejected,
route via NIST/BSI), uncovered=42. This coverage signal is the feedback to the
Obligation session for what to cut/refine next.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pilotadmin