Merge pull request 'feat: company capability profile foundation' (#4) from feat/company-intelligence-2a into main

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>

ai-compliance-sdk/Dockerfile

@@ -33,6 +33,14 @@ COPY migrations/ ./migrations/
 # Copy policy files (YAML rules)
 COPY policies/ ./policies/
 
+# Copy Compliance Execution Graph data (file-backed: Registry join-key copy + accepted control
+# mappings + evidence requirements) consumed by GET /sdk/v1/compliance/obligation-status.
+# data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json is a synced copy of the repo-root Registry contract
+# (the Obligation Registry owns the canonical file) — re-sync it when the Registry grows.
+COPY data/control_mappings/ ./data/control_mappings/
+COPY data/evidence_requirements/ ./data/evidence_requirements/
+COPY data/obligations/ ./data/obligations/
+
 # Create non-root user
 RUN adduser -D -u 1000 appuser
 USER appuser

ai-compliance-sdk/cmd/iace-audit/main.go

@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ func main() {
 		cmdEcho(os.Args[2:])
 	case "hierarchy":
 		cmdHierarchy(os.Args[2:])
+	case "propose":
+		cmdPropose(os.Args[2:])
 	default:
 		usage()
 		os.Exit(2)
@@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ func main() {
 }
 
 func usage() {
-	fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "Usage: iace-audit <reachability|consistency|vocabulary|echo|hierarchy> [args]")
+	fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "Usage: iace-audit <reachability|consistency|vocabulary|echo|hierarchy|propose> [args]")
 }
 
 func cmdReachability(_ []string) {

ai-compliance-sdk/cmd/iace-audit/propose.go

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+package main
+
+import (
+	"context"
+	"encoding/json"
+	"fmt"
+	"os"
+	"strconv"
+	"strings"
+
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace"
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/audit"
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/llm"
+)
+
+type narrativeInput struct {
+	MachineType  string   `json:"machine_type"`
+	Narrative    string   `json:"narrative"`
+	MachineTypes []string `json:"machine_types,omitempty"`
+}
+
+// cmdPropose — Method P: offline dedup-candidate proposer.
+//
+//	iace-audit propose <narrative.json> [<ground-truth.json>]
+//
+// Detect near-duplicate patterns, screen survivors against a ground truth (if
+// given), judge them (heuristic by default, LLM when enabled), and write the
+// human-review queue to audit-reports/proposals.{md,json}. Propose-only — it
+// writes a report and never mutates the pattern library.
+//
+// Env:
+//
+//	IACE_PROPOSE_THRESHOLD  candidate score threshold (default 0.30)
+//	IACE_PROPOSE_LLM=1      use the offline LLM judge instead of the heuristic
+//	OLLAMA_URL              ollama base URL (default http://localhost:11434)
+//	SELF_HOSTED_LLM_MODEL   model name (default qwen2.5:32b-instruct)
+func cmdPropose(args []string) {
+	if len(args) < 1 {
+		fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "propose: usage: iace-audit propose <narrative.json> [<ground-truth.json>]")
+		os.Exit(2)
+	}
+
+	var in narrativeInput
+	must(readJSONFile(args[0], &in))
+	if in.Narrative == "" {
+		fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "propose: narrative is empty")
+		os.Exit(2)
+	}
+
+	var gt *iace.GroundTruth
+	if len(args) >= 2 {
+		var g iace.GroundTruth
+		must(readJSONFile(args[1], &g))
+		gt = &g
+	}
+
+	threshold := envFloat("IACE_PROPOSE_THRESHOLD", 0.30)
+	hazards, mits, fired := iace.BuildProposerInput(in.Narrative, in.MachineType, in.MachineTypes)
+	candidates := iace.FindDedupCandidates(fired, threshold)
+
+	byID := make(map[string]iace.PatternMatch, len(fired))
+	for _, pm := range fired {
+		byID[pm.PatternID] = pm
+	}
+
+	judge := selectJudge(in.MachineType)
+	ctx := context.Background()
+
+	var proposals []iace.JudgedProposal
+	blocked := 0
+	for _, c := range candidates {
+		var sr iace.ScreenResult
+		if gt != nil {
+			sr = iace.ScreenSupersession(gt, hazards, mits, c.KeepHazardName, c.DropName)
+			if sr.RecallAfter < sr.RecallBefore || sr.DistinctGT {
+				blocked++
+				continue
+			}
+		}
+		v, conf, rat := judge.Judge(ctx, c, byID[c.KeepPattern], byID[c.DropPattern])
+		proposals = append(proposals, iace.JudgedProposal{
+			Candidate: c, Screen: sr, Verdict: v, Confidence: conf, Rationale: rat, Judge: judge.Name(),
+		})
+	}
+
+	writeText("audit-reports/proposals.md", iace.RenderProposalQueue(in.MachineType, proposals))
+	writeJSON("audit-reports/proposals.json", proposals)
+
+	// Type 2: foreign-framing candidates (zone terms with no narrative echo).
+	framing := iace.FindFramingCandidates(fired, in.Narrative, envFloat("IACE_FRAMING_MIN_ORPHAN", 0.6))
+	writeText("audit-reports/framing.md", iace.RenderFramingQueue(in.MachineType, framing))
+	writeJSON("audit-reports/framing.json", framing)
+
+	// Type 3: vocab->tag proposals (unknown narrative tokens that pattern text
+	// names as a whole word, with a dominant shared required tag).
+	vocab := audit.RunVocabulary(map[string]any{"narrative": in.Narrative})
+	var vgaps []audit.DictionarySuggestion
+	for _, s := range vocab.SuggestedDictionaryEntries {
+		if len(s.SuggestedTags) > 0 {
+			vgaps = append(vgaps, s)
+		}
+	}
+	writeText("audit-reports/vocab.md", renderVocabQueue(in.MachineType, vgaps))
+	writeJSON("audit-reports/vocab.json", vgaps)
+
+	// Type 4: coverage blind-spots (empty ISO 12100 groups A-G) + LLM expansion.
+	gaps := iace.FindCoverageGaps(hazards)
+	var missing []iace.MissingHazard
+	if lj, ok := judge.(iace.LLMJudge); ok {
+		missing = iace.ProposeMissingHazards(ctx, lj.Completer, in.MachineType, in.Narrative, hazards, gaps)
+	}
+	writeText("audit-reports/coverage.md", iace.RenderCoverageQueue(in.MachineType, gaps, missing))
+	writeJSON("audit-reports/coverage.json", gaps)
+
+	printSummary("Method P — Dedup Proposer ("+judge.Name()+")", map[string]int{
+		"fired_patterns": len(fired),
+		"candidates":     len(candidates),
+		"in_queue":       len(proposals),
+		"gt_blocked":     blocked,
+		"framing_flags":  len(framing),
+		"vocab_gaps":     len(vgaps),
+		"coverage_gaps":  len(gaps),
+	})
+	if gt == nil {
+		fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "note: no ground truth provided — GT wall NOT applied (candidates not recall-screened)")
+	}
+}
+
+func selectJudge(machineClass string) iace.CandidateJudge {
+	if os.Getenv("IACE_PROPOSE_LLM") != "1" {
+		return iace.HeuristicJudge{}
+	}
+	base := envStr("OLLAMA_URL", "http://localhost:11434")
+	model := envStr("SELF_HOSTED_LLM_MODEL", "qwen2.5:32b-instruct")
+	reg := llm.NewProviderRegistry("ollama", "")
+	reg.Register(llm.NewOllamaAdapter(base, model))
+	fmt.Printf("using LLM judge (ollama %s, model %s)\n", base, model)
+	return iace.LLMJudge{Completer: iace.NewRegistryCompleter(reg, model), MachineClass: machineClass}
+}
+
+func readJSONFile(path string, v any) error {
+	raw, err := os.ReadFile(path)
+	if err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
+	return json.Unmarshal(raw, v)
+}
+
+func writeText(path, content string) {
+	_ = os.MkdirAll("audit-reports", 0o755)
+	if err := os.WriteFile(path, []byte(content), 0o644); err != nil {
+		fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "warn: could not write", path, err)
+		return
+	}
+	fmt.Println("→ wrote", path)
+}
+
+func envStr(key, def string) string {
+	if v := os.Getenv(key); v != "" {
+		return v
+	}
+	return def
+}
+
+func envFloat(key string, def float64) float64 {
+	if v := os.Getenv(key); v != "" {
+		if f, err := strconv.ParseFloat(v, 64); err == nil {
+			return f
+		}
+	}
+	return def
+}
+
+func renderVocabQueue(machine string, entries []audit.DictionarySuggestion) string {
+	var b strings.Builder
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "# Vocab→tag review queue — %s\n\n", machine)
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%d unknown token(s) appear in pattern text but map to no dictionary tag. Propose-only — a human (or the LLM) confirms the tag, then adds a keyword_dictionary entry and pins a GT case.\n\n", len(entries))
+	for i, s := range entries {
+		tag := "<tag>"
+		if len(s.SuggestedTags) > 0 {
+			tag = s.SuggestedTags[0]
+		}
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "## %d. \"%s\"  → suggested tag(s): %s\n", i+1, s.Token, strings.Join(s.SuggestedTags, ", "))
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- named by %d pattern(s): %s\n", len(s.PatternIDs), strings.Join(s.PatternIDs, ", "))
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- suggested action: add keyword_dictionary entry {%q → %s} so narratives mentioning it trigger those patterns; human confirms\n\n", s.Token, tag)
+	}
+	return b.String()
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/data/control_mappings/cra_nist.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// Control-Mapping: CRA Annex I -> NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5. Eine Zeile = ein Mapping (Schema: ControlMapping).
+// Reviewt 2026-06-25 (benjamin): 3 accepted, mapping_type=primary_implementation (kanonische Primaer-Control je Anforderung).
+// Heimat der OWASP-Rejects (2)(e)/(2)(l)/(2)(i): dort war OWASP nicht der Zielstandard ("Mapping ueber NIST/BSI erforderlich").
+// related-Controls (SC-3(3), RA-5, AC-6, SI-16, ...) folgen separat als mapping_type=supports — hier nur der kanonische Einstieg.
+// obligation_id (Registry-Handoff #4 adoptiert, #6 auf CORE re-pointet 2026-06-26): SI-7->software_integrity_protection (CORE (2)(f)), SI-2->provide_security_updates, CM-7->attack_surface_minimization (CORE (2)(j)). Join exakt. Die domaenen-scoped IDs (signed_update_integrity, remote_access_attack_surface_min) bleiben gueltige Obligations und zeigen per specializes->CORE auf diese Ziele.
+{"source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(e) — Integritaet", "source_role": "operational_requirement", "target_framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "target_control": "SI-7", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation", "mapping_status": "accepted", "provenance": "human_curated", "rationale": "NIST SI-7 = Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity — kanonische Integritaetskontrolle (Signaturpruefung, Manipulationserkennung).", "reviewed_by": "benjamin", "review_date": "2026-06-25", "review_reason": "Primaere Implementierung der CRA-Integritaetsanforderung; OWASP war hier kein passender Treffer. Related (spaeter, supports): SA-10, CM-14.", "version": "2026-06-25", "obligation_id": "software_integrity_protection"}
+{"source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(l) — Sichere Updates", "source_role": "operational_requirement", "target_framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "target_control": "SI-2", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation", "mapping_status": "accepted", "provenance": "human_curated", "rationale": "NIST SI-2 = Flaw Remediation — kanonische Update-/Patch-Kontrolle.", "reviewed_by": "benjamin", "review_date": "2026-06-25", "review_reason": "Primaere Implementierung der CRA-Update-Anforderung. Related (spaeter, supports): RA-5, CM-3, SA-11.", "version": "2026-06-25", "obligation_id": "provide_security_updates"}
+{"source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(i) — Angriffsflaeche minimieren", "source_role": "operational_requirement", "target_framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "target_control": "CM-7", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation", "mapping_status": "accepted", "provenance": "human_curated", "rationale": "NIST CM-7 = Least Functionality — Deaktivierung nicht benoetigter Ports/Dienste/Funktionen.", "reviewed_by": "benjamin", "review_date": "2026-06-25", "review_reason": "CM-7 als Primaer-Control fuer Angriffsflaeche (nicht SC-3(3)). Related (spaeter, supports): SC-3(3), AC-6, SI-16.", "version": "2026-06-25", "obligation_id": "attack_surface_minimization"}

ai-compliance-sdk/data/evidence_requirements/nist_evidence.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+// Evidence-Requirements je NIST-SP-800-53-Control (Schema: EvidenceRequirement). Eine Zeile = eine geforderte Evidenz.
+// WICHTIG: evidence_type ist FRAMEWORK-AGNOSTISCH (geteilter Katalog config_export/test_report/repo_scan/sbom/...) —
+// dieselben Typen tragen CRA, NIST, ISO 27001, IEC 62443, BSI. (framework, control) ist nur der Verweis, nicht der Typ.
+// Stand 2026-06-25, Basis: die 3 accepted CRA->NIST primary_implementation-Mappings (SI-7 Integritaet, SI-2 Updates, CM-7 Angriffsflaeche).
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-7", "evidence_type": "sbom", "evidence_source": "ci", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "SBOM weist die Integritaet/Herkunft der Software-Bestandteile nach (bekannte, unmanipulierte Komponenten).", "version": "2026-06-25"}
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-7", "evidence_type": "config_export", "evidence_source": "github", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "Secure-Boot-/Code-Signing-Konfiguration als Nachweis der Integritaetspruefung.", "version": "2026-06-25"}
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-2", "evidence_type": "config_export", "evidence_source": "github", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "Konfiguration des sicheren Update-/Patch-Mechanismus (signierte/automatische Updates) als technischer Nachweis.", "version": "2026-06-25"}
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-2", "evidence_type": "test_report", "evidence_source": "ci", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "Update-/Patch-Verifikationstest (CI) belegt, dass Sicherheitsupdates greifen.", "version": "2026-06-25"}
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "CM-7", "evidence_type": "config_export", "evidence_source": "github", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "Konfiguration deaktivierter Ports/Dienste/Funktionen als Nachweis minimierter Angriffsflaeche.", "version": "2026-06-25"}
+{"framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "CM-7", "evidence_type": "repo_scan", "evidence_source": "scanner", "freshness_requirement": "per_release", "required": true, "rationale": "Angriffsflaechen-Scan (offene Ports/Dienste) als Nachweis tatsaechlich minimierter Angriffsflaeche.", "version": "2026-06-25"}

ai-compliance-sdk/data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json

@@ -0,0 +1,846 @@
+{
+ "schema_version": "obligation_join_keys_v1",
+ "contract": "obligation_id ist der stabile Join-Key. Legal Knowledge Graph haengt citation_spans an obligation_id; Compliance Execution Graph mappt control_mapping.source_norm -> obligation_id. Interim-Bruecke = citation_units. obligation_id NIE neu vergeben (re-link).",
+ "count": 95,
+ "obligation_ids": [
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_creation",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_dependency_coverage",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Art. 3(36) i.V.m. Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_format_standard",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_maintenance_update",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_completeness_verification",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_tooling_automation",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "IMPLEMENTATION"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_access_provision",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_authority_provision",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Art. 31 / Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_confidentiality",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Art. 31(4)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_supply_chain_contracts",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "sbom_technical_documentation",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "sbom",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Art. 31 i.V.m. Annex VII"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "EVIDENCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "vuln_identification_inventory",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "vuln_assessment_prioritization",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "vuln_remediation_patching",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (2) & (8)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "vuln_handling_process",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Article 13(8) & Annex VII"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (5)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "exploited_vuln_reporting_authorities",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Article 14 & Article 16"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "vuln_info_dissemination_users",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "vuln",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part II (4) & (6)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "attack_surface_minimization",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "core",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(j)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "software_integrity_protection",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "core",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(f)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "user_authentication_required",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(d)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "authentication_policy_documented",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "auth_exceptions_documented",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "mfa_required",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "step_up_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "privileged_op_reauth",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "strong_crypto_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(e)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "credential_lifecycle_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "credential_confidentiality_protection",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(e)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "password_policy",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "no_default_credentials",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(a)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "account_lockout_failed_attempts",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "server_side_validation",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "session_binding_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "reauth_after_inactivity",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "token_validation_lifecycle",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "mutual_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "revocation_check",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "encrypted_auth_channel",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(e)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "tls_certificate_auth",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "service_to_service_auth",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "auth_key_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "biometric_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "federated_auth_assertions",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "separate_authn_authz",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "supplier_access_auth",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "personal_admin_accounts",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "firmware_software_authentication",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "authentication",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(c)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "event_logging_security_events",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "access_control_event_logging",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "audit_trail_admin_actions",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_integrity_immutability",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_access_control_protection",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_retention_archival",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "centralized_log_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_monitoring_alerting",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I Part I (2)(k)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_data_minimization_privacy",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_format_standardization",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_timestamp_synchronization",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "logging_availability_resilience",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "logging_thread_safety_correctness",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "IMPLEMENTATION"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "logging_library_supply_chain",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "logging_config_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "logging_governance_roles",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "incident_response_logging",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "log_transmission_security",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "network_traffic_logging",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "logging",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_control_least_privilege",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(2)(d)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_confidentiality_integrity",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(2)(b)(c)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_session_management",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_mfa",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_encryption",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "reject_insecure_remote_protocols",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_logging_audit",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(2)(g)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_user_validation_ot",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_training",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_architecture_design",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_attack_surface_min",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(2)(a)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_vuln_patch_mgmt",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(1)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_threat_detection",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_maintenance_governance",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "temporary_remote_access_mgmt",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_data_export_protection",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "component_remote_interface_security",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "remote_access_fallback_concept",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "remote_access",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "provide_security_updates",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(c)",
+    "Art. 13"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "support_period_maintenance",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Art. 13(8)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "signed_update_integrity",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(3)(f)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "trusted_update_source",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(3)(d)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "update_testing_validation",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "update_rollback",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "GUIDANCE"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "automatic_updates_optout",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (2)(c)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "update_risk_assessment",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "citation_units": [
+    "Annex I (1)(2)"
+   ],
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS"
+  },
+  {
+   "obligation_id": "secure_modification_control",
+   "regulation": "CRA",
+   "family": "updates",
+   "tier": "BEST_PRACTICE",
+   "citation_units": [],
+   "source_role": "IMPLEMENTATION"
+  }
+ ]
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/api/handlers/compliance_graph_handlers.go

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+package handlers
+
+import (
+	"net/http"
+	"strings"
+
+	"github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
+
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/ucca"
+)
+
+// ComplianceGraphHandlers serves the read-only Compliance Execution Graph
+// (Regulation -> Obligation -> Control -> Evidence) over the file-backed bridge artifacts.
+// It is intentionally SEPARATE from the DB-backed ObligationsHandlers: this is the curated
+// cross-session graph (Registry join keys + accepted control mappings + evidence requirements),
+// loaded once at startup. Fail-closed: if the graph could not load, every request answers 503.
+type ComplianceGraphHandlers struct {
+	joins    *ucca.ObligationJoinKeys
+	mappings *ucca.ControlMappingSet
+	evidence *ucca.EvidenceRequirementSet
+	loadErr  error
+}
+
+// NewComplianceGraphHandlers loads the graph once. Construction never fails; a load error is
+// retained and surfaced as 503 per request (matches the codebase's load-warn-continue startup).
+func NewComplianceGraphHandlers() *ComplianceGraphHandlers {
+	joins, mappings, evidence, err := ucca.LoadComplianceGraph()
+	return &ComplianceGraphHandlers{joins: joins, mappings: mappings, evidence: evidence, loadErr: err}
+}
+
+// LoadError exposes a startup load failure so the wiring can log a warning.
+func (h *ComplianceGraphHandlers) LoadError() error { return h.loadErr }
+
+// RegisterRoutes mounts the compliance-graph routes under /compliance.
+func (h *ComplianceGraphHandlers) RegisterRoutes(r *gin.RouterGroup) {
+	g := r.Group("/compliance")
+	g.GET("/obligation-status", h.ObligationStatus)
+}
+
+type cgControlDTO struct {
+	Framework        string   `json:"framework"`
+	Control          string   `json:"control"`
+	MappingType      string   `json:"mapping_type"`
+	EvidenceRequired []string `json:"evidence_required"`
+	EvidenceStatus   string   `json:"evidence_status"` // missing | partial | present | none_required
+}
+
+type cgStatusResponse struct {
+	ObligationID  string         `json:"obligation_id"`
+	OverallStatus string         `json:"overall_status"` // unknown_obligation | unmapped | not_assessed | open | met
+	LegalBasis    []string       `json:"legal_basis,omitempty"`
+	CitationSpans string         `json:"citation_spans"` // "pending" until the Legal-KG attaches spans
+	Controls      []cgControlDTO `json:"controls"`
+	Note          string         `json:"note,omitempty"`
+}
+
+// ObligationStatus answers GET /sdk/v1/compliance/obligation-status?obligation_id=...
+//
+// It NEVER asserts fulfillment automatically. With no evidence collection wired (MVP), a mapped
+// obligation is "not_assessed" and every required evidence is "missing" — the honest picture is
+// "required vs present evidence", not "a document exists". Fail-closed otherwise:
+//   - no obligation_id          -> 400
+//   - graph not loaded          -> 503
+//   - id not in the Registry    -> 200 overall_status=unknown_obligation
+//   - mapped but no control yet  -> 200 overall_status=unmapped
+func (h *ComplianceGraphHandlers) ObligationStatus(c *gin.Context) {
+	if h.loadErr != nil {
+		c.JSON(http.StatusServiceUnavailable, gin.H{"error": "compliance graph unavailable", "detail": h.loadErr.Error()})
+		return
+	}
+	obID := strings.TrimSpace(c.Query("obligation_id"))
+	if obID == "" {
+		c.JSON(http.StatusBadRequest, gin.H{"error": "obligation_id query parameter required"})
+		return
+	}
+	resp := cgStatusResponse{ObligationID: obID, CitationSpans: "pending", Controls: []cgControlDTO{}}
+
+	if h.joins.FindObligation(obID) == nil {
+		resp.OverallStatus = "unknown_obligation"
+		resp.Note = "obligation_id not in the Registry join-key contract"
+		c.JSON(http.StatusOK, resp)
+		return
+	}
+
+	// MVP: hasEvidence=nil -> no collection wired -> all required evidence counts as missing.
+	st := ucca.AssessObligationStatus(h.joins, h.mappings, h.evidence, obID, nil)
+	resp.LegalBasis = st.LegalBasis
+
+	if len(st.Controls) == 0 {
+		resp.OverallStatus = "unmapped"
+		resp.Note = "no accepted control maps to this obligation yet"
+		c.JSON(http.StatusOK, resp)
+		return
+	}
+
+	for _, cs := range st.Controls {
+		types := make([]string, 0, len(cs.RequiredEvidence))
+		for _, e := range cs.RequiredEvidence {
+			types = append(types, e.EvidenceType)
+		}
+		resp.Controls = append(resp.Controls, cgControlDTO{
+			Framework:        cs.Framework,
+			Control:          cs.Control,
+			MappingType:      cs.MappingType,
+			EvidenceRequired: types,
+			EvidenceStatus:   cgEvidenceStatus(len(cs.RequiredEvidence), len(cs.MissingEvidence)),
+		})
+	}
+	// No fulfillment claim without real evidence collection.
+	resp.OverallStatus = "not_assessed"
+	resp.Note = "evidence collection not wired (MVP) — fulfillment not asserted"
+	c.JSON(http.StatusOK, resp)
+}
+
+func cgEvidenceStatus(required, missing int) string {
+	switch {
+	case required == 0:
+		return "none_required"
+	case missing == 0:
+		return "present"
+	case missing == required:
+		return "missing"
+	default:
+		return "partial"
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/api/handlers/compliance_graph_handlers_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+package handlers
+
+import (
+	"encoding/json"
+	"net/http"
+	"net/http/httptest"
+	"testing"
+
+	"github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
+)
+
+func newComplianceGraphTestRouter(t *testing.T) *gin.Engine {
+	t.Helper()
+	gin.SetMode(gin.TestMode)
+	h := NewComplianceGraphHandlers()
+	if err := h.LoadError(); err != nil {
+		t.Fatalf("compliance graph failed to load (candidate paths): %v", err)
+	}
+	r := gin.New()
+	h.RegisterRoutes(r.Group("/sdk/v1"))
+	return r
+}
+
+func getObligationStatus(t *testing.T, r *gin.Engine, query string) (int, cgStatusResponse) {
+	t.Helper()
+	w := httptest.NewRecorder()
+	req, _ := http.NewRequest(http.MethodGet, "/sdk/v1/compliance/obligation-status"+query, nil)
+	r.ServeHTTP(w, req)
+	var resp cgStatusResponse
+	if w.Code == http.StatusOK {
+		if err := json.Unmarshal(w.Body.Bytes(), &resp); err != nil {
+			t.Fatalf("decode body %q: %v", w.Body.String(), err)
+		}
+	}
+	return w.Code, resp
+}
+
+func TestObligationStatus(t *testing.T) {
+	r := newComplianceGraphTestRouter(t)
+
+	tests := []struct {
+		name         string
+		query        string
+		wantHTTP     int
+		wantOverall  string
+		wantControls bool // expect >=1 control
+	}{
+		{"missing param -> 400", "", http.StatusBadRequest, "", false},
+		{"unknown id -> unknown_obligation", "?obligation_id=does_not_exist", http.StatusOK, "unknown_obligation", false},
+		{"mapped (OWASP V6) -> not_assessed", "?obligation_id=user_authentication_required", http.StatusOK, "not_assessed", true},
+		{"NIST adopted (SI-2) -> not_assessed", "?obligation_id=provide_security_updates", http.StatusOK, "not_assessed", true},
+		{"CORE attack_surface_minimization -> CM-7", "?obligation_id=attack_surface_minimization", http.StatusOK, "not_assessed", true},
+		{"CORE software_integrity_protection -> SI-7", "?obligation_id=software_integrity_protection", http.StatusOK, "not_assessed", true},
+		{"in registry, no control -> unmapped", "?obligation_id=sbom_creation", http.StatusOK, "unmapped", false},
+	}
+	for _, tt := range tests {
+		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			code, resp := getObligationStatus(t, r, tt.query)
+			if code != tt.wantHTTP {
+				t.Fatalf("http %d, want %d", code, tt.wantHTTP)
+			}
+			if tt.wantHTTP != http.StatusOK {
+				return
+			}
+			if resp.OverallStatus != tt.wantOverall {
+				t.Errorf("overall_status=%q, want %q", resp.OverallStatus, tt.wantOverall)
+			}
+			if tt.wantControls && len(resp.Controls) == 0 {
+				t.Error("expected >=1 control")
+			}
+			if !tt.wantControls && len(resp.Controls) != 0 {
+				t.Errorf("expected 0 controls, got %d", len(resp.Controls))
+			}
+			if resp.CitationSpans != "pending" {
+				t.Errorf("citation_spans=%q, want pending", resp.CitationSpans)
+			}
+		})
+	}
+}
+
+// The MVP must NEVER auto-assert fulfillment: with no evidence collection wired, every required
+// evidence is "missing" and the overall status stays "not_assessed".
+func TestObligationStatus_NoFulfillmentClaim(t *testing.T) {
+	r := newComplianceGraphTestRouter(t)
+	code, resp := getObligationStatus(t, r, "?obligation_id=user_authentication_required")
+	if code != http.StatusOK {
+		t.Fatalf("http %d", code)
+	}
+	if resp.OverallStatus == "met" || resp.OverallStatus == "erfuellt" {
+		t.Fatalf("MVP must not assert fulfillment, got overall_status=%q", resp.OverallStatus)
+	}
+	for _, ctl := range resp.Controls {
+		if len(ctl.EvidenceRequired) > 0 && ctl.EvidenceStatus != "missing" {
+			t.Errorf("control %s/%s evidence_status=%q, want missing (no collection wired)", ctl.Framework, ctl.Control, ctl.EvidenceStatus)
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+// Pin the curated evidence_required set per NIST obligation. A required:false row silently
+// drops from evidence_required, which the table test above (control-count only) would miss.
+func TestObligationStatus_NISTEvidenceTypes(t *testing.T) {
+	r := newComplianceGraphTestRouter(t)
+	want := map[string][]string{
+		"attack_surface_minimization":   {"config_export", "repo_scan"},
+		"software_integrity_protection": {"sbom", "config_export"},
+		"provide_security_updates":      {"config_export", "test_report"},
+	}
+	for ob, exp := range want {
+		_, resp := getObligationStatus(t, r, "?obligation_id="+ob)
+		if len(resp.Controls) != 1 {
+			t.Fatalf("%s: want 1 control, got %d", ob, len(resp.Controls))
+		}
+		if got := resp.Controls[0].EvidenceRequired; !sameStringSet(got, exp) {
+			t.Errorf("%s evidence_required = %v, want %v", ob, got, exp)
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+func sameStringSet(a, b []string) bool {
+	if len(a) != len(b) {
+		return false
+	}
+	m := make(map[string]bool, len(a))
+	for _, x := range a {
+		m[x] = true
+	}
+	for _, x := range b {
+		if !m[x] {
+			return false
+		}
+	}
+	return true
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/app/app.go

@@ -153,6 +153,12 @@ func buildRouter(cfg *config.Config, pool *pgxpool.Pool) *gin.Engine {
 	ragHandlers := handlers.NewRAGHandlers(corpusVersionStore)
 	obligationsHandlers := handlers.NewObligationsHandlersWithStore(obligationsStore)
 
+	// Compliance Execution Graph (file-backed: Registry join keys + accepted control mappings + evidence)
+	complianceGraphHandlers := handlers.NewComplianceGraphHandlers()
+	if err := complianceGraphHandlers.LoadError(); err != nil {
+		log.Printf("WARNING: compliance graph not loaded (obligation-status -> 503): %v", err)
+	}
+
 	// Regulatory News
 	allV2Regs, err := ucca.LoadAllV2Regulations()
 	if err != nil {
@@ -201,7 +207,8 @@ func buildRouter(cfg *config.Config, pool *pgxpool.Pool) *gin.Engine {
 		uccaHandlers, escalationHandlers, obligationsHandlers, ragHandlers,
 		roadmapHandlers, workshopHandlers, portfolioHandlers,
 		academyHandlers, trainingHandlers, whistleblowerHandlers, iaceHandler,
-		gapHandler, maximizerHandlers, regulatoryNewsHandlers, useCaseHandler)
+		gapHandler, maximizerHandlers, regulatoryNewsHandlers, useCaseHandler,
+		complianceGraphHandlers)
 
 	return router
 }

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/app/routes.go

@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ func registerRoutes(
 	maximizerHandlers *handlers.MaximizerHandlers,
 	regulatoryNewsHandlers *handlers.RegulatoryNewsHandlers,
 	useCaseHandler *handlers.UseCaseHandler,
+	complianceGraphHandlers *handlers.ComplianceGraphHandlers,
 ) {
 	v1 := router.Group("/sdk/v1")
 	{
@@ -54,6 +55,7 @@ func registerRoutes(
 		registerMaximizerRoutes(v1, maximizerHandlers)
 		registerUseCaseRoutes(v1, useCaseHandler)
 		v1.GET("/regulatory-news", regulatoryNewsHandlers.GetNews)
+		complianceGraphHandlers.RegisterRoutes(v1)
 	}
 }
 

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/audit/stubs.go

@@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ type DictionarySuggestion struct {
 	Token      string   `json:"token"`
 	Field      string   `json:"field"`
 	PatternIDs []string `json:"pattern_ids"`
+	// SuggestedTags are the RequiredComponentTags shared by the naming patterns,
+	// ranked by frequency — the candidate tags a keyword_dictionary entry for this
+	// token would emit so narratives mentioning it can trigger those patterns.
+	SuggestedTags []string `json:"suggested_tags,omitempty"`
 }
 
 type VocabularyReport struct {

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/audit/vocabulary.go

@@ -66,14 +66,19 @@ func runVocabulary(form map[string]any) VocabularyReport {
 
 	// For each unknown token check if any pattern names it
 	patterns := iace.AllPatterns()
+	byID := make(map[string]iace.HazardPattern, len(patterns))
+	for _, p := range patterns {
+		byID[p.ID] = p
+	}
 	for _, tok := range report.UnknownTokens {
 		hits := patternsMentioning(tok, patterns)
 		if len(hits) == 0 {
 			continue
 		}
 		report.SuggestedDictionaryEntries = append(report.SuggestedDictionaryEntries, DictionarySuggestion{
-			Token:      tok,
-			PatternIDs: hits,
+			Token:         tok,
+			PatternIDs:    hits,
+			SuggestedTags: suggestTagsFor(hits, byID),
 		})
 	}
 	sort.Slice(report.SuggestedDictionaryEntries, func(i, j int) bool {
@@ -129,18 +134,24 @@ func dictTokenHit(tok string, dict map[string]bool) bool {
 	return false
 }
 
-// patternsMentioning returns up to 8 pattern IDs whose scenario/trigger/
-// harm/zone text contains the token (case-insensitive substring).
+// patternsMentioning returns up to 8 pattern IDs whose scenario/trigger/harm/
+// zone text names the token as a WHOLE WORD. Whole-word (not substring) matching
+// is essential: a substring match flags common fragments like "stehen" inside
+// "entstehen", producing spurious hits and nonsensical tag suggestions.
 func patternsMentioning(tok string, patterns []iace.HazardPattern) []string {
 	tokLower := strings.ToLower(tok)
 	seen := map[string]bool{}
 	var out []string
 	for _, p := range patterns {
 		hay := strings.ToLower(p.ScenarioDE + " " + p.TriggerDE + " " + p.HarmDE + " " + p.ZoneDE + " " + p.NameDE)
-		if !strings.Contains(hay, tokLower) {
-			continue
+		matched := false
+		for _, w := range tokenRE.FindAllString(hay, -1) {
+			if w == tokLower {
+				matched = true
+				break
+			}
 		}
-		if seen[p.ID] {
+		if !matched || seen[p.ID] {
 			continue
 		}
 		seen[p.ID] = true
@@ -151,3 +162,57 @@ func patternsMentioning(tok string, patterns []iace.HazardPattern) []string {
 	}
 	return out
 }
+
+// suggestTagsFor returns the RequiredComponentTags shared across the naming
+// patterns, ranked by how many of them require each tag (ties broken by name),
+// top 3. These are the candidate tags a dictionary entry for the token should
+// emit so a narrative mentioning the token can trigger those patterns.
+func suggestTagsFor(ids []string, byID map[string]iace.HazardPattern) []string {
+	freq := map[string]int{}
+	total := 0
+	for _, id := range ids {
+		p, ok := byID[id]
+		if !ok {
+			continue
+		}
+		total++
+		seen := map[string]bool{}
+		for _, tag := range p.RequiredComponentTags {
+			if seen[tag] {
+				continue
+			}
+			seen[tag] = true
+			freq[tag]++
+		}
+	}
+	if total == 0 {
+		return nil
+	}
+	type tf struct {
+		tag string
+		n   int
+	}
+	ranked := make([]tf, 0, len(freq))
+	for t, n := range freq {
+		ranked = append(ranked, tf{t, n})
+	}
+	sort.Slice(ranked, func(i, j int) bool {
+		if ranked[i].n != ranked[j].n {
+			return ranked[i].n > ranked[j].n
+		}
+		return ranked[i].tag < ranked[j].tag
+	})
+	// Only suggest a tag shared by >= 40% of the naming patterns. Diffuse tokens
+	// (common verbs spread across categories) get no dominant tag and are dropped.
+	var out []string
+	for _, x := range ranked {
+		if float64(x.n)/float64(total) < 0.4 {
+			break
+		}
+		out = append(out, x.tag)
+		if len(out) >= 3 {
+			break
+		}
+	}
+	return out
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/audit/vocabulary_proposer_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+package audit
+
+import (
+	"testing"
+
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace"
+)
+
+func TestSuggestTagsFor_RanksSharedRequiredTags(t *testing.T) {
+	byID := map[string]iace.HazardPattern{
+		"P1": {ID: "P1", RequiredComponentTags: []string{"backflow_risk", "dom_warewashing"}},
+		"P2": {ID: "P2", RequiredComponentTags: []string{"backflow_risk"}},
+		"P3": {ID: "P3", RequiredComponentTags: []string{"sharp_edge"}},
+	}
+	got := suggestTagsFor([]string{"P1", "P2", "P3"}, byID)
+	if len(got) == 0 || got[0] != "backflow_risk" {
+		t.Fatalf("want backflow_risk ranked first (2 patterns), got %v", got)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestSuggestTagsFor_TopThreeStableAlpha(t *testing.T) {
+	byID := map[string]iace.HazardPattern{
+		"P1": {ID: "P1", RequiredComponentTags: []string{"d", "b", "a", "c"}},
+	}
+	got := suggestTagsFor([]string{"P1"}, byID)
+	if len(got) != 3 || got[0] != "a" || got[1] != "b" || got[2] != "c" {
+		t.Fatalf("want stable alpha top-3 [a b c], got %v", got)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestSuggestTagsFor_UnknownPatternIgnored(t *testing.T) {
+	byID := map[string]iace.HazardPattern{}
+	if got := suggestTagsFor([]string{"missing"}, byID); len(got) != 0 {
+		t.Fatalf("want empty for unknown patterns, got %v", got)
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/gt_kistenhub_test.go

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ import (
 	"path/filepath"
 	"sort"
 	"testing"
-
-	"github.com/google/uuid"
 )
 
 // TestKistenhub_GTCoverage runs the Kistenhubgeraet ground truth (37 entries)
@@ -110,65 +108,6 @@ func TestKistenhub_GTCoverage(t *testing.T) {
 // patternsToHazardsAndMitigations converts a pattern match output into the
 // Hazard/Mitigation shapes that CompareBenchmark expects. Mirrors what
 // iace_handler_init.go does in production but without DB writes.
-func patternsToHazardsAndMitigations(out *MatchOutput) ([]Hazard, []Mitigation) {
-	hazards := make([]Hazard, 0, len(out.MatchedPatterns))
-	patternToHazard := make(map[string]uuid.UUID, len(out.MatchedPatterns))
-
-	for _, pm := range out.MatchedPatterns {
-		cat := ""
-		if len(pm.HazardCats) > 0 {
-			cat = pm.HazardCats[0]
-		}
-		zone := pm.ZoneDE
-		lifecycle := ""
-		if len(pm.ApplicableLifecycles) > 0 {
-			lifecycle = pm.ApplicableLifecycles[0]
-		}
-		h := Hazard{
-			ID:             uuid.New(),
-			Name:           pm.ScenarioDE,
-			Category:       cat,
-			Description:    pm.ScenarioDE,
-			Scenario:       pm.ScenarioDE,
-			TriggerEvent:   pm.TriggerDE,
-			PossibleHarm:   pm.HarmDE,
-			AffectedPerson: pm.AffectedDE,
-			HazardousZone:  zone,
-			LifecyclePhase: lifecycle,
-		}
-		if h.Name == "" {
-			h.Name = pm.PatternName
-		}
-		hazards = append(hazards, h)
-		patternToHazard[pm.PatternID] = h.ID
-	}
-
-	measureNames := make(map[string]string)
-	for _, m := range GetProtectiveMeasureLibrary() {
-		measureNames[m.ID] = m.Name
-	}
-
-	var mitigations []Mitigation
-	for _, sm := range out.SuggestedMeasures {
-		name := measureNames[sm.MeasureID]
-		if name == "" {
-			name = sm.MeasureID
-		}
-		for _, srcPattern := range sm.SourcePatterns {
-			hid, ok := patternToHazard[srcPattern]
-			if !ok {
-				continue
-			}
-			mitigations = append(mitigations, Mitigation{
-				ID:       uuid.New(),
-				HazardID: hid,
-				Name:     name,
-			})
-		}
-	}
-	return hazards, mitigations
-}
-
 func abbrev(s string, max int) string {
 	if len(s) <= max {
 		return s

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/gt_warewashing_test.go

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 package iace
 
 import (
+	"context"
 	"encoding/json"
 	"os"
 	"path/filepath"
@@ -45,7 +46,7 @@ var warewashingCyberCategories = map[string]bool{
 
 // warewashingEngineOutput runs the production chain and returns the filtered
 // hazards/mitigations the user would see for the UC-M.
-func warewashingEngineOutput() ([]Hazard, []Mitigation, int) {
+func warewashingEngineOutput() ([]Hazard, []Mitigation, []PatternMatch) {
 	res := ParseNarrative(warewashingNarrative, "Gewerbliche Untertisch-Geschirrspuelmaschine (vernetzt)")
 
 	var compIDs, compNames []string
@@ -94,7 +95,7 @@ func warewashingEngineOutput() ([]Hazard, []Mitigation, int) {
 	filtered := *out
 	filtered.MatchedPatterns = kept
 	hazards, mitigations := patternsToHazardsAndMitigations(&filtered)
-	return hazards, mitigations, len(kept)
+	return hazards, mitigations, kept
 }
 
 func TestWarewashing_GTCoverage(t *testing.T) {
@@ -119,8 +120,8 @@ func TestWarewashing_GTCoverage(t *testing.T) {
 		t.Logf("Parsed components: %v", cn)
 	}
 
-	hazards, mitigations, nPatterns := warewashingEngineOutput()
-	t.Logf("Engine: %d patterns kept (relevance+cyber filter) -> %d hazards", nPatterns, len(hazards))
+	hazards, mitigations, keptPatterns := warewashingEngineOutput()
+	t.Logf("Engine: %d patterns kept (relevance+cyber filter) -> %d hazards", len(keptPatterns), len(hazards))
 
 	result := CompareBenchmark(&gt, hazards, mitigations)
 	precision := 0.0
@@ -180,3 +181,57 @@ func TestWarewashing_GTCoverage(t *testing.T) {
 		t.Errorf("warewashing recall below 40%% floor: %.1f%%", result.CoverageScore*100)
 	}
 }
+
+// TestWarewashing_DedupProposer exercises the offline dedup-candidate proposer
+// end-to-end on the real warewashing engine output: detect candidates, screen
+// each against the GT, and log the human-review queue. It asserts the WALL is
+// self-consistent — a PASS verdict may never coincide with a recall drop.
+func TestWarewashing_DedupProposer(t *testing.T) {
+	raw, err := os.ReadFile(filepath.Join("testdata", "ground_truth_warewashing.json"))
+	if err != nil {
+		t.Fatalf("read GT: %v", err)
+	}
+	var gt GroundTruth
+	if err := json.Unmarshal(raw, &gt); err != nil {
+		t.Fatalf("parse GT: %v", err)
+	}
+
+	hazards, mits, kept := warewashingEngineOutput()
+	byID := map[string]PatternMatch{}
+	for _, pm := range kept {
+		byID[pm.PatternID] = pm
+	}
+	// 0.25 is a deliberately permissive candidate threshold: the proposer is meant
+	// to over-surface, because the deterministic GT wall below (and a human, and the
+	// LLM judge) is the precision filter — not the detector.
+	candidates := FindDedupCandidates(kept, 0.25)
+	t.Logf("Proposer: %d dedup candidate(s) from %d fired patterns", len(candidates), len(kept))
+
+	// Deterministic judge in the test; the dev-time CLI swaps in LLMJudge.
+	judge := HeuristicJudge{}
+	var judged []JudgedProposal
+	blocked := 0
+	for _, c := range candidates {
+		sr := ScreenSupersession(&gt, hazards, mits, c.KeepHazardName, c.DropName)
+		switch {
+		case sr.RecallAfter < sr.RecallBefore:
+			t.Logf("[BLOCK recall-load-bearing] keep %s / drop %s", c.KeepPattern, c.DropPattern)
+			blocked++
+		case sr.DistinctGT:
+			t.Logf("[BLOCK distinct GT %s vs %s] keep %s / drop %s", sr.KeepGT, sr.DropGT, c.KeepPattern, c.DropPattern)
+			blocked++
+		default:
+			if !sr.Safe {
+				t.Errorf("RECALL-SAFE branch but ScreenResult.Safe=false for drop %s", c.DropPattern)
+			}
+			v, conf, rat := judge.Judge(context.Background(), c, byID[c.KeepPattern], byID[c.DropPattern])
+			judged = append(judged, JudgedProposal{
+				Candidate: c, Screen: sr, Verdict: v, Confidence: conf, Rationale: rat, Judge: judge.Name(),
+			})
+		}
+	}
+
+	t.Logf("\n%s", RenderProposalQueue("Gewerbliche Geschirrspuelmaschine (vernetzt)", judged))
+	t.Logf("Proposer summary: %d candidate(s) in queue (judge=%s), %d BLOCKED by the GT wall — propose-only, nothing auto-applied",
+		len(judged), judge.Name(), blocked)
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/hazard_category_order.go

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+package iace
+
+import "sort"
+
+// EN ISO 12100 hazard-group ordering for the hazard log. Without it the log is
+// returned in pattern-firing order, which reads as a jumble. This groups the
+// hazards top-down by type (A. Mechanisch, B. Elektrisch, C. Thermisch, …),
+// matching the frontend CATEGORY_LABELS.
+var isoCategoryRank = map[string]int{
+	// A. Mechanisch
+	"mechanical_hazard": 10, "mechanical": 10, "maintenance_hazard": 11,
+	// B. Elektrisch
+	"electrical_hazard": 20, "electrical": 20, "emc_hazard": 21,
+	// C. Thermisch
+	"thermal_hazard": 30, "thermal": 30, "high_temperature": 31, "fire_explosion": 32,
+	// D. Pneumatik / Hydraulik
+	"pneumatic_hydraulic": 40,
+	// E. Laerm / Vibration
+	"noise_hazard": 50, "noise_vibration": 50, "vibration_hazard": 51,
+	// F. Ergonomie
+	"ergonomic_hazard": 60, "ergonomic": 60,
+	// G. Stoffe / Umwelt
+	"material_environmental": 70, "chemical_risk": 71, "radiation_hazard": 72,
+	// H. Software / Steuerung (funktionale Sicherheit)
+	"software_control": 80, "software_fault": 80, "safety_function_failure": 81,
+	"configuration_error": 82, "sensor_fault": 83, "hmi_error": 84, "mode_confusion": 85,
+	"communication_failure": 86, "update_failure": 87,
+	// I. Cyber / Netzwerk (zur Ordnungs-Vollstaendigkeit; im CE-Log ausgeschlossen)
+	"unauthorized_access": 90, "firmware_corruption": 91, "cyber_resilience": 92,
+	"cyber_network": 93, "logging_audit_failure": 94, "sensor_spoofing": 95,
+	// J. KI-spezifisch
+	"ai_specific": 100, "ai_misclassification": 100, "false_classification": 100,
+	"model_drift": 100, "data_poisoning": 100, "unintended_bias": 100,
+}
+
+func categoryRank(cat string) int {
+	if r, ok := isoCategoryRank[cat]; ok {
+		return r
+	}
+	return 999 // unknown categories last
+}
+
+// SortHazardsByISO12100 groups hazards by ISO 12100 hazard group. Stable: the
+// relative order within a group (creation/priority order from the engine) is
+// preserved.
+func SortHazardsByISO12100(hazards []Hazard) {
+	sort.SliceStable(hazards, func(i, j int) bool {
+		return categoryRank(hazards[i].Category) < categoryRank(hazards[j].Category)
+	})
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/hazard_patterns_gt_bremse.go

@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ func GetGTBremseHazardPatterns() []HazardPattern {
 		// ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
 		{
 			ID: "HP1717", NameDE: "Verletzung durch unvermittelt austretende pneumatische Restenergie", NameEN: "Injury from unexpectedly released pneumatic stored energy",
-			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"stored_energy"},
+			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"pneumatic_part"},
 			RequiredEnergyTags:    []string{"pneumatic_pressure"},
 			GeneratedHazardCats:   []string{"mechanical_hazard"},
 			SuggestedMeasureIDs:   []string{"M485", "M534", "M527"},

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/hazard_patterns_specific_machines.go

@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ func GetSpecificMachinePatterns() []HazardPattern {
 		// ================================================================
 		{
 			ID: "HP753", NameDE: "Thermal Runaway bei Lithium-Batterie", NameEN: "Thermal runaway of lithium battery",
-			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"stored_energy", "high_temperature"},
+			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"battery", "high_temperature"},
 			RequiredEnergyTags:    []string{"electrical_energy", "thermal"},
 			GeneratedHazardCats:   []string{"thermal_hazard", "electrical_hazard"},
 			SuggestedMeasureIDs:   []string{"M005", "M141"},
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ func GetSpecificMachinePatterns() []HazardPattern {
 		},
 		{
 			ID: "HP754", NameDE: "Ausgasung giftiger Daempfe aus Batterie", NameEN: "Toxic gas emission from battery",
-			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"stored_energy", "chemical_risk"},
+			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"battery", "chemical_risk"},
 			RequiredEnergyTags:    []string{},
 			GeneratedHazardCats:   []string{"material_environmental"},
 			SuggestedMeasureIDs:   []string{"M005", "M141"},
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ func GetSpecificMachinePatterns() []HazardPattern {
 		},
 		{
 			ID: "HP755", NameDE: "Elektrischer Schlag an Hochvolt-Batteriespeicher", NameEN: "Electric shock from high-voltage battery storage",
-			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"stored_energy", "electrical_part"},
+			RequiredComponentTags: []string{"battery", "electrical_part"},
 			RequiredEnergyTags:    []string{"electrical_energy"},
 			GeneratedHazardCats:   []string{"electrical_hazard"},
 			SuggestedMeasureIDs:   []string{"M082", "M141"},

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/keyword_dictionary.go

@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ func GetKeywordDictionary() []KeywordEntry {
 		{Keywords: []string{"kreiselmaeher", "scheibenmaeher", "maehwerk"}, ExtraTags: []string{"agri_mower"}},
 		{Keywords: []string{"spruehduese", "spritzduese", "spruehkopf"}, ExtraTags: []string{"spray_nozzle"}},
 		{Keywords: []string{"galvanikbad", "tauchbad", "beizbad", "chemiebad"}, ExtraTags: []string{"chemical_bath"}},
-		{Keywords: []string{"batterie", "akku", "akkumulator", "traktionsbatterie"}, ExtraTags: []string{"battery"}},
+		{Keywords: []string{"batterie", "akku", "akkumulator", "traktionsbatterie", "lithium", "batteriespeicher", "hochvoltbatterie", "lithium-batterie"}, ExtraTags: []string{"battery"}},
 		{Keywords: []string{"heizelement", "heizpatrone", "heizband"}, ExtraTags: []string{"heating_element"}},
 		{Keywords: []string{"uv-lampe", "uv-strahler", "uv-c-strahler"}, ExtraTags: []string{"uv_source"}},
 		{Keywords: []string{"roentgen", "radioaktiv", "strahlenquelle", "gammastrahl", "isotop"}, ExtraTags: []string{"radiation_source"}},

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/pattern_enclosure.go

@@ -42,3 +42,29 @@ func guardedLifecycles(p HazardPattern, tagSet map[string]bool) []string {
 	}
 	return p.ApplicableLifecycles
 }
+
+// Domain-specific supersession.
+//
+// A generic pattern that fires via a broad tag (e.g. high_temperature) can
+// duplicate a domain-specific pattern that describes the same hazard more
+// precisely. When the domain is present, the specific pattern wins and the
+// generic duplicate is dropped. Scoped to the domain tag, so machines outside
+// the domain keep the generic pattern — regression-safe by construction.
+//
+//	HP016 (generic hot surfaces)  -> HP2201 (Boiler/Tank/Spuelkammer)
+//	HP018 (actuator burn)         -> HP2201 (same contact-burn hazard)
+//	HP013 (stored electrical NRG) -> HP144  (residual voltage; HP013's zone is
+//	                                 framed for Batteriefaecher/USV-Anlagen a
+//	                                 dishwasher does not have, HP144 is the
+//	                                 Frequenzumrichter/Zwischenkreis variant)
+var genericSupersededByWarewashing = map[string]bool{
+	"HP016": true,
+	"HP018": true,
+	"HP013": true,
+}
+
+// supersededByDomainSpecific reports whether a generic pattern is replaced by a
+// more precise equivalent that the project's domain already provides.
+func supersededByDomainSpecific(p HazardPattern, tagSet map[string]bool) bool {
+	return tagSet["dom_warewashing"] && genericSupersededByWarewashing[p.ID]
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/pattern_engine.go

@@ -416,6 +416,11 @@ func patternMatches(p HazardPattern, tagSet map[string]bool, input MatchInput) b
 		return false
 	}
 
+	// Domain-specific supersession (generic duplicate replaced by a precise one).
+	if supersededByDomainSpecific(p, tagSet) {
+		return false
+	}
+
 	return true
 }
 

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_coverage.go

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"context"
+	"encoding/json"
+	"fmt"
+	"strings"
+)
+
+// Coverage blind-spot proposer (P2 slice 6, type 4). DEV-TIME, propose-only.
+//
+// Deterministic skeleton: which EN ISO 12100 hazard groups (A-G, the classic CE
+// groups; H-J are control/CRA and routinely routed elsewhere) did the engine
+// leave with ZERO hazards for this machine? An empty group is a structural
+// blind-spot signal — the machine may genuinely lack that hazard, or a pattern
+// may be missing. The LLM then expands each gap into specific expected-but-missing
+// hazards a safety assessor would name, for a human to confirm into a new pattern
+// or GT case. The gaps alone are useful without any model.
+
+type isoGroup struct {
+	Key   string
+	Label string
+	Cats  []string
+}
+
+var iso12100Groups = []isoGroup{
+	{"mechanical", "A. Mechanisch", []string{"mechanical_hazard", "mechanical", "maintenance_hazard"}},
+	{"electrical", "B. Elektrisch", []string{"electrical_hazard", "electrical", "emc_hazard"}},
+	{"thermal", "C. Thermisch", []string{"thermal_hazard", "thermal", "high_temperature", "fire_explosion"}},
+	{"pneumatic_hydraulic", "D. Pneumatik/Hydraulik", []string{"pneumatic_hydraulic"}},
+	{"noise_vibration", "E. Laerm/Vibration", []string{"noise_hazard", "noise_vibration", "vibration_hazard"}},
+	{"ergonomic", "F. Ergonomie", []string{"ergonomic_hazard", "ergonomic"}},
+	{"material", "G. Stoffe/Umwelt", []string{"material_environmental", "chemical_risk", "radiation_hazard"}},
+}
+
+// CoverageGap is an ISO 12100 hazard group with no engine hazard.
+type CoverageGap struct {
+	Group string `json:"group"`
+	Key   string `json:"key"`
+	Note  string `json:"note"`
+}
+
+// FindCoverageGaps returns the A-G hazard groups that produced zero hazards.
+func FindCoverageGaps(hazards []Hazard) []CoverageGap {
+	present := make(map[string]bool, len(hazards))
+	for _, h := range hazards {
+		present[h.Category] = true
+	}
+	var gaps []CoverageGap
+	for _, g := range iso12100Groups {
+		covered := false
+		for _, c := range g.Cats {
+			if present[c] {
+				covered = true
+				break
+			}
+		}
+		if !covered {
+			gaps = append(gaps, CoverageGap{
+				Group: g.Label, Key: g.Key,
+				Note: "no engine hazard in this ISO 12100 group — verify the machine truly lacks it, or a pattern is missing",
+			})
+		}
+	}
+	return gaps
+}
+
+// MissingHazard is an LLM-proposed hazard a safety assessor would expect.
+type MissingHazard struct {
+	Group  string `json:"group"`
+	Hazard string `json:"hazard"`
+	Why    string `json:"why"`
+}
+
+// ProposeMissingHazards asks the LLM to expand the empty groups into specific
+// expected hazards. Returns nil without a completer or on any error — propose-only,
+// never breaks the run.
+func ProposeMissingHazards(ctx context.Context, completer LLMCompleter, machineClass, narrative string, produced []Hazard, gaps []CoverageGap) []MissingHazard {
+	if completer == nil || len(gaps) == 0 {
+		return nil
+	}
+	system, user := BuildCoveragePrompt(machineClass, narrative, produced, gaps)
+	raw, err := completer.Complete(ctx, system, user)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil
+	}
+	return parseMissingHazards(raw)
+}
+
+// BuildCoveragePrompt frames the "what is missing?" question for the LLM.
+func BuildCoveragePrompt(machineClass, narrative string, produced []Hazard, gaps []CoverageGap) (system, user string) {
+	system = "Du bist Sachverstaendiger fuer Maschinensicherheit nach EN ISO 12100. " +
+		"Dir werden eine Maschine, die bereits erkannten Gefaehrdungen und Gefaehrdungsgruppen OHNE Eintrag genannt. " +
+		"Nenne nur Gefaehrdungen, die ein Sachverstaendiger fuer DIESE Maschine ERWARTET, die aber FEHLEN. " +
+		"Erfinde nichts Maschinenfremdes. Antworte AUSSCHLIESSLICH als JSON-Array: " +
+		`[{"group":"...","hazard":"...","why":"..."}].`
+
+	var have []string
+	seen := map[string]bool{}
+	for _, h := range produced {
+		if h.Category != "" && !seen[h.Category] {
+			seen[h.Category] = true
+			have = append(have, h.Category)
+		}
+	}
+	var empty []string
+	for _, g := range gaps {
+		empty = append(empty, g.Group)
+	}
+	user = fmt.Sprintf("Maschinenklasse: %s\n\nBeschreibung:\n%s\n\nBereits erkannte Kategorien: %s\n\nGruppen OHNE Eintrag (Fokus): %s\n\nWelche erwarteten Gefaehrdungen fehlen?",
+		machineClass, narrative, strings.Join(have, ", "), strings.Join(empty, ", "))
+	return system, user
+}
+
+func parseMissingHazards(raw string) []MissingHazard {
+	start, end := strings.Index(raw, "["), strings.LastIndex(raw, "]")
+	if start < 0 || end <= start {
+		return nil
+	}
+	var out []MissingHazard
+	if err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(raw[start:end+1]), &out); err != nil {
+		return nil
+	}
+	return out
+}
+
+// RenderCoverageQueue renders the deterministic gaps plus any LLM-proposed missing
+// hazards as a markdown review queue.
+func RenderCoverageQueue(machine string, gaps []CoverageGap, missing []MissingHazard) string {
+	var b strings.Builder
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "# Coverage blind-spot queue — %s\n\n", machine)
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%d ISO 12100 group(s) (A-G) have no engine hazard. Propose-only — a human confirms whether the machine truly lacks it or a pattern/GT case is missing.\n\n", len(gaps))
+	for _, g := range gaps {
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- **%s** — %s\n", g.Group, g.Note)
+	}
+	if len(missing) > 0 {
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "\n## LLM-proposed expected-but-missing hazards (%d)\n\n", len(missing))
+		for i, m := range missing {
+			fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%d. [%s] %s\n   - why: %s\n", i+1, m.Group, m.Hazard, m.Why)
+		}
+	}
+	return b.String()
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_coverage_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"context"
+	"strings"
+	"testing"
+)
+
+func TestFindCoverageGaps(t *testing.T) {
+	hazards := []Hazard{
+		{Category: "mechanical_hazard"},
+		{Category: "thermal_hazard"},
+		{Category: "electrical_hazard"},
+		{Category: "material_environmental"},
+	}
+	gapKeys := map[string]bool{}
+	for _, g := range FindCoverageGaps(hazards) {
+		gapKeys[g.Key] = true
+	}
+	for _, want := range []string{"pneumatic_hydraulic", "noise_vibration", "ergonomic"} {
+		if !gapKeys[want] {
+			t.Errorf("expected gap %s", want)
+		}
+	}
+	for _, notWant := range []string{"mechanical", "thermal", "electrical", "material"} {
+		if gapKeys[notWant] {
+			t.Errorf("did not expect gap %s (covered)", notWant)
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+func TestBuildCoveragePrompt_ContainsContext(t *testing.T) {
+	produced := []Hazard{{Category: "thermal_hazard"}}
+	gaps := []CoverageGap{{Group: "F. Ergonomie", Key: "ergonomic"}}
+	system, user := BuildCoveragePrompt("Geschirrspuelmaschine", "Eine Spuelmaschine mit Tank.", produced, gaps)
+	if !strings.Contains(system, "EN ISO 12100") || !strings.Contains(system, "JSON") {
+		t.Errorf("system prompt missing framing")
+	}
+	for _, want := range []string{"Geschirrspuelmaschine", "thermal_hazard", "F. Ergonomie", "Spuelmaschine mit Tank"} {
+		if !strings.Contains(user, want) {
+			t.Errorf("user prompt missing %q", want)
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+func TestProposeMissingHazards_ParsesAndDegrades(t *testing.T) {
+	gaps := []CoverageGap{{Group: "F. Ergonomie", Key: "ergonomic"}}
+	c := fakeCompleter{out: `Hier: [{"group":"F. Ergonomie","hazard":"Heben schwerer Koerbe","why":"manuelles Beladen"}] fertig`}
+	got := ProposeMissingHazards(context.Background(), c, "x", "n", nil, gaps)
+	if len(got) != 1 || got[0].Hazard != "Heben schwerer Koerbe" {
+		t.Fatalf("parse: got %+v", got)
+	}
+	if ProposeMissingHazards(context.Background(), nil, "x", "n", nil, gaps) != nil {
+		t.Errorf("nil completer must return nil")
+	}
+	if ProposeMissingHazards(context.Background(), fakeCompleter{err: context.DeadlineExceeded}, "x", "n", nil, gaps) != nil {
+		t.Errorf("error must return nil")
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_dedup.go

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"fmt"
+	"math"
+	"regexp"
+	"sort"
+	"strings"
+)
+
+// Offline dedup-candidate proposer (P2, type 1). DEV-TIME ONLY.
+//
+// It inspects the patterns that fired for one machine and proposes which look
+// like duplicates, so a human (later an LLM) can decide a supersession/merge. It
+// NEVER mutates the pattern library or the runtime — it only surfaces candidates.
+// The deterministic GT screen (ScreenSupersession, proposer_screen.go) is the
+// wall that proves a proposal is safe before a human ever sees it.
+//
+// Detection here is purely structural (category + zone + measure + scenario
+// overlap) and therefore reproducible. Two safety rules bake in what P1 taught
+// us about the dishwasher review:
+//   - only patterns with the SAME primary category are ever compared;
+//   - a pair with DIFFERENT operational states is NEVER proposed, because
+//     normal-operation and maintenance are legitimately distinct contexts with
+//     different protective measures (e.g. HP011 vs HP077). Merging them would
+//     erase the maintenance view.
+
+// DedupCandidate is a proposed near-duplicate pattern pair for one machine class.
+type DedupCandidate struct {
+	KeepPattern     string  `json:"keep_pattern"` // higher-priority survivor
+	DropPattern     string  `json:"drop_pattern"` // supersession target
+	KeepName        string  `json:"keep_name"`
+	KeepHazardName  string  `json:"keep_hazard_name"` // keep pattern ScenarioDE (for the GT-distinctness screen)
+	DropName        string  `json:"drop_name"`        // == generated hazard Name (ScenarioDE) of the drop pattern
+	Category        string  `json:"category"`
+	ZoneJaccard     float64 `json:"zone_jaccard"`
+	MeasureJaccard  float64 `json:"measure_jaccard"`
+	ScenarioJaccard float64 `json:"scenario_jaccard"`
+	Score           float64 `json:"score"`
+	Rationale       string  `json:"rationale"`
+}
+
+// FindDedupCandidates compares the fired patterns pairwise and returns near-dup
+// candidates whose combined overlap score meets threshold, deterministically
+// ordered (score desc, then drop-pattern id). The combined score weights measure
+// overlap highest (shared measures are the strongest duplicate signal), then zone
+// and scenario equally.
+func FindDedupCandidates(fired []PatternMatch, threshold float64) []DedupCandidate {
+	var out []DedupCandidate
+	for i := 0; i < len(fired); i++ {
+		for j := i + 1; j < len(fired); j++ {
+			a, b := fired[i], fired[j]
+			ca := primaryCat(a)
+			if ca == "" || ca != primaryCat(b) {
+				continue
+			}
+			if !sameOpStateSet(a.OperationalStates, b.OperationalStates) {
+				continue // legitimate lifecycle variants — never propose a merge
+			}
+			zj := tokenJaccard(zoneTokenSet(a.ZoneDE), zoneTokenSet(b.ZoneDE))
+			mj := tokenJaccard(toSet(a.SuggestedMeasureIDs), toSet(b.SuggestedMeasureIDs))
+			sj := tokenJaccard(wordTokenSet(a.ScenarioDE), wordTokenSet(b.ScenarioDE))
+			score := 0.4*mj + 0.3*zj + 0.3*sj
+			if score < threshold {
+				continue
+			}
+			keep, drop := a, b
+			if b.Priority > a.Priority {
+				keep, drop = b, a
+			}
+			out = append(out, DedupCandidate{
+				KeepPattern: keep.PatternID, DropPattern: drop.PatternID,
+				KeepName: keep.PatternName, KeepHazardName: keep.ScenarioDE, DropName: drop.ScenarioDE,
+				Category: ca, ZoneJaccard: round2(zj), MeasureJaccard: round2(mj),
+				ScenarioJaccard: round2(sj), Score: round2(score),
+				Rationale: fmt.Sprintf(
+					"same category %q · measure overlap %.0f%% · zone overlap %.0f%% · scenario overlap %.0f%% → keep %s (P%d), supersede %s (P%d)",
+					ca, mj*100, zj*100, sj*100, keep.PatternID, keep.Priority, drop.PatternID, drop.Priority),
+			})
+		}
+	}
+	sort.SliceStable(out, func(i, j int) bool {
+		if out[i].Score != out[j].Score {
+			return out[i].Score > out[j].Score
+		}
+		return out[i].DropPattern < out[j].DropPattern
+	})
+	return out
+}
+
+func primaryCat(pm PatternMatch) string {
+	if len(pm.HazardCats) == 0 {
+		return ""
+	}
+	return pm.HazardCats[0]
+}
+
+func sameOpStateSet(a, b []string) bool {
+	sa, sb := toSet(a), toSet(b)
+	if len(sa) != len(sb) {
+		return false
+	}
+	for k := range sa {
+		if !sb[k] {
+			return false
+		}
+	}
+	return true
+}
+
+var proposerWordSplit = regexp.MustCompile(`[^\p{L}]+`)
+
+// zoneTokenSet splits a comma-separated zone string into its component terms.
+func zoneTokenSet(zone string) map[string]bool {
+	out := map[string]bool{}
+	for _, part := range strings.Split(strings.ToLower(zone), ",") {
+		if t := strings.TrimSpace(part); len([]rune(t)) >= 3 {
+			out[t] = true
+		}
+	}
+	return out
+}
+
+// wordTokenSet tokenises free text into words of length >= 4 (drops connectives).
+func wordTokenSet(s string) map[string]bool {
+	out := map[string]bool{}
+	for _, w := range proposerWordSplit.Split(strings.ToLower(s), -1) {
+		if len([]rune(w)) >= 4 {
+			out[w] = true
+		}
+	}
+	return out
+}
+
+func tokenJaccard(a, b map[string]bool) float64 {
+	if len(a) == 0 && len(b) == 0 {
+		return 0
+	}
+	inter := 0
+	for k := range a {
+		if b[k] {
+			inter++
+		}
+	}
+	union := len(a) + len(b) - inter
+	if union == 0 {
+		return 0
+	}
+	return float64(inter) / float64(union)
+}
+
+func round2(x float64) float64 { return math.Round(x*100) / 100 }

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_dedup_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+package iace
+
+import "testing"
+
+func mkPM(id, cat, zone, scenario string, prio int, measures, opstates []string) PatternMatch {
+	return PatternMatch{
+		PatternID: id, PatternName: id, Priority: prio,
+		HazardCats: []string{cat}, ZoneDE: zone, ScenarioDE: scenario,
+		SuggestedMeasureIDs: measures, OperationalStates: opstates,
+	}
+}
+
+func TestFindDedupCandidates_FindsOverlappingPair(t *testing.T) {
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HPa", "update_failure", "Steuerung, SPS", "Software-Update der Steuerung scheitert nach Abbruch", 80,
+			[]string{"M138", "M146"}, nil),
+		mkPM("HPb", "update_failure", "Steuerung, Antriebsregler", "Software-Update der Steuerung schlaegt fehl", 75,
+			[]string{"M138", "M146", "M141"}, nil),
+		mkPM("HPc", "mechanical_hazard", "Tuer", "Quetschen der Finger an der Tuer", 70,
+			[]string{"M003"}, nil),
+	}
+	got := FindDedupCandidates(fired, 0.4)
+	if len(got) != 1 {
+		t.Fatalf("want 1 candidate, got %d: %+v", len(got), got)
+	}
+	// Higher-priority pattern survives, lower one is the drop target.
+	if got[0].KeepPattern != "HPa" || got[0].DropPattern != "HPb" {
+		t.Errorf("want keep HPa / drop HPb, got keep %s / drop %s", got[0].KeepPattern, got[0].DropPattern)
+	}
+	if got[0].DropName != "Software-Update der Steuerung schlaegt fehl" {
+		t.Errorf("DropName must equal drop pattern ScenarioDE, got %q", got[0].DropName)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestFindDedupCandidates_LifecycleGuard(t *testing.T) {
+	// Same category, zone and measures — but normal-operation vs maintenance.
+	// These are legitimate variants (HP011 vs HP077) and must NOT be proposed.
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HP011", "electrical_hazard", "Schaltschrank, Klemmenkasten", "Person beruehrt spannungsfuehrende Teile", 95,
+			[]string{"M481", "M482"}, nil),
+		mkPM("HP077", "electrical_hazard", "Schaltschrank, Klemmenkasten", "Person beruehrt spannungsfuehrende Teile", 80,
+			[]string{"M481", "M482"}, []string{"maintenance"}),
+	}
+	if got := FindDedupCandidates(fired, 0.4); len(got) != 0 {
+		t.Fatalf("lifecycle guard failed: want 0 candidates, got %d: %+v", len(got), got)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestFindDedupCandidates_DifferentCategoryIgnored(t *testing.T) {
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HPa", "thermal_hazard", "Boiler", "Heisse Oberflaeche am Boiler", 80, []string{"M071"}, nil),
+		mkPM("HPb", "mechanical_hazard", "Boiler", "Heisse Oberflaeche am Boiler", 80, []string{"M071"}, nil),
+	}
+	if got := FindDedupCandidates(fired, 0.3); len(got) != 0 {
+		t.Fatalf("cross-category pair must not be proposed, got %d", len(got))
+	}
+}
+
+func TestFindDedupCandidates_BelowThresholdDropped(t *testing.T) {
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HPa", "mechanical_hazard", "Tuer", "Quetschen an der Tuer", 80, []string{"M003"}, nil),
+		mkPM("HPb", "mechanical_hazard", "Foerderband", "Einzug am Foerderband", 80, []string{"M540"}, nil),
+	}
+	if got := FindDedupCandidates(fired, 0.4); len(got) != 0 {
+		t.Fatalf("disjoint pair must be below threshold, got %d: %+v", len(got), got)
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_framing.go

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"fmt"
+	"sort"
+	"strings"
+)
+
+// Foreign-framing proposer (P2 slice 4, type 2). DEV-TIME, propose-only.
+//
+// A pattern can fire for a machine yet describe its hazard with a zone text
+// framed for a DIFFERENT machine (e.g. a dishwasher hazard whose zone names
+// "Walzen, Transportbaender" or "Bearbeitungszone"). Such foreign framing leaks
+// through terms that are NOT yet in domainGateTerms — once a term is a gate term,
+// the ghost-pattern invariant already fences the pattern out. So we surface the
+// candidates structurally: zone terms a fired pattern names that the machine's
+// narrative never mentions (minus generic hazard-location vocabulary). A human
+// (or the LLM) then decides: add a dom_* gate term, or re-frame the zone text.
+//
+// This OVER-surfaces by design — the human/LLM is the precision filter, not the
+// detector (same contract as the dedup proposer).
+
+// genericHazardStop are hazard-LOCATION words that legitimately appear in zones
+// without being echoed in a narrative — they are not evidence of foreign framing.
+var genericHazardStop = map[string]bool{
+	"quetschstelle": true, "einzugstelle": true, "einzugsstelle": true, "scherstelle": true,
+	"schneidstelle": true, "stossstelle": true, "fangstelle": true, "klemmstelle": true,
+	"gefahrbereich": true, "gefahrenbereich": true, "gefahrstelle": true, "gefahrenstelle": true,
+	"arbeitsbereich": true, "wirkbereich": true, "schutzbereich": true, "umgebung": true,
+	"bereich": true, "zugang": true, "oberflaeche": true, "oberflaechen": true,
+	"gehaeuse": true, "bauteil": true, "bauteile": true, "komponente": true, "maschine": true,
+}
+
+// FramingCandidate is a fired pattern whose zone text looks foreign for the machine.
+type FramingCandidate struct {
+	Pattern        string   `json:"pattern"`
+	Name           string   `json:"name"`
+	Category       string   `json:"category"`
+	Zone           string   `json:"zone"`
+	OrphanTerms    []string `json:"orphan_terms"`
+	OrphanFraction float64  `json:"orphan_fraction"`
+	Verdict        string   `json:"verdict"` // heuristic lean: foreign | plausible
+	Evidence       string   `json:"evidence"`
+}
+
+// FindFramingCandidates returns fired patterns whose zone is mostly not echoed in
+// the narrative, sorted by orphan fraction descending (deterministic).
+func FindFramingCandidates(fired []PatternMatch, narrative string, minFraction float64) []FramingCandidate {
+	nar := strings.ToLower(narrative)
+	var narStems []string
+	for _, w := range proposerWordSplit.Split(nar, -1) {
+		if len([]rune(w)) >= 5 {
+			narStems = append(narStems, w)
+		}
+	}
+	var out []FramingCandidate
+	for _, pm := range fired {
+		parts := zoneParts(pm.ZoneDE)
+		if len(parts) == 0 {
+			continue
+		}
+		var orphans []string
+		for _, p := range parts {
+			if !partEchoed(p, nar, narStems) {
+				orphans = append(orphans, p)
+			}
+		}
+		frac := float64(len(orphans)) / float64(len(parts))
+		if len(orphans) == 0 || frac < minFraction {
+			continue
+		}
+		out = append(out, FramingCandidate{
+			Pattern: pm.PatternID, Name: pm.PatternName, Category: primaryCat(pm),
+			Zone: pm.ZoneDE, OrphanTerms: orphans, OrphanFraction: round2(frac),
+			Verdict:  framingHeuristicVerdict(frac),
+			Evidence: fmt.Sprintf("%d/%d zone terms have no narrative echo: %s", len(orphans), len(parts), strings.Join(orphans, ", ")),
+		})
+	}
+	sort.SliceStable(out, func(i, j int) bool {
+		if out[i].OrphanFraction != out[j].OrphanFraction {
+			return out[i].OrphanFraction > out[j].OrphanFraction
+		}
+		return out[i].Pattern < out[j].Pattern
+	})
+	return out
+}
+
+func framingHeuristicVerdict(frac float64) string {
+	if frac >= 0.99 {
+		return "foreign" // nothing in the zone is echoed by the narrative
+	}
+	return "plausible" // partial echo — likely generic vocabulary, human to confirm
+}
+
+// zoneParts splits a zone string into significant terms on commas, slashes,
+// parentheses and semicolons, lowercased, length >= 4.
+func zoneParts(zone string) []string {
+	fields := strings.FieldsFunc(strings.ToLower(zone), func(r rune) bool {
+		return r == ',' || r == '/' || r == ';' || r == '(' || r == ')'
+	})
+	var out []string
+	for _, f := range fields {
+		if t := strings.TrimSpace(f); len([]rune(t)) >= 4 {
+			out = append(out, t)
+		}
+	}
+	return out
+}
+
+// partEchoed reports whether a zone part is reflected in the narrative. Matching
+// is bidirectional to survive German compounding: a zone word echoes if it is a
+// generic hazard term, if it is a substring of the narrative, OR if any narrative
+// stem (>= 5 chars) is a substring of the zone word (so narrative "Steuerung"
+// echoes zone "Steuerungssystem").
+func partEchoed(part, narrative string, narStems []string) bool {
+	for _, w := range strings.Fields(part) {
+		if genericHazardStop[w] {
+			return true
+		}
+		if len([]rune(w)) < 4 {
+			continue
+		}
+		if strings.Contains(narrative, w) {
+			return true
+		}
+		for _, ns := range narStems {
+			if strings.Contains(w, ns) {
+				return true
+			}
+		}
+	}
+	return false
+}
+
+// RenderFramingQueue renders foreign-framing candidates as a markdown review queue.
+func RenderFramingQueue(machine string, candidates []FramingCandidate) string {
+	var b strings.Builder
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "# Foreign-framing review queue — %s\n\n", machine)
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%d fired pattern(s) name zone terms the narrative never mentions. Propose-only — a human (or the LLM) decides: add a dom_* gate term, or re-frame the zone.\n\n", len(candidates))
+	for i, c := range candidates {
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "## %d. %s — %s  [%s, orphan %.0f%%]\n", i+1, c.Pattern, c.Name, c.Verdict, c.OrphanFraction*100)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- category: %s\n- zone: %s\n", c.Category, c.Zone)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- orphan terms (no narrative echo): %s\n", strings.Join(c.OrphanTerms, ", "))
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- suggested action: %s\n\n", framingAction(c.Verdict))
+	}
+	return b.String()
+}
+
+func framingAction(verdict string) string {
+	if verdict == "foreign" {
+		return "likely foreign-framed — propose a dom_* gate term for the orphan term(s), or re-frame the zone; human confirms + commits + pins a GT case"
+	}
+	return "partial echo — likely generic vocabulary; human to confirm whether any orphan term is a foreign-machine component"
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_framing_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+package iace
+
+import "testing"
+
+func TestFindFramingCandidates_FlagsForeignZone(t *testing.T) {
+	narrative := "Gewerbliche Geschirrspuelmaschine mit Boiler und Tank. Die Tuer ist verriegelt."
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HPforeign", "mechanical_hazard", "Walzen, Transportbaender, Bearbeitungszone", "Einzug", 80, nil, nil),
+		mkPM("HPlocal", "thermal_hazard", "Boiler, Tank, Tuer", "Verbrennung", 80, nil, nil),
+		mkPM("HPgeneric", "mechanical_hazard", "Quetschstelle, Gefahrbereich", "Quetschen", 80, nil, nil),
+	}
+	got := FindFramingCandidates(fired, narrative, 0.6)
+	if len(got) != 1 || got[0].Pattern != "HPforeign" {
+		t.Fatalf("want only HPforeign flagged, got %+v", got)
+	}
+	if got[0].Verdict != "foreign" {
+		t.Errorf("fully-orphan zone should be 'foreign', got %s", got[0].Verdict)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestFindFramingCandidates_PartialEchoIsPlausible(t *testing.T) {
+	narrative := "Maschine mit Boiler und Tank."
+	fired := []PatternMatch{
+		mkPM("HPx", "thermal_hazard", "Boiler, Tank, Auspuffleitung", "x", 80, nil, nil),
+	}
+	got := FindFramingCandidates(fired, narrative, 0.3)
+	if len(got) != 1 {
+		t.Fatalf("want 1 candidate (1/3 orphan >= 0.3), got %d", len(got))
+	}
+	if got[0].Verdict != "plausible" || len(got[0].OrphanTerms) != 1 || got[0].OrphanTerms[0] != "auspuffleitung" {
+		t.Errorf("want plausible + orphan [auspuffleitung], got %s %v", got[0].Verdict, got[0].OrphanTerms)
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_input.go

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+package iace
+
+import "github.com/google/uuid"
+
+// Non-test plumbing for the offline proposer (P2 slice 3): run the engine for a
+// narrative and produce the fired patterns + the engine-built hazards/mitigations
+// the dedup proposer and GT screen consume. This is the same pipeline the GT
+// benchmark tests use, lifted out of test scope so the dev-time CLI can call it.
+
+// universalLifecyclePhases are appended so patterns gated to a specific lifecycle
+// (maintenance/cleaning/setup/fault clearing) still fire — the proposer wants the
+// full hazard picture, not only normal-operation hazards.
+var universalLifecyclePhases = []string{"normal_operation", "maintenance", "cleaning", "setup", "fault_clearing"}
+
+// BuildProposerInput parses a narrative, runs the pattern engine, keeps the
+// narrative-relevant patterns, and returns the hazards, mitigations and fired
+// patterns. NOTE: it does not apply the CE cyber-category skip, so the proposer
+// view may include cyber/AI hazards that the CE log excludes — harmless for the
+// GT recall screen (they match no CE ground-truth entry).
+func BuildProposerInput(narrative, machineType string, extraMachineTypes []string) ([]Hazard, []Mitigation, []PatternMatch) {
+	res := ParseNarrative(narrative, machineType)
+
+	var compIDs, compNames, energyIDs []string
+	for _, c := range res.Components {
+		if c.Negated {
+			continue
+		}
+		compIDs = append(compIDs, c.LibraryID)
+		compNames = append(compNames, c.NameDE)
+	}
+	for _, e := range res.EnergySources {
+		energyIDs = append(energyIDs, e.SourceID)
+	}
+
+	machineTypes := append([]string{}, extraMachineTypes...)
+	if machineType != "" {
+		machineTypes = append(machineTypes, machineType)
+	}
+	lifecycles := append(append([]string{}, res.LifecyclePhases...), universalLifecyclePhases...)
+
+	out := NewPatternEngine().Match(MatchInput{
+		ComponentLibraryIDs: compIDs,
+		EnergySourceIDs:     energyIDs,
+		LifecyclePhases:     lifecycles,
+		CustomTags:          res.CustomTags,
+		OperationalStates:   res.OperationalStates,
+		StateTransitions:    res.StateTransitions,
+		HumanRoles:          res.Roles,
+		MachineTypes:        machineTypes,
+	})
+
+	kept := make([]PatternMatch, 0, len(out.MatchedPatterns))
+	for _, pm := range out.MatchedPatterns {
+		if IsPatternRelevant(pm, narrative, compNames) {
+			kept = append(kept, pm)
+		}
+	}
+	filtered := *out
+	filtered.MatchedPatterns = kept
+	hazards, mits := patternsToHazardsAndMitigations(&filtered)
+	return hazards, mits, kept
+}
+
+// patternsToHazardsAndMitigations converts engine output into the hazard/mitigation
+// entities the benchmark + proposer compare on. Simplified vs InitializeProject
+// (no risk estimation, no norm refs) — it only needs category/zone/scenario/measures.
+func patternsToHazardsAndMitigations(out *MatchOutput) ([]Hazard, []Mitigation) {
+	hazards := make([]Hazard, 0, len(out.MatchedPatterns))
+	patternToHazard := make(map[string]uuid.UUID, len(out.MatchedPatterns))
+
+	for _, pm := range out.MatchedPatterns {
+		cat := ""
+		if len(pm.HazardCats) > 0 {
+			cat = pm.HazardCats[0]
+		}
+		lifecycle := ""
+		if len(pm.ApplicableLifecycles) > 0 {
+			lifecycle = pm.ApplicableLifecycles[0]
+		}
+		h := Hazard{
+			ID:             uuid.New(),
+			Name:           pm.ScenarioDE,
+			Category:       cat,
+			Description:    pm.ScenarioDE,
+			Scenario:       pm.ScenarioDE,
+			TriggerEvent:   pm.TriggerDE,
+			PossibleHarm:   pm.HarmDE,
+			AffectedPerson: pm.AffectedDE,
+			HazardousZone:  pm.ZoneDE,
+			LifecyclePhase: lifecycle,
+		}
+		if h.Name == "" {
+			h.Name = pm.PatternName
+		}
+		hazards = append(hazards, h)
+		patternToHazard[pm.PatternID] = h.ID
+	}
+
+	measureNames := make(map[string]string)
+	for _, m := range GetProtectiveMeasureLibrary() {
+		measureNames[m.ID] = m.Name
+	}
+
+	var mitigations []Mitigation
+	for _, sm := range out.SuggestedMeasures {
+		name := measureNames[sm.MeasureID]
+		if name == "" {
+			name = sm.MeasureID
+		}
+		for _, srcPattern := range sm.SourcePatterns {
+			hid, ok := patternToHazard[srcPattern]
+			if !ok {
+				continue
+			}
+			mitigations = append(mitigations, Mitigation{
+				ID:       uuid.New(),
+				HazardID: hid,
+				Name:     name,
+			})
+		}
+	}
+	return hazards, mitigations
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_input_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+package iace
+
+import "testing"
+
+func TestBuildProposerInput_WarewashingFires(t *testing.T) {
+	hazards, _, fired := BuildProposerInput(
+		warewashingNarrative,
+		"Gewerbliche Untertisch-Geschirrspuelmaschine (vernetzt)",
+		[]string{"food_processing"},
+	)
+	if len(fired) == 0 || len(hazards) == 0 {
+		t.Fatalf("want fired patterns + hazards, got %d patterns / %d hazards", len(fired), len(hazards))
+	}
+	has := func(id string) bool {
+		for _, pm := range fired {
+			if pm.PatternID == id {
+				return true
+			}
+		}
+		return false
+	}
+	if !has("HP2201") {
+		t.Errorf("warewashing-specific HP2201 must fire via BuildProposerInput")
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_judge.go

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"context"
+	"encoding/json"
+	"fmt"
+	"strings"
+
+	"github.com/breakpilot/ai-compliance-sdk/internal/llm"
+)
+
+// Semantic judgement over RECALL-SAFE dedup candidates (P2 slice 2). DEV-TIME,
+// propose-only. The deterministic GT wall (proposer_screen.go) has already
+// removed candidates that would drop recall or that credit different GT entries;
+// the judge only adds an opinion on whether the survivors are truly the same
+// hazard, plus a rationale, for the human review queue. It NEVER mutates anything.
+//
+// The judge is pluggable behind CandidateJudge so the runtime/tests stay
+// deterministic (HeuristicJudge) while the dev-time CLI can plug in the
+// non-deterministic LLM (LLMJudge over the shared llm.ProviderRegistry).
+
+const (
+	VerdictDuplicate = "duplicate"
+	VerdictDistinct  = "distinct"
+	VerdictUncertain = "uncertain"
+)
+
+// JudgedProposal is one candidate with its GT-wall result and the judge's opinion.
+type JudgedProposal struct {
+	Candidate  DedupCandidate `json:"candidate"`
+	Screen     ScreenResult   `json:"screen"`
+	Verdict    string         `json:"verdict"`
+	Confidence string         `json:"confidence"`
+	Rationale  string         `json:"rationale"`
+	Judge      string         `json:"judge"`
+}
+
+// CandidateJudge decides whether two near-duplicate patterns are the same hazard.
+type CandidateJudge interface {
+	Name() string
+	Judge(ctx context.Context, c DedupCandidate, a, b PatternMatch) (verdict, confidence, rationale string)
+}
+
+// HeuristicJudge is the deterministic default/fallback. It only ever returns "low"
+// confidence — it is a placeholder for the LLM, and it deliberately punts to
+// "uncertain" on the hard cases (low text overlap, shared measures) so the queue
+// makes clear exactly where the LLM earns its keep.
+type HeuristicJudge struct{}
+
+func (HeuristicJudge) Name() string { return "heuristic" }
+
+func (HeuristicJudge) Judge(_ context.Context, c DedupCandidate, _, _ PatternMatch) (string, string, string) {
+	switch {
+	case c.ScenarioJaccard >= 0.5 || (c.ZoneJaccard >= 0.5 && c.MeasureJaccard >= 0.5):
+		return VerdictDuplicate, "low", "structural: high scenario, or combined zone+measure, overlap"
+	case c.MeasureJaccard >= 0.99 && c.ZoneJaccard == 0 && c.ScenarioJaccard < 0.3:
+		return VerdictDistinct, "low", "structural: identical measures but no zone/scenario overlap — likely distinct hazards sharing generic measures"
+	default:
+		return VerdictUncertain, "low", "structural signal inconclusive — needs the LLM judge"
+	}
+}
+
+// LLMJudge asks an offline model to make the semantic call. Non-deterministic, so
+// it lives only in the dev-time tool, never in tests or the runtime. It degrades
+// to "uncertain" on any transport or parse error — it must never break the run.
+type LLMJudge struct {
+	Completer    LLMCompleter
+	MachineClass string
+}
+
+func (LLMJudge) Name() string { return "llm" }
+
+func (j LLMJudge) Judge(ctx context.Context, c DedupCandidate, a, b PatternMatch) (string, string, string) {
+	system, user := BuildJudgePrompt(j.MachineClass, a, b)
+	raw, err := j.Completer.Complete(ctx, system, user)
+	if err != nil {
+		return VerdictUncertain, "low", "LLM error: " + err.Error()
+	}
+	return parseJudgeJSON(raw)
+}
+
+// BuildJudgePrompt is the real LLM artifact — built and unit-tested deterministically
+// even though the call itself is not. It frames the ISO 12100 same-vs-distinct
+// question and forces a JSON answer.
+func BuildJudgePrompt(machineClass string, a, b PatternMatch) (system, user string) {
+	system = "Du bist Sachverstaendiger fuer Maschinensicherheit nach EN ISO 12100. " +
+		"Entscheide, ob zwei generierte Gefaehrdungen fuer DIESE Maschine DIESELBE Gefaehrdung " +
+		"beschreiben (Dublette) oder fachlich VERSCHIEDENE Gefaehrdungen sind, die nur zufaellig " +
+		"dieselben Schutzmassnahmen teilen. Verschieden, wenn Wirkort, Ausloeser oder " +
+		"Schadensmechanismus abweichen — auch bei gleicher Kategorie und gleichen Massnahmen. " +
+		"Antworte AUSSCHLIESSLICH als JSON: " +
+		`{"verdict":"duplicate|distinct|uncertain","confidence":"high|medium|low","rationale":"..."}.`
+	user = fmt.Sprintf(`Maschinenklasse: %s
+
+Gefaehrdung A (%s):
+  Name: %s
+  Kategorie: %s
+  Zone: %s
+  Szenario: %s
+  Ausloeser: %s
+  Schaden: %s
+  Massnahmen: %s
+
+Gefaehrdung B (%s):
+  Name: %s
+  Kategorie: %s
+  Zone: %s
+  Szenario: %s
+  Ausloeser: %s
+  Schaden: %s
+  Massnahmen: %s
+
+Sind A und B dieselbe Gefaehrdung fuer diese Maschine?`,
+		machineClass,
+		a.PatternID, a.PatternName, primaryCat(a), a.ZoneDE, a.ScenarioDE, a.TriggerDE, a.HarmDE, strings.Join(a.SuggestedMeasureIDs, ", "),
+		b.PatternID, b.PatternName, primaryCat(b), b.ZoneDE, b.ScenarioDE, b.TriggerDE, b.HarmDE, strings.Join(b.SuggestedMeasureIDs, ", "))
+	return system, user
+}
+
+func parseJudgeJSON(raw string) (verdict, confidence, rationale string) {
+	start, end := strings.Index(raw, "{"), strings.LastIndex(raw, "}")
+	if start < 0 || end <= start {
+		return VerdictUncertain, "low", "unparseable LLM output"
+	}
+	var v struct {
+		Verdict    string `json:"verdict"`
+		Confidence string `json:"confidence"`
+		Rationale  string `json:"rationale"`
+	}
+	if err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(raw[start:end+1]), &v); err != nil {
+		return VerdictUncertain, "low", "unparseable LLM JSON: " + err.Error()
+	}
+	switch v.Verdict {
+	case VerdictDuplicate, VerdictDistinct, VerdictUncertain:
+	default:
+		v.Verdict = VerdictUncertain
+	}
+	if v.Confidence == "" {
+		v.Confidence = "low"
+	}
+	return v.Verdict, v.Confidence, v.Rationale
+}
+
+// LLMCompleter is the minimal text-in/text-out the LLM judge needs. Tests pass a
+// stub; the dev-time tool passes a registry-backed adapter (NewRegistryCompleter).
+type LLMCompleter interface {
+	Complete(ctx context.Context, system, user string) (string, error)
+}
+
+type registryCompleter struct {
+	reg   *llm.ProviderRegistry
+	model string
+}
+
+// NewRegistryCompleter adapts the shared llm.ProviderRegistry to LLMCompleter so
+// the proposer can reuse the platform's offline model wiring (e.g. self-hosted qwen).
+func NewRegistryCompleter(reg *llm.ProviderRegistry, model string) LLMCompleter {
+	return &registryCompleter{reg: reg, model: model}
+}
+
+func (rc *registryCompleter) Complete(ctx context.Context, system, user string) (string, error) {
+	resp, err := rc.reg.Chat(ctx, &llm.ChatRequest{
+		Model: rc.model,
+		Messages: []llm.Message{
+			{Role: "system", Content: system},
+			{Role: "user", Content: user},
+		},
+		Temperature: 0,
+	})
+	if err != nil {
+		return "", err
+	}
+	return resp.Message.Content, nil
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_judge_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"context"
+	"errors"
+	"strings"
+	"testing"
+)
+
+func TestHeuristicJudge_Verdicts(t *testing.T) {
+	tests := []struct {
+		name        string
+		zone, meas  float64
+		scenario    float64
+		wantVerdict string
+	}{
+		{"high scenario overlap -> duplicate", 0, 0.3, 0.6, VerdictDuplicate},
+		{"high zone+measure -> duplicate", 0.6, 0.6, 0.1, VerdictDuplicate},
+		{"identical measures, no text -> distinct", 0, 1.0, 0.0, VerdictDistinct},
+		{"shared measures, low text -> uncertain", 0, 0.67, 0.19, VerdictUncertain},
+	}
+	for _, tt := range tests {
+		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			c := DedupCandidate{ZoneJaccard: tt.zone, MeasureJaccard: tt.meas, ScenarioJaccard: tt.scenario}
+			v, conf, _ := HeuristicJudge{}.Judge(context.Background(), c, PatternMatch{}, PatternMatch{})
+			if v != tt.wantVerdict {
+				t.Errorf("verdict: want %s, got %s", tt.wantVerdict, v)
+			}
+			if conf != "low" {
+				t.Errorf("heuristic confidence must be low, got %s", conf)
+			}
+		})
+	}
+}
+
+func TestBuildJudgePrompt_ContainsKeyFacts(t *testing.T) {
+	a := PatternMatch{PatternID: "HPa", PatternName: "Heisse Flaeche", HazardCats: []string{"thermal_hazard"},
+		ZoneDE: "Boiler", ScenarioDE: "Beruehrung heisser Boiler", SuggestedMeasureIDs: []string{"M071"}}
+	b := PatternMatch{PatternID: "HPb", PatternName: "Heisses Spuelgut", HazardCats: []string{"thermal_hazard"},
+		ZoneDE: "Spuelgut", ScenarioDE: "Beruehrung heisses Geschirr", SuggestedMeasureIDs: []string{"M071"}}
+	system, user := BuildJudgePrompt("Geschirrspuelmaschine", a, b)
+
+	for _, want := range []string{"EN ISO 12100", "JSON", "verdict"} {
+		if !strings.Contains(system, want) {
+			t.Errorf("system prompt missing %q", want)
+		}
+	}
+	for _, want := range []string{"Geschirrspuelmaschine", "HPa", "HPb", "Boiler", "Spuelgut", "thermal_hazard"} {
+		if !strings.Contains(user, want) {
+			t.Errorf("user prompt missing %q", want)
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+type fakeCompleter struct {
+	out string
+	err error
+}
+
+func (f fakeCompleter) Complete(_ context.Context, _, _ string) (string, error) { return f.out, f.err }
+
+func TestLLMJudge_ParsesAndDegrades(t *testing.T) {
+	cand := DedupCandidate{KeepPattern: "HPa", DropPattern: "HPb"}
+
+	// Well-formed JSON, even wrapped in chatter, parses.
+	j := LLMJudge{Completer: fakeCompleter{out: "Sicher. {\"verdict\":\"distinct\",\"confidence\":\"high\",\"rationale\":\"andere Wirkorte\"}"}, MachineClass: "x"}
+	if v, conf, r := j.Judge(context.Background(), cand, PatternMatch{}, PatternMatch{}); v != VerdictDistinct || conf != "high" || r != "andere Wirkorte" {
+		t.Errorf("parse: got %s/%s/%q", v, conf, r)
+	}
+
+	// Unknown verdict value normalises to uncertain.
+	j2 := LLMJudge{Completer: fakeCompleter{out: `{"verdict":"maybe","confidence":"medium","rationale":"x"}`}}
+	if v, _, _ := j2.Judge(context.Background(), cand, PatternMatch{}, PatternMatch{}); v != VerdictUncertain {
+		t.Errorf("unknown verdict must normalise to uncertain, got %s", v)
+	}
+
+	// Transport error degrades gracefully, never panics.
+	j3 := LLMJudge{Completer: fakeCompleter{err: errors.New("connection refused")}}
+	if v, _, r := j3.Judge(context.Background(), cand, PatternMatch{}, PatternMatch{}); v != VerdictUncertain || !strings.Contains(r, "LLM error") {
+		t.Errorf("error path: got %s / %q", v, r)
+	}
+
+	// Garbage (no JSON) degrades to uncertain.
+	j4 := LLMJudge{Completer: fakeCompleter{out: "no json here"}}
+	if v, _, _ := j4.Judge(context.Background(), cand, PatternMatch{}, PatternMatch{}); v != VerdictUncertain {
+		t.Errorf("garbage must degrade to uncertain, got %s", v)
+	}
+}
+
+func TestRenderProposalQueue_ShowsActions(t *testing.T) {
+	proposals := []JudgedProposal{
+		{
+			Candidate: DedupCandidate{KeepPattern: "HP807", DropPattern: "HP033", Category: "update_failure", Score: 0.32},
+			Screen:    ScreenResult{RecallBefore: 1, RecallAfter: 1},
+			Verdict:   VerdictDuplicate, Confidence: "medium", Rationale: "same update failure", Judge: "llm",
+		},
+	}
+	out := RenderProposalQueue("Geschirrspuelmaschine", proposals)
+	for _, want := range []string{"HP807", "HP033", "update_failure", "supersession", "Propose-only"} {
+		if !strings.Contains(out, want) {
+			t.Errorf("queue missing %q\n%s", want, out)
+		}
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_queue.go

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+package iace
+
+import (
+	"fmt"
+	"strings"
+)
+
+// RenderProposalQueue turns judged dedup proposals into the human-review queue
+// (markdown). Deterministic. Nothing here applies a change — every entry is a
+// suggestion for a human to confirm, edit, commit, and pin with a GT case.
+func RenderProposalQueue(machine string, proposals []JudgedProposal) string {
+	var b strings.Builder
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "# Dedup proposal queue — %s\n\n", machine)
+	fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%d candidate(s) survived the deterministic GT wall. Propose-only — nothing is applied automatically.\n\n", len(proposals))
+
+	for i, p := range proposals {
+		c := p.Candidate
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "## %d. keep %s  ⊃  drop %s   [%s → %s (%s)]\n",
+			i+1, c.KeepPattern, c.DropPattern, p.Judge, p.Verdict, p.Confidence)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- category %s · score %.2f (measures %.0f%%, zone %.0f%%, scenario %.0f%%)\n",
+			c.Category, c.Score, c.MeasureJaccard*100, c.ZoneJaccard*100, c.ScenarioJaccard*100)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- GT recall %.1f%% → %.1f%% when %s is dropped (wall: %s)\n",
+			p.Screen.RecallBefore*100, p.Screen.RecallAfter*100, c.DropPattern, wallNote(p.Screen))
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- keep: %s\n- drop: %s\n", c.KeepHazardName, c.DropName)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- judge rationale: %s\n", p.Rationale)
+		fmt.Fprintf(&b, "- suggested action: %s\n\n", suggestedAction(p))
+	}
+	return b.String()
+}
+
+func wallNote(s ScreenResult) string {
+	if s.DistinctGT {
+		return fmt.Sprintf("distinct GT %s vs %s", s.KeepGT, s.DropGT)
+	}
+	return "recall-safe"
+}
+
+func suggestedAction(p JudgedProposal) string {
+	switch p.Verdict {
+	case VerdictDuplicate:
+		return fmt.Sprintf("add %s to a supersession set, then a human confirms + commits + pins a GT case", p.Candidate.DropPattern)
+	case VerdictDistinct:
+		return "keep both — judge considers them distinct hazards"
+	default:
+		return "needs human (or higher-confidence LLM) review — no automatic action"
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/proposer_screen.go

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+package iace
+
+import "github.com/google/uuid"
+
+// ScreenResult is the deterministic GT verdict for one proposed supersession.
+type ScreenResult struct {
+	RecallBefore float64 `json:"recall_before"`
+	RecallAfter  float64 `json:"recall_after"`
+	KeepGT       string  `json:"keep_gt,omitempty"` // GT entry the keeper credits (if any)
+	DropGT       string  `json:"drop_gt,omitempty"` // GT entry the drop credits (if any)
+	DistinctGT   bool    `json:"distinct_gt"`       // keep & drop credit DIFFERENT GT entries -> distinct hazards
+	Safe         bool    `json:"safe"`              // recall preserved AND not distinct
+}
+
+// ScreenSupersession is the WALL between "propose" and "decide". A proposal is
+// safe only if BOTH deterministic checks pass:
+//
+//  1. RECALL is not reduced when the drop-hazard (and its mitigations) is removed
+//     — otherwise the drop is load-bearing for GT coverage.
+//  2. The two hazards do NOT credit DIFFERENT ground-truth entries. Recall alone
+//     is necessary but not sufficient: two genuinely distinct hazards that share
+//     the same measures (e.g. hot boiler surface vs hot ware on unloading) keep
+//     recall at 100% when one is dropped, yet must NOT be merged. If keep and
+//     drop each match a different GT entry, they are distinct.
+//
+// Whatever survives both is still only RECALL-SAFE — a candidate for a human (and
+// in slice 2, an LLM) to confirm semantically. Deterministic; reuses
+// CompareBenchmark; touches neither the library nor the runtime.
+func ScreenSupersession(gt *GroundTruth, hazards []Hazard, mits []Mitigation, keepHazardName, dropHazardName string) ScreenResult {
+	before := CompareBenchmark(gt, hazards, mits)
+
+	gtOf := map[string]string{}
+	for _, p := range before.MatchedPairs {
+		gtOf[p.EngineHazard.Name] = p.GTEntry.Nr
+	}
+	keepGT, dropGT := gtOf[keepHazardName], gtOf[dropHazardName]
+	distinct := keepGT != "" && dropGT != "" && keepGT != dropGT
+
+	kept := make([]Hazard, 0, len(hazards))
+	dropped := map[uuid.UUID]bool{}
+	for _, h := range hazards {
+		if h.Name == dropHazardName {
+			dropped[h.ID] = true
+			continue
+		}
+		kept = append(kept, h)
+	}
+	keptMits := make([]Mitigation, 0, len(mits))
+	for _, m := range mits {
+		if !dropped[m.HazardID] {
+			keptMits = append(keptMits, m)
+		}
+	}
+	after := CompareBenchmark(gt, kept, keptMits)
+
+	return ScreenResult{
+		RecallBefore: before.CoverageScore, RecallAfter: after.CoverageScore,
+		KeepGT: keepGT, DropGT: dropGT, DistinctGT: distinct,
+		Safe: after.CoverageScore >= before.CoverageScore && !distinct,
+	}
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/iace/store_hazards.go

@@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ func (s *Store) ListHazards(ctx context.Context, projectID uuid.UUID) ([]Hazard,
 		hazards = append(hazards, h)
 	}
 
+	SortHazardsByISO12100(hazards)
 	return hazards, nil
 }
 

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/ucca/compliance_graph_loader.go

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+package ucca
+
+import (
+	"fmt"
+	"os"
+	"path/filepath"
+	"runtime"
+)
+
+// graphCallerRel resolves a path relative to THIS source file (build-time location), so the
+// graph data is findable under `go test` (cwd = package dir) regardless of working directory.
+// In a built container the source is gone, so cwd-relative candidates carry the load instead.
+func graphCallerRel(rel string) string {
+	_, file, _, ok := runtime.Caller(0)
+	if !ok {
+		return ""
+	}
+	return filepath.Join(filepath.Dir(file), rel)
+}
+
+// firstExisting returns the first candidate path that exists with the requested kind (dir vs
+// file). Empty candidates (e.g. unset env overrides) are skipped.
+func firstExisting(candidates []string, wantDir bool) string {
+	for _, p := range candidates {
+		if p == "" {
+			continue
+		}
+		info, err := os.Stat(p)
+		if err != nil || info.IsDir() != wantDir {
+			continue
+		}
+		return p
+	}
+	return ""
+}
+
+// LoadComplianceGraph loads the file-backed Compliance Execution Graph: the Registry join-key
+// contract (obligations/obligation_join_keys.json — owned by the Obligation session) + our
+// curated, accepted control mappings + evidence requirements. Locations are resolved across
+// three layouts: dev (cwd = ai-compliance-sdk/, canonical contract at ../obligations), container
+// (WORKDIR /app, data/ copied in incl. a synced data/obligations/ copy) and `go test`
+// (cwd = package dir, via graphCallerRel). Fail-closed: a missing/invalid source returns an
+// error so the handler serves 503 — never a half-built graph.
+//
+// NOTE: data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json is a SYNCED COPY of the repo-root contract
+// (the canonical owner is the Obligation session). Re-sync it when the Registry grows; dev/test
+// prefer the canonical repo-root path, only the container falls back to the copy.
+func LoadComplianceGraph() (*ObligationJoinKeys, *ControlMappingSet, *EvidenceRequirementSet, error) {
+	joinPath := firstExisting([]string{
+		os.Getenv("BP_OBLIGATION_JOIN_KEYS"),
+		"../obligations/obligation_join_keys.json",
+		graphCallerRel("../../../obligations/obligation_join_keys.json"),
+		"data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json",
+		graphCallerRel("../../data/obligations/obligation_join_keys.json"),
+	}, false)
+	if joinPath == "" {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("obligation_join_keys.json not found in any candidate path")
+	}
+	mapDir := firstExisting([]string{
+		os.Getenv("BP_CONTROL_MAPPINGS_DIR"),
+		"data/control_mappings",
+		graphCallerRel("../../data/control_mappings"),
+	}, true)
+	if mapDir == "" {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("control_mappings dir not found in any candidate path")
+	}
+	evDir := firstExisting([]string{
+		os.Getenv("BP_EVIDENCE_DIR"),
+		"data/evidence_requirements",
+		graphCallerRel("../../data/evidence_requirements"),
+	}, true)
+	if evDir == "" {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("evidence_requirements dir not found in any candidate path")
+	}
+
+	joins, err := LoadObligationJoinKeys(joinPath)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("load join keys (%s): %w", joinPath, err)
+	}
+	mappings, err := LoadControlMappings(mapDir)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("load control mappings (%s): %w", mapDir, err)
+	}
+	evidence, err := LoadEvidenceRequirements(evDir)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("load evidence (%s): %w", evDir, err)
+	}
+	return joins, mappings, evidence, nil
+}

ai-compliance-sdk/internal/ucca/control_mapping.go

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ type ControlMapping struct {
 	SourceRole      string `json:"source_role"`             // source_role of the norm (operational_requirement, ...)
 	TargetFramework string `json:"target_framework"`        // e.g. "OWASP ASVS"
 	TargetControl   string `json:"target_control"`          // e.g. "V6.3.1"
-	MappingType     string `json:"mapping_type"`            // supports | partially_supports | implements | related | contradicts
+	MappingType     string `json:"mapping_type"`            // primary_implementation | implements | supports | partially_supports | related | contradicts
 	MappingStatus   string `json:"mapping_status"`          // candidate | accepted | rejected | superseded
 	Provenance      string `json:"provenance"`              // retriever_candidate | human_curated | rule_based
 	ObligationID    string `json:"obligation_id,omitempty"` // stable cross-session join key (Obligation Registry); empty until adopted, citation_unit is the interim bridge
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ type ControlMapping struct {
 
 // Allowed enum values — the deterministic "rule" layer that keeps the curated store clean.
 var (
-	mappingTypeValues   = map[string]bool{"supports": true, "partially_supports": true, "implements": true, "related": true, "contradicts": true}
+	mappingTypeValues   = map[string]bool{"primary_implementation": true, "implements": true, "supports": true, "partially_supports": true, "related": true, "contradicts": true}
 	mappingStatusValues = map[string]bool{"candidate": true, "accepted": true, "rejected": true, "superseded": true}
 	provenanceValues    = map[string]bool{"retriever_candidate": true, "human_curated": true, "rule_based": true}
 )

backend-compliance/compliance/api/__init__.py

@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ _ROUTER_MODULES = [
     "licenses_routes",
     "template_rule_routes",
     "specialist_agent_routes",
+    "reasoning_routes",
 ]
 
 _loaded_count = 0

backend-compliance/compliance/api/reasoning_routes.py

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+"""HTTP endpoints for the Regulatory Reasoning Engine (spec §7).
+
+Thin handlers — all reasoning lives in `compliance.reasoning.*`. No DB, no RAG;
+pure deterministic rule evaluation.
+
+    POST /reasoning/scope                      -> which regulations apply + missing facts
+    POST /reasoning/obligations                -> obligations, overlaps, multi-evidence
+    POST /reasoning/implementation-reasoning   -> claim->obligation mapping (Welt 1, no verdict)
+    POST /reasoning/interpretation-assessment  -> verdict on a customer interpretation
+    POST /reasoning/product-scope              -> gate on facts, else run discover_scope once
+    POST /reasoning/regulatory-map             -> customer-readable read-model over the scope
+    POST /reasoning/interpretation-in-map      -> judge a customer interpretation within the map
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from fastapi import APIRouter
+
+from compliance.interpretation_map import (
+    InterpretationInMapRequest,
+    InterpretationInMapResult,
+    interpret_in_map,
+)
+from compliance.product_scope import (
+    ProductScopeRequest,
+    ProductScopeResponse,
+    resolve_product_scope,
+)
+from compliance.regulatory_map import RegulatoryMap, RegulatoryMapRequest, render_regulatory_map
+from compliance.reasoning import (
+    assess_interpretation,
+    derive_obligations,
+    discover_scope,
+    reason_implementation_claim,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning.schemas import (
+    ImplementationReasoningRequest,
+    ImplementationReasoningResponse,
+    InterpretationRequest,
+    InterpretationResponse,
+    ObligationsRequest,
+    ObligationsResponse,
+    ScopeRequest,
+    ScopeResponse,
+)
+
+router = APIRouter(prefix="/reasoning", tags=["reasoning"])
+
+
+@router.post("/scope", response_model=ScopeResponse)
+def scope_discovery(req: ScopeRequest) -> ScopeResponse:
+    scope = discover_scope(req.product_profile)
+    return ScopeResponse(
+        regulatory_scope=scope,
+        missing_facts=scope.missing_facts,
+        confidence=scope.confidence,
+    )
+
+
+@router.post("/obligations", response_model=ObligationsResponse)
+def applicable_obligations(req: ObligationsRequest) -> ObligationsResponse:
+    return derive_obligations(req.product_profile, req.regulatory_scope)
+
+
+@router.post("/implementation-reasoning", response_model=ImplementationReasoningResponse)
+def implementation_reasoning(req: ImplementationReasoningRequest) -> ImplementationReasoningResponse:
+    return reason_implementation_claim(req.product_profile, req.customer_claim)
+
+
+@router.post("/product-scope", response_model=ProductScopeResponse)
+def product_scope(req: ProductScopeRequest) -> ProductScopeResponse:
+    return resolve_product_scope(req.product_profile)
+
+
+@router.post("/regulatory-map", response_model=RegulatoryMap)
+def regulatory_map(req: RegulatoryMapRequest) -> RegulatoryMap:
+    return render_regulatory_map(req.product_profile)
+
+
+@router.post("/interpretation-in-map", response_model=InterpretationInMapResult)
+def interpretation_in_map(req: InterpretationInMapRequest) -> InterpretationInMapResult:
+    reg_map = render_regulatory_map(req.product_profile)
+    return interpret_in_map(reg_map, req.customer_interpretation)
+
+
+@router.post("/interpretation-assessment", response_model=InterpretationResponse)
+def interpretation_assessment(req: InterpretationRequest) -> InterpretationResponse:
+    result = assess_interpretation(req.customer_interpretation, req.product_profile)
+    return InterpretationResponse(
+        assessment=result.assessment,
+        affected_regulations=result.affected_regulations,
+        affected_obligations=result.affected_obligations,
+        corrected_interpretation=result.corrected_interpretation,
+        risks=result.risks,
+        legal_basis_refs=result.legal_basis_refs,
+        explanation=result.explanation,
+        confidence=result.confidence,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/company/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+"""Company Intelligence (Phase 2A) — Company Capability Profile foundation.
+
+The HEAD of the spine Company -> Capability -> Product -> Regulation -> Obligation
+-> Procedure -> Evidence. Builds a CompanyContext into a CompanyCapabilityProfile
+with a four-state trust model (declared/inferred/confirmed/unknown). A certification
+yields at most an INFERRED candidate — never "erfuellt".
+
+Reasoning OWNS the container + trust-state; it CONSUMES the Certification->Capability
+mapping (Execution-owned) via an injected contract — no mapping data in product code.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .contract import CapabilityMappingEntry, CertificationCapabilityMap, EMPTY_MAPPING
+from .engine import build_company_profile
+from .schemas import (
+    CapabilityEvidence,
+    Certification,
+    CompanyCapabilityProfile,
+    CompanyContext,
+    Declaration,
+    ExistingEvidence,
+    ExistingProcess,
+    ExistingSystem,
+    OperationalCapability,
+    OperationalCapabilityCandidate,
+    VerificationStatus,
+)
+
+__all__ = [
+    "build_company_profile",
+    "CompanyContext",
+    "CompanyCapabilityProfile",
+    "Certification",
+    "Declaration",
+    "ExistingProcess",
+    "ExistingSystem",
+    "ExistingEvidence",
+    "CapabilityEvidence",
+    "OperationalCapabilityCandidate",
+    "OperationalCapability",
+    "VerificationStatus",
+    "CapabilityMappingEntry",
+    "CertificationCapabilityMap",
+    "EMPTY_MAPPING",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/company/contract.py

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+"""Consumption contract for the Certification -> Capability mapping.
+
+OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY (hard): the Capability Registry, CapabilityDefinition and the
+Certification->Capability / Feature->Capability mapping RULES live in the Compliance
+Execution domain. This Reasoning layer defines ONLY the shape it consumes and never
+ships mapping DATA in product code — tests inject mocks, so the real table can only
+ever live in Execution.
+
+Execution will eventually provide CapabilityRegistry / CapabilityMapping /
+CapabilityDefinition; Reasoning consumes exactly `OperationalCapabilityCandidate`
+{capability_id, source, confidence, verification_status} (see schemas.py) and the
+minimal mapping SHAPE below — nothing more.
+
+Python 3.9 compatible (no `|` unions).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+
+
+class CapabilityMappingEntry(BaseModel):
+    """One mapping rule SHAPE: a certification implies candidate capabilities.
+
+    Contract type only. The actual table (which capabilities ISO27001 implies) is
+    Execution's DATA and MUST NOT be hard-coded here or anywhere in product code.
+    """
+
+    capability_ids: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+
+
+# certification_id -> entry. Injected at call time; product code holds NO entries.
+CertificationCapabilityMap = Dict[str, CapabilityMappingEntry]
+
+# Intentionally empty: without an injected mapping there are zero inferred
+# candidates. This is the architectural guarantee that the registry lives only in
+# the Compliance Execution domain.
+EMPTY_MAPPING: CertificationCapabilityMap = {}

backend-compliance/compliance/company/engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+"""Company Intelligence engine (Phase 2A) — build the Company Capability Profile.
+
+Deterministic, no LLM/RAG. Turns a raw CompanyContext into capability evidence,
+candidates and (only via explicit verification) confirmed capabilities.
+
+HARD RULE enforced here: a certification yields at most an INFERRED candidate; it
+can NEVER produce a CONFIRMED capability on its own. Only real ExistingEvidence
+(`proves_capability_id`) promotes a capability to CONFIRMED. Certifications without
+a known mapping yield evidence-of-claim but NO inferred capability (the mapping is
+Execution's data, injected — never hard-coded here).
+
+Python 3.9 compatible (no `|` unions).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional, Tuple
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+
+from .contract import EMPTY_MAPPING, CertificationCapabilityMap
+from .schemas import (
+    CapabilityEvidence,
+    CompanyCapabilityProfile,
+    CompanyContext,
+    OperationalCapability,
+    OperationalCapabilityCandidate,
+    VerificationStatus,
+)
+
+
+def _declared(context: CompanyContext) -> List[OperationalCapabilityCandidate]:
+    out: List[OperationalCapabilityCandidate] = []
+    for d in context.declarations:
+        out.append(
+            OperationalCapabilityCandidate(
+                capability_id=d.capability_id,
+                source="declaration:%s" % context.company_id,
+                confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+                verification_status=VerificationStatus.DECLARED,
+            )
+        )
+    return out
+
+
+def _from_certifications(
+    context: CompanyContext, mapping: CertificationCapabilityMap
+) -> Tuple[List[CapabilityEvidence], List[OperationalCapabilityCandidate]]:
+    # refinement 1: certification -> evidence-of-capability (claim) -> inferred candidate
+    evidence: List[CapabilityEvidence] = []
+    inferred: List[OperationalCapabilityCandidate] = []
+    for cert in context.certifications:
+        source = "certification:%s" % cert.certification_id
+        evidence.append(
+            CapabilityEvidence(
+                source=source,
+                claim="Company holds %s" % (cert.name or cert.certification_id),
+                certification_id=cert.certification_id,
+            )
+        )
+        entry = mapping.get(cert.certification_id)
+        if entry is None:
+            continue  # no mapping known -> NO inferred capability (data is Execution's)
+        for cap_id in entry.capability_ids:
+            inferred.append(
+                OperationalCapabilityCandidate(
+                    capability_id=cap_id,
+                    source=source,
+                    confidence=entry.confidence,
+                    verification_status=VerificationStatus.INFERRED,
+                )
+            )
+    return evidence, inferred
+
+
+def _confirmed_from_evidence(context: CompanyContext) -> List[OperationalCapability]:
+    proven: Dict[str, List[str]] = {}
+    for ev in context.evidence:
+        cap = ev.proves_capability_id
+        if not cap:
+            continue
+        proven.setdefault(cap, []).append(ev.evidence_id)
+    return [
+        OperationalCapability(
+            capability_id=cap,
+            verification_status=VerificationStatus.CONFIRMED,
+            confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+            sources=sources,
+        )
+        for cap, sources in proven.items()
+    ]
+
+
+def build_company_profile(
+    context: CompanyContext, mapping: Optional[CertificationCapabilityMap] = None
+) -> CompanyCapabilityProfile:
+    """Build the Company Capability Profile from raw context + an injected mapping.
+
+    `mapping` defaults to EMPTY (no inferred candidates) so that the cert->capability
+    table can only ever come from the Compliance Execution domain.
+    """
+    mapping = EMPTY_MAPPING if mapping is None else mapping
+    evidence, inferred = _from_certifications(context, mapping)
+    declared = _declared(context)
+    confirmed = _confirmed_from_evidence(context)
+    confirmed_ids = {oc.capability_id for oc in confirmed}
+    # a confirmed capability is no longer a mere candidate
+    candidates = [c for c in (declared + inferred) if c.capability_id not in confirmed_ids]
+    return CompanyCapabilityProfile(
+        company_id=context.company_id,
+        capability_evidence=evidence,
+        candidate_capabilities=candidates,
+        confirmed_capabilities=confirmed,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/company/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+"""Company Intelligence (Phase 2A) — Company Capability Profile (domain objects).
+
+This is the HEAD of the spine
+
+    Company -> (Operational) Capability -> Product -> Applicable Regulation ->
+    Obligation -> Procedure -> Evidence
+
+and answers a DIFFERENT question than Regulatory Intelligence: not "which laws
+apply to my product" but "which capabilities does my company already have, and
+which regulatory obligations might they already cover".
+
+HARD RULE (structural, not convention): a capability derived from a certification
+is at most INFERRED — never CONFIRMED, never "erfuellt". A certification produces
+EVIDENCE for a capability, an inference produces a CANDIDATE, and only checked
+evidence produces a CONFIRMED capability. This keeps the company side inside
+Welt 1 (potential), mirroring `ClaimCoverage` on the obligation side; it is NOT a
+conformity verdict (`ComplianceStatus`, Welt 2, owned by Compliance Execution).
+
+OWNERSHIP: Reasoning OWNS this CompanyContext container + the trust-state machine.
+It does NOT own the Certification->Capability mapping RULES — those are the same
+kind of rule as Feature->Capability and belong to the Compliance Execution
+Capability Registry. This layer only CONSUMES `OperationalCapabilityCandidate`
+{capability_id, source, confidence, verification_status} via an injected mapping
+(see contract.py). No mapping DATA lives in product code (tests inject mocks).
+
+Application/reasoning types, NOT compliance-meta-model classes (architecture
+freeze v1.0 untouched). Python 3.9 compatible (no `|` unions).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+
+
+class VerificationStatus(str, Enum):
+    """Trust state of an operational capability — a FOURTH vocabulary.
+
+    Disjoint from ClaimCoverage (Welt 1, customer claim vs obligation),
+    ComplianceStatus (Welt 2, verified conformity) and DeltaType (RCI). It says
+    only how well-established a company CAPABILITY is, never whether an obligation
+    is met. Progression: DECLARED (customer says) -> INFERRED (a certification
+    implies it) -> CONFIRMED (checked against real evidence); UNKNOWN = no signal.
+    """
+
+    DECLARED = "declared"
+    INFERRED = "inferred"
+    CONFIRMED = "confirmed"
+    UNKNOWN = "unknown"
+
+
+# ── raw company inputs (the CompanyContext children) ──────────────────────
+class Certification(BaseModel):
+    certification_id: str  # e.g. "ISO27001"
+    name: str = ""
+    scope: str = ""  # what the cert covers, customer-stated
+
+
+class Declaration(BaseModel):
+    """A customer statement that they have a capability ("we do patch management")."""
+
+    capability_id: str
+    statement: str = ""
+
+
+class ExistingProcess(BaseModel):
+    process_id: str
+    name: str = ""
+
+
+class ExistingSystem(BaseModel):
+    system_id: str
+    name: str = ""
+
+
+class ExistingEvidence(BaseModel):
+    """A concrete artefact the company already holds (policy, audit log, SBOM ...).
+
+    `proves_capability_id` is the ONLY thing that may lift a capability to
+    CONFIRMED — and only when a human/engine has attached real evidence.
+    """
+
+    evidence_id: str
+    evidence_type: str = ""  # config_export/test_report/policy/audit_log/...
+    proves_capability_id: Optional[str] = None
+
+
+# ── intermediate: certification -> evidence-of-capability (refinement 1) ──
+class CapabilityEvidence(BaseModel):
+    """A certification does not yield a capability directly — only EVIDENCE for one.
+
+    "Company holds a certified ISMS" is the evidence/claim; capabilities are then
+    INFERRED from it via the injected (Execution-owned) mapping, never directly.
+    """
+
+    source: str  # provenance, e.g. "certification:ISO27001"
+    claim: str = ""
+    certification_id: str = ""
+
+
+# ── consumed contract type (refinement 2) ─────────────────────────────────
+class OperationalCapabilityCandidate(BaseModel):
+    """The ONLY thing Reasoning consumes from Execution's capability mapping.
+
+    Named "operational" (organisational ability) to stay distinct from later
+    Product/AI/Safety capabilities. A candidate is always Welt 1 — DECLARED or
+    INFERRED — and never CONFIRMED on its own.
+    """
+
+    capability_id: str
+    source: str
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+    verification_status: VerificationStatus = VerificationStatus.INFERRED
+
+
+class OperationalCapability(BaseModel):
+    """A capability the company actually has, CONFIRMED against real evidence."""
+
+    capability_id: str
+    verification_status: VerificationStatus
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+    sources: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+# ── the container Reasoning OWNS (raw inputs) ─────────────────────────────
+class CompanyContext(BaseModel):
+    company_id: str
+    certifications: List[Certification] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    declarations: List[Declaration] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    processes: List[ExistingProcess] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    systems: List[ExistingSystem] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    evidence: List[ExistingEvidence] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+# ── derived view (the Company Capability Profile) ─────────────────────────
+class CompanyCapabilityProfile(BaseModel):
+    """Derived: capability evidence + candidates (declared/inferred) + confirmed.
+
+    `candidate_capabilities` NEVER auto-promote to `confirmed_capabilities`; only
+    explicit ExistingEvidence does that. The hard rule is enforced in engine.py.
+    """
+
+    company_id: str
+    capability_evidence: List[CapabilityEvidence] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    candidate_capabilities: List[OperationalCapabilityCandidate] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confirmed_capabilities: List[OperationalCapability] = Field(default_factory=list)

backend-compliance/compliance/interpretation_map/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+"""Interpretation-in-Map — evaluate a customer interpretation within the map.
+
+Thin adapter over the existing `assess_interpretation`: it judges the customer's
+reading against the regulations/obligations actually present in the product's
+RegulatoryMap, and flags touched unsupported domains as future_corpus_needed
+instead of pseudo-evaluating them. No new legal reasoning, no RCI, no UI.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .adapter import interpret_in_map
+from .schemas import InterpretationInMapRequest, InterpretationInMapResult
+
+__all__ = [
+    "interpret_in_map",
+    "InterpretationInMapRequest",
+    "InterpretationInMapResult",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/interpretation_map/adapter.py

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+"""Interpretation-in-Map adapter (step 5).
+
+Evaluates a customer interpretation WITHIN the already-built RegulatoryMap. It
+reuses the existing `assess_interpretation` (no new legal engine), restricts the
+affected regulations/obligations to those present in the map, and reports any
+touched unsupported domain (wastewater/chemicals/...) as future_corpus_needed
+rather than pseudo-evaluating it.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import InterpretationVerdict
+from compliance.reasoning.interpretation_engine import assess_interpretation
+from compliance.regulatory_map.schemas import RegulatoryMap
+
+from .schemas import InterpretationInMapResult
+
+_LABEL: Dict[InterpretationVerdict, str] = {
+    InterpretationVerdict.PLAUSIBLE: "plausibel",
+    InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW: "zu eng",
+    InterpretationVerdict.TOO_BROAD: "zu weit",
+    InterpretationVerdict.PARTIALLY_CORRECT: "teilweise korrekt",
+    InterpretationVerdict.UNSUPPORTED: "nicht belegt",
+    InterpretationVerdict.UNCERTAIN: "unsicher",
+}
+
+# domain -> keywords that signal the interpretation is ABOUT that (uncovered) domain.
+_ENV_KEYWORDS: Dict[str, List[str]] = {
+    "environment_water": ["abwasser", "wastewater", "gewässer", "gewaesser", "einleitung", "abfluss"],
+    "chemicals": ["chemikalie", "reach", "clp", "reinigungsmittel", "biozid", "gefahrstoff", "detergenz", "lösemittel", "loesemittel"],
+    "environment_air": ["luft", "emission", "voc", "immission", "abluft", "verbrennung"],
+    "waste": ["abfall", "entsorgung", "weee", "recycling"],
+    "energy_resources": ["energie", "ökodesign", "oekodesign", "verbrauch"],
+}
+
+
+def _touches(text: str, domain: str) -> bool:
+    low = text.lower()
+    return any(kw in low for kw in _ENV_KEYWORDS.get(domain, []))
+
+
+def _explain(label: str, detail: str, affected_regs: List[str], future_domains: List[str], in_scope: bool) -> str:
+    base = "Ihre Interpretation ist wahrscheinlich %s." % label
+    if detail:
+        base += " " + detail
+    if affected_regs:
+        base += " Betroffen in Ihrer Map: %s." % ", ".join(affected_regs)
+    if future_domains:
+        base += (
+            " Für %s liegt noch kein Regelkorpus vor — diese Aspekte werden nicht bewertet (future_corpus_needed)."
+            % ", ".join(future_domains)
+        )
+    if not in_scope and not future_domains:
+        base += " Diese Auslegung betrifft kein Regelwerk Ihrer aktuellen Produkt-Map."
+    return base
+
+
+def interpret_in_map(reg_map: RegulatoryMap, interpretation: str) -> InterpretationInMapResult:
+    a = assess_interpretation(interpretation)  # existing engine — no new reasoning
+
+    map_reg_ids = (
+        {v.regulation_id for v in reg_map.applicable_regulations}
+        | {v.regulation_id for v in reg_map.uncertain_regulations}
+        | {v.regulation_id for v in reg_map.excluded_regulations}
+    )
+    map_ob_ids = {o.obligation_id for v in reg_map.applicable_regulations for o in v.obligations}
+    uncertain_ids = {v.regulation_id for v in reg_map.uncertain_regulations}
+
+    affected_regs = [r for r in a.affected_regulations if r in map_reg_ids]
+    affected_obs = [o for o in a.affected_obligations if o in map_ob_ids]
+    related_unc = [r for r in a.affected_regulations if r in uncertain_ids]
+    future = [d for d in reg_map.unsupported_domains if _touches(interpretation, d.domain)]
+    in_scope = bool(affected_regs or affected_obs)
+
+    return InterpretationInMapResult(
+        raw_interpretation=interpretation,
+        assessment=a.assessment,
+        in_scope_of_map=in_scope,
+        affected_regulations=affected_regs,
+        affected_obligations=affected_obs,
+        related_uncertainties=related_unc,
+        future_corpus_domains=future,
+        corrected_interpretation=a.corrected_interpretation,
+        risks=a.risks,
+        legal_basis_refs=a.legal_basis_refs,
+        explanation=_explain(_LABEL[a.assessment], a.explanation, affected_regs, [d.domain for d in future], in_scope),
+        confidence=a.confidence,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/interpretation_map/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+"""Schemas for Interpretation-in-Map (step 5).
+
+A thin adapter that evaluates a customer interpretation WITHIN the already-built
+RegulatoryMap — it does not assess abstract legal questions. Application types
+only; no compliance-meta-model classes (freeze v1.0 untouched).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.product_scope.schemas import UnsupportedDomain
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence, InterpretationVerdict
+
+
+class InterpretationInMapRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+    customer_interpretation: str
+
+
+class InterpretationInMapResult(BaseModel):
+    raw_interpretation: str
+    assessment: InterpretationVerdict
+    in_scope_of_map: bool  # True if it touches a regulation/obligation present in the map
+    affected_regulations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # intersected with the map
+    affected_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # intersected (registry-linked)
+    related_uncertainties: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # map-uncertain regs it touches
+    future_corpus_domains: List[UnsupportedDomain] = Field(default_factory=list)  # NOT evaluated
+    corrected_interpretation: str = ""
+    risks: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str = ""
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM

backend-compliance/compliance/navigator/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+"""Product Regulatory Navigator — thin missing-facts layer.
+
+Sits above 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, NOT what regulation
+applies — that stays with the Scope Engine (step 3). No regulation logic, no UI,
+no Go, no RAG.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .engine import CompletenessSummary, NavigatorResult, apply_answers, navigate
+from .questions import (
+    QUESTION_CATALOG,
+    AnswerType,
+    NavigatorQuestion,
+    QuestionPriority,
+)
+
+__all__ = [
+    "navigate",
+    "apply_answers",
+    "NavigatorResult",
+    "CompletenessSummary",
+    "NavigatorQuestion",
+    "AnswerType",
+    "QuestionPriority",
+    "QUESTION_CATALOG",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/navigator/engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+"""Product Regulatory Navigator engine — missing-facts only.
+
+`navigate(profile)` reports which canonical fields are still unknown and the
+prioritized questions to fill them. `apply_answers(profile, answers)` returns the
+updated profile. It NEVER decides what applies — that is the Scope Engine (step 3).
+Pure field-presence checking; no scope-engine import, no regulation evaluation.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict, List, Type
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.profile.canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    ProductComponent,
+)
+
+from .questions import QUESTION_CATALOG, NavigatorQuestion, QuestionPriority
+
+_ENUM_FIELDS: Dict[str, Type[Any]] = {
+    "economic_operator_role": EconomicOperatorRole,
+    "lifecycle_phase": CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+}
+
+
+class CompletenessSummary(BaseModel):
+    total_relevant: int
+    answered: int
+    missing: int
+    missing_by_priority: Dict[str, int] = Field(default_factory=dict)
+    ready_for_scope: bool  # True once no P0 fact is missing
+    note: str = ""
+
+
+class NavigatorResult(BaseModel):
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # canonical target fields
+    suggested_questions: List[NavigatorQuestion] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    completeness_summary: CompletenessSummary
+
+
+def _value(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, dotted: str) -> Any:
+    if "." in dotted:
+        head, tail = dotted.split(".", 1)
+        return getattr(getattr(profile, head), tail, None)
+    return getattr(profile, dotted, None)
+
+
+def _is_unknown(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, q: NavigatorQuestion) -> bool:
+    value = _value(profile, q.target_field)
+    if value is None:
+        return True
+    if isinstance(value, list) and not value:
+        return True
+    return False
+
+
+def navigate(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> NavigatorResult:
+    missing = [q for q in QUESTION_CATALOG if _is_unknown(profile, q)]
+    missing.sort(key=lambda q: q.order())
+
+    by_priority: Dict[str, int] = {}
+    for q in missing:
+        by_priority[q.priority.value] = by_priority.get(q.priority.value, 0) + 1
+    ready = QuestionPriority.P0.value not in by_priority
+
+    total = len(QUESTION_CATALOG)
+    summary = CompletenessSummary(
+        total_relevant=total,
+        answered=total - len(missing),
+        missing=len(missing),
+        missing_by_priority=by_priority,
+        ready_for_scope=ready,
+        note=(
+            "%d von %d Fakten vorhanden; %d offen. Scope-Engine startklar: %s."
+            % (total - len(missing), total, len(missing), "ja" if ready else "nein (P0 fehlt)")
+        ),
+    )
+    return NavigatorResult(
+        missing_facts=[q.target_field for q in missing],
+        suggested_questions=missing,
+        completeness_summary=summary,
+    )
+
+
+def _coerce(q: NavigatorQuestion, value: Any) -> Any:
+    if q.target_field in _ENUM_FIELDS:
+        return _ENUM_FIELDS[q.target_field](value)
+    if q.target_field == "components":
+        return [c if isinstance(c, ProductComponent) else ProductComponent(**c) for c in (value or [])]
+    if q.answer_type.value in {"country_list", "multiselect"}:
+        return list(value or [])
+    if q.answer_type.value == "bool":
+        return bool(value)
+    return value
+
+
+def apply_answers(
+    profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, answers: Dict[str, Any]
+) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    updated = profile.model_copy(deep=True)
+    by_id = {q.question_id: q for q in QUESTION_CATALOG}
+    for question_id, raw in answers.items():
+        q = by_id.get(question_id)
+        if q is None or raw is None:
+            continue
+        value = _coerce(q, raw)
+        if "." in q.target_field:
+            head, tail = q.target_field.split(".", 1)
+            setattr(getattr(updated, head), tail, value)
+        else:
+            setattr(updated, q.target_field, value)
+    return updated

backend-compliance/compliance/navigator/questions.py

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+"""Product Regulatory Navigator — question catalog.
+
+The Navigator is a THIN missing-facts layer over CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile.
+It does NOT decide what applies — `regulatory_domains_unblocked` is static metadata
+(which domains a fact would help the Scope Engine decide later), never an
+evaluation. No regulation logic, no UI, no Go, no RAG.
+
+`NavigatorQuestion` is an interaction type, NOT a compliance-meta-model class
+(architecture freeze v1.0 untouched).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import List
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalLifecyclePhase, EconomicOperatorRole
+
+
+class AnswerType(str, Enum):
+    BOOL = "bool"
+    ENUM = "enum"
+    MULTISELECT = "multiselect"
+    TEXT = "text"
+    COUNTRY_LIST = "country_list"
+    COMPONENT_LIST = "component_list"
+
+
+class QuestionPriority(str, Enum):
+    P0 = "P0"  # blocks scope: EU-vs-not, role, lifecycle, machine/component
+    P1 = "P1"  # unblocks a specific domain: RED, Data Act, environment, security
+    P2 = "P2"  # refinement: structured BOM
+
+
+_PRIORITY_ORDER = {QuestionPriority.P0: 0, QuestionPriority.P1: 1, QuestionPriority.P2: 2}
+
+
+class NavigatorQuestion(BaseModel):
+    question_id: str
+    target_field: str  # dotted path into the canonical profile
+    label: str
+    why_needed: str
+    regulatory_domains_unblocked: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    answer_type: AnswerType
+    options: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    priority: QuestionPriority
+
+    def order(self) -> int:
+        return _PRIORITY_ORDER[self.priority]
+
+
+_ROLE_OPTIONS = [e.value for e in EconomicOperatorRole]
+_PHASE_OPTIONS = [e.value for e in CanonicalLifecyclePhase]
+
+QUESTION_CATALOG: List[NavigatorQuestion] = [
+    # ── P0: block the scope decision itself ───────────────────────────
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="markets",
+        target_field="markets",
+        label="In welche Märkte / Länder liefern Sie das Produkt?",
+        why_needed="Bestimmt EU- vs. Nicht-EU-Anwendbarkeit und nationale Pflichten.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["cyber", "machine_safety", "data", "radio", "emv", "environment"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.COUNTRY_LIST,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P0,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="economic_operator_role",
+        target_field="economic_operator_role",
+        label="Welche Rolle nehmen Sie ein?",
+        why_needed="Pflichten hängen von der Rolle ab (Hersteller/Importeur/Händler/Betreiber/Service).",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["cyber", "machine_safety", "data"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.ENUM,
+        options=_ROLE_OPTIONS,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P0,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="lifecycle_phase",
+        target_field="lifecycle_phase",
+        label="In welcher Lebenszyklusphase betrachten Sie das Produkt?",
+        why_needed="Manche Pflichten greifen nur beim Inverkehrbringen oder in der Wartung.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["cyber", "machine_safety"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.ENUM,
+        options=_PHASE_OPTIONS,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P0,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="is_machine",
+        target_field="is_machine",
+        label="Ist das Produkt eine (vollständige) Maschine?",
+        why_needed="Entscheidet die Anwendbarkeit der Maschinenverordnung.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["machine_safety"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P0,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="is_component",
+        target_field="is_component",
+        label="Ist das Produkt ein Bauteil / eine unvollständige Maschine?",
+        why_needed="Sicherheitsbauteil vs. vollständige Maschine ändert die Pflichten.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["machine_safety"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P0,
+    ),
+    # ── P1: unblock one specific domain ───────────────────────────────
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="has_radio_module",
+        target_field="has_radio_module",
+        label="Enthält das Produkt ein Funkmodul (WLAN/Bluetooth/Mobilfunk)?",
+        why_needed="Ein Funkmodul löst die Funkanlagen-Richtlinie (RED) aus.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["radio"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="generates_usage_data",
+        target_field="generates_usage_data",
+        label="Erzeugt das vernetzte Produkt nutzbare Produkt-/Nutzungsdaten?",
+        why_needed="Erzeugte Nutzungsdaten entscheiden über Data-Act-Pflichten.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["data"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="has_security_function",
+        target_field="has_security_function",
+        label="Hat das Produkt eine dedizierte Security-Funktion (gegen böswillige Akteure)?",
+        why_needed="Trennt Security- von Safety-Funktion (CRA vs. MaschinenVO).",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["cyber", "machine_safety"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="env_wastewater",
+        target_field="environmental.discharges_to_wastewater",
+        label="Gibt das Produkt Stoffe an Wasser / Abwasser ab?",
+        why_needed="Abwassereinleitung löst Abwasser-/Gewässerrecht aus.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["environment_water"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="env_air",
+        target_field="environmental.emits_to_air",
+        label="Entstehen Luftemissionen (VOC, Staub, Verbrennung, Aerosole)?",
+        why_needed="Luftemissionen lösen Immissionsschutzrecht aus.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["environment_air"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="env_chemicals",
+        target_field="environmental.uses_cleaning_chemicals",
+        label="Werden Reinigungs-, Desinfektions- oder Biozidmittel verwendet/mitgeliefert?",
+        why_needed="Chemikalien lösen REACH/CLP/Detergenzien-/Biozidrecht aus.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["chemicals"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.BOOL,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P1,
+    ),
+    # ── P2: refinement ────────────────────────────────────────────────
+    NavigatorQuestion(
+        question_id="components",
+        target_field="components",
+        label="Aus welchen wesentlichen Komponenten besteht das Produkt?",
+        why_needed="Eine strukturierte Stückliste verfeinert komponenten-abgeleitete Pflichten.",
+        regulatory_domains_unblocked=["radio", "emv", "environment_water", "chemicals"],
+        answer_type=AnswerType.COMPONENT_LIST,
+        priority=QuestionPriority.P2,
+    ),
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/product_scope/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+"""Product-scope orchestration (step 3).
+
+Connects the Navigator's fact-gate to the existing reasoning `discover_scope`:
+decide regulatory scope only once the minimum (P0) facts are present, otherwise
+return the missing facts. Reuses discover_scope unchanged — no new scope logic.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .orchestrator import resolve_product_scope
+from .schemas import (
+    ProductScopeRequest,
+    ProductScopeResponse,
+    RegulatoryScopeResult,
+    ScopeStatus,
+    UnsupportedDomain,
+)
+
+__all__ = [
+    "resolve_product_scope",
+    "ProductScopeRequest",
+    "ProductScopeResponse",
+    "RegulatoryScopeResult",
+    "UnsupportedDomain",
+    "ScopeStatus",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/product_scope/orchestrator.py

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+"""Product-scope orchestrator (step 3) — gate, then reuse discover_scope.
+
+THE rule: the Scope Engine decides only once the Navigator has released the
+minimum facts. If P0 facts are missing, return the missing facts/questions and do
+NOT run discover_scope. Otherwise project the canonical into the reasoning profile
+and run the EXISTING `discover_scope` exactly once.
+
+No new scope rules, no new regulations, no environmental-law evaluation (those
+domains are surfaced only as unsupported_domains / future_corpus_needed).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Tuple
+
+from compliance.navigator.engine import navigate
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.profile.to_reasoning import to_reasoning_profile
+from compliance.reasoning.scope_engine import discover_scope
+
+from .schemas import (
+    ProductScopeResponse,
+    RegulatoryScopeResult,
+    ScopeStatus,
+    UnsupportedDomain,
+)
+
+# environmental trigger field -> (domain, note). Transparency only — not a verdict.
+_ENV_DOMAINS: List[Tuple[str, str, str]] = [
+    ("discharges_to_wastewater", "environment_water", "Abwasser-/Gewässerrecht (z. B. AbwV, WRRL) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("has_cooling_or_spraying_water", "environment_water", "Wasserbezogene Anforderungen — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("emits_to_air", "environment_air", "Immissionsschutz-/Luftreinhalterecht (z. B. BImSchG, IED) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("uses_solvents", "environment_air", "Lösemittel-/VOC-Recht (z. B. 31. BImSchV) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("uses_cleaning_chemicals", "chemicals", "Chemikalienrecht (REACH/CLP/Detergenzien/Biozide) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("supplies_chemicals", "chemicals", "Chemikalienrecht (REACH/CLP) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("contains_restricted_substances", "chemicals", "Stoffbeschränkungen (REACH/RoHS) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("creates_waste", "waste", "Abfall-/Entsorgungsrecht (u. a. WEEE) — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+    ("consumes_energy_or_water", "energy_resources", "Energie-/Ökodesign-Recht — noch nicht im Korpus."),
+]
+
+
+def _unsupported_domains(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> List[UnsupportedDomain]:
+    env = profile.environmental
+    seen = set()
+    out: List[UnsupportedDomain] = []
+    for field, domain, note in _ENV_DOMAINS:
+        if getattr(env, field) is True and domain not in seen:
+            seen.add(domain)
+            out.append(UnsupportedDomain(domain=domain, trigger=field, note=note))
+    return out
+
+
+def resolve_product_scope(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> ProductScopeResponse:
+    nav = navigate(profile)
+
+    if not nav.completeness_summary.ready_for_scope:
+        return ProductScopeResponse(
+            status=ScopeStatus.NEEDS_FACTS,
+            completeness_summary=nav.completeness_summary,
+            missing_facts=nav.missing_facts,
+            suggested_questions=nav.suggested_questions,
+        )
+
+    scope = discover_scope(to_reasoning_profile(profile))  # exactly once
+    result = RegulatoryScopeResult(
+        applicable_regulations=scope.applicable_regulations,
+        excluded_regulations=scope.excluded_regulations,
+        uncertain_regulations=scope.uncertain_regulations,
+        unsupported_domains=_unsupported_domains(profile),
+        reasoning_summary=scope.reasoning_summary,
+        confidence=scope.confidence,
+    )
+    return ProductScopeResponse(
+        status=ScopeStatus.RESOLVED,
+        completeness_summary=nav.completeness_summary,
+        regulatory_scope=result,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/product_scope/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+"""Response schemas for the product-scope orchestrator (step 3).
+
+These are application/API types — NOT compliance-meta-model classes (architecture
+freeze v1.0 untouched). The scope verdict itself is produced by the existing
+`discover_scope`; nothing here adds scope rules.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.navigator.engine import CompletenessSummary
+from compliance.navigator.questions import NavigatorQuestion
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+from compliance.reasoning.schemas import (
+    ApplicableRegulation,
+    ExcludedRegulation,
+    UncertainRegulation,
+)
+
+
+class ScopeStatus(str, Enum):
+    NEEDS_FACTS = "needs_facts"  # P0 facts missing -> ask, do not decide
+    RESOLVED = "resolved"  # minimum facts present -> scope decided
+
+
+class UnsupportedDomain(BaseModel):
+    """A domain the product triggers but the corpus does not yet cover.
+
+    Surfaced for transparency (no false completeness) — NEVER a legal evaluation.
+    """
+
+    domain: str
+    trigger: str
+    status: str = "future_corpus_needed"
+    note: str = ""
+
+
+class RegulatoryScopeResult(BaseModel):
+    applicable_regulations: List[ApplicableRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    excluded_regulations: List[ExcludedRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    uncertain_regulations: List[UncertainRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    unsupported_domains: List[UnsupportedDomain] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    reasoning_summary: str = ""
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+
+
+class ProductScopeRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+
+
+class ProductScopeResponse(BaseModel):
+    status: ScopeStatus
+    completeness_summary: CompletenessSummary
+    # case NEEDS_FACTS
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    suggested_questions: List[NavigatorQuestion] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    # case RESOLVED
+    regulatory_scope: Optional[RegulatoryScopeResult] = None

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+"""Product profile convergence layer.
+
+ONE canonical product profile (`CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile`) that the Go
+gap engine and the Python reasoning engine both project from — so "SPS mit
+Remote Access" means the same thing everywhere. gap.ProductProfile leads; the
+reasoning ProductProfile is an adapter/DTO. Types + mappers only — no regulation
+logic, no UI, no new questions.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    ComponentKind,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    EnvironmentalImpact,
+    ProductComponent,
+)
+from .from_company_profile import from_company_profile
+from .from_product_wizard import from_product_wizard
+from .to_gap import to_gap_profile
+from .to_reasoning import to_reasoning_profile
+
+__all__ = [
+    "CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile",
+    "CanonicalProductType",
+    "EconomicOperatorRole",
+    "CanonicalLifecyclePhase",
+    "ComponentKind",
+    "ProductComponent",
+    "EnvironmentalImpact",
+    "from_product_wizard",
+    "from_company_profile",
+    "to_gap_profile",
+    "to_reasoning_profile",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/canonical.py

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+"""CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile — the single semantic product profile.
+
+Convergence layer (spec 2026-06-26): instead of letting the Go `gap.ProductProfile`
+and the Python reasoning `ProductProfile` drift, ONE canonical type is the source
+of truth. The Go gap engine LEADS (it carries real engine logic), so the canonical
+mirrors gap's field names and adds the Navigator gaps the audit found missing
+(economic-operator role, radio module, generates_usage_data, lifecycle phase,
+structured BOM, safety-vs-security split, machine-vs-component) plus a
+forward-looking Environmental-Impact domain.
+
+No regulation logic lives here — types only. Mappers live in sibling modules.
+Python 3.9 compatible (no `|` unions).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+
+class CanonicalProductType(str, Enum):  # mirrors gap.ProductType
+    SOFTWARE = "software"
+    HARDWARE = "hardware"
+    IOT = "iot"
+    SAAS = "saas"
+    EXCHANGE = "exchange"
+    MEDICAL_DEVICE = "medical_device"
+    MACHINERY = "machinery"
+    OTHER = "other"
+
+
+class EconomicOperatorRole(str, Enum):  # CE/CRA role — gap.ProductProfile has none
+    MANUFACTURER = "manufacturer"
+    IMPORTER = "importer"
+    DISTRIBUTOR = "distributor"
+    INTEGRATOR = "integrator"
+    OPERATOR = "operator"
+    SERVICE_PROVIDER = "service_provider"
+
+
+class CanonicalLifecyclePhase(str, Enum):
+    DEVELOPMENT = "development"
+    PLACING_ON_MARKET = "placing_on_market"
+    OPERATION = "operation"
+    MAINTENANCE = "maintenance"
+    UPDATE = "update"
+    END_OF_LIFE = "end_of_life"
+
+
+class ComponentKind(str, Enum):
+    MOTOR = "motor"
+    PUMP = "pump"
+    HEATING = "heating"
+    COOLING = "cooling"
+    CONTROLLER = "controller"
+    PLC = "plc"
+    HMI = "hmi"
+    SENSOR = "sensor"
+    ACTUATOR = "actuator"
+    CAMERA = "camera"
+    NETWORK_INTERFACE = "network_interface"
+    RADIO_MODULE = "radio_module"
+    CHEMICAL_DOSING = "chemical_dosing"
+    WATER_INLET = "water_inlet"
+    WASTEWATER_OUTLET = "wastewater_outlet"
+    BATTERY = "battery"
+    OTHER = "other"
+
+
+class ProductComponent(BaseModel):
+    """One structured BOM node — these nodes are what later trigger domains."""
+
+    name: str
+    kind: ComponentKind = ComponentKind.OTHER
+    notes: Optional[str] = None
+
+
+class EnvironmentalImpact(BaseModel):
+    """Forward-looking Umweltmedien-Trigger (own Navigator domain).
+
+    No regulation logic consumes these yet — profile fields only, so the model
+    is not blind to wastewater/air/chemicals/waste questions when that domain
+    is wired later (AbwV/WRRL/REACH/CLP/IED/BImSchG ...).
+    """
+
+    discharges_to_wastewater: Optional[bool] = None
+    uses_cleaning_chemicals: Optional[bool] = None
+    supplies_chemicals: Optional[bool] = None
+    emits_to_air: Optional[bool] = None
+    uses_solvents: Optional[bool] = None
+    creates_waste: Optional[bool] = None
+    contains_restricted_substances: Optional[bool] = None
+    consumes_energy_or_water: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_cooling_or_spraying_water: Optional[bool] = None
+
+
+class CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(BaseModel):
+    # --- identity ---
+    name: str = ""
+    description: str = ""
+    product_type: Optional[CanonicalProductType] = None
+    product_profile_id: Optional[str] = None
+    tenant_id: Optional[str] = None
+    iace_project_id: Optional[str] = None
+
+    # --- gap-native lists ---
+    technologies: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    data_processing: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    markets: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # real list — never hardcoded ['EU']
+    existing_certifications: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    applied_norms: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+    # --- gap-native product / IST-state booleans (tri-state: None = unknown) ---
+    connected_to_internet: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_software_updates: Optional[bool] = None
+    uses_ai: Optional[bool] = None
+    processes_personal_data: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_critical_infra_supplier: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_risk_assessment: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_technical_file: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_operating_manual: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_sbom: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_vuln_management: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_update_mechanism: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_incident_response: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_supply_chain_mgmt: Optional[bool] = None
+    ce_marking_since: Optional[str] = None
+    product_age: Optional[str] = None
+
+    # --- NEW Navigator-gap fields (audit 2026-06-26) ---
+    economic_operator_role: Optional[EconomicOperatorRole] = None
+    has_radio_module: Optional[bool] = None
+    generates_usage_data: Optional[bool] = None
+    lifecycle_phase: Optional[CanonicalLifecyclePhase] = None
+    components: List[ProductComponent] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    has_safety_function: Optional[bool] = None
+    safety_function_description: Optional[str] = None
+    has_security_function: Optional[bool] = None  # safety vs security split
+    has_remote_access: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_embedded_software: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_machine: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_component: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_spare_part: Optional[bool] = None
+
+    # --- company / market context (NIS2 + scope; from company-profile) ---
+    b2b_or_b2c: Optional[str] = None
+    sector_industry: Optional[str] = None
+    company_size: Optional[str] = None
+    primary_jurisdiction: Optional[str] = None
+
+    # --- AI context (classification stays delegated to ai-act/ucca) ---
+    ai_integration_type: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    human_oversight_level: Optional[str] = None
+
+    # --- forward-looking environmental domain ---
+    environmental: EnvironmentalImpact = Field(default_factory=EnvironmentalImpact)

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/from_company_profile.py

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+"""company-profile -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile (prefill, acceptance #2).
+
+Pulls master data (industry, business model, size, markets) and the conditional
+`machine_builder` block (camelCase JSONB keys, defined frontend-side) so the user
+re-answers nothing. The machineBuilder block is the richest product/safety/
+connectivity source — note it is industry-gated in the UI, so a prefill may find
+it empty; that is fine (fields stay None = unknown).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict, List
+
+from .canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+
+_EU_MEMBER_HINTS = {"DE", "AT", "FR", "IT", "NL", "LU", "LI", "EU", "EWR", "EEA", "DACH"}
+
+
+def _markets(p: Dict[str, Any], mb: Dict[str, Any]) -> List[str]:
+    out: List[str] = []
+    for source in (p.get("target_markets"), mb.get("exportMarkets"), [p.get("primary_jurisdiction")], [p.get("headquarters_country")]):
+        for m in source or []:
+            if m and m not in out:
+                out.append(m)
+    return out
+
+
+def _is_machine(mb: Dict[str, Any]) -> Any:
+    types = mb.get("productTypes")
+    if types:
+        return True
+    return None
+
+
+def from_company_profile(profile: Dict[str, Any]) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    p = profile
+    mb = p.get("machine_builder") or {}
+    contains_ai = mb.get("containsAI")
+    uses_ai = contains_ai if contains_ai is not None else p.get("uses_ai")
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(
+        description=mb.get("productDescription") or "",
+        sector_industry=p.get("industry") or None,
+        b2b_or_b2c=p.get("business_model") or None,
+        company_size=p.get("company_size") or None,
+        primary_jurisdiction=p.get("primary_jurisdiction") or None,
+        markets=_markets(p, mb),
+        uses_ai=uses_ai,
+        ai_integration_type=list(mb.get("aiIntegrationType") or []),
+        human_oversight_level=mb.get("humanOversightLevel") or None,
+        has_embedded_software=mb.get("containsFirmware"),
+        has_safety_function=mb.get("hasSafetyFunction"),
+        safety_function_description=mb.get("safetyFunctionDescription") or None,
+        has_remote_access=mb.get("hasRemoteAccess"),
+        connected_to_internet=mb.get("isNetworked"),
+        has_software_updates=mb.get("hasOTAUpdates"),
+        has_risk_assessment=mb.get("hasRiskAssessment"),
+        is_machine=_is_machine(mb),
+        is_critical_infra_supplier=mb.get("criticalSectorClients"),
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/from_product_wizard.py

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+"""ProductWizard payload -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile (lossless).
+
+The gap-analysis ProductWizard POSTs exactly the gap.ProductProfile JSON shape
+(see admin-compliance/.../ProductWizard.tsx handleSubmit). This mapper copies
+every gap field verbatim so that `to_gap_profile(from_product_wizard(p))`
+reproduces the gap subset of `p` byte-for-byte (acceptance #1). New Navigator
+fields the wizard does not ask stay None.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict, Optional
+
+from .canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, CanonicalProductType
+
+
+def _as_product_type(value: Any) -> Optional[CanonicalProductType]:
+    try:
+        return CanonicalProductType(value)
+    except ValueError:
+        return None
+
+
+def from_product_wizard(payload: Dict[str, Any]) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    g = payload.get
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(
+        name=g("name", ""),
+        description=g("description", ""),
+        product_type=_as_product_type(g("product_type")),
+        technologies=list(g("technologies") or []),
+        data_processing=list(g("data_processing") or []),
+        markets=list(g("markets") or []),
+        existing_certifications=list(g("existing_certifications") or []),
+        applied_norms=list(g("applied_norms") or []),
+        connected_to_internet=g("connected_to_internet"),
+        has_software_updates=g("has_software_updates"),
+        uses_ai=g("uses_ai"),
+        processes_personal_data=g("processes_personal_data"),
+        is_critical_infra_supplier=g("is_critical_infra_supplier"),
+        has_risk_assessment=g("has_risk_assessment"),
+        has_technical_file=g("has_technical_file"),
+        has_operating_manual=g("has_operating_manual"),
+        has_sbom=g("has_sbom"),
+        has_vuln_management=g("has_vuln_management"),
+        has_update_mechanism=g("has_update_mechanism"),
+        has_incident_response=g("has_incident_response"),
+        has_supply_chain_mgmt=g("has_supply_chain_mgmt"),
+        ce_marking_since=g("ce_marking_since"),
+        product_age=g("product_age"),
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/to_gap.py

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+"""CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile -> gap.ProductProfile JSON shape.
+
+Emits exactly the keys the Go gap engine already consumes (gap/models.go json
+tags), so the gap engine runs UNCHANGED — the canonical is a superset and gap is
+its lossless projection. Canonical-only fields (role/radio/components/...) are
+intentionally not emitted here; they reach the reasoning side via to_reasoning.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict
+
+from .canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+
+
+def to_gap_profile(c: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> Dict[str, Any]:
+    return {
+        "name": c.name,
+        "description": c.description,
+        "product_type": c.product_type.value if c.product_type else "",
+        "technologies": list(c.technologies),
+        "data_processing": list(c.data_processing),
+        "markets": list(c.markets),
+        "existing_certifications": list(c.existing_certifications),
+        "applied_norms": list(c.applied_norms),
+        "connected_to_internet": bool(c.connected_to_internet),
+        "has_software_updates": bool(c.has_software_updates),
+        "uses_ai": bool(c.uses_ai),
+        "processes_personal_data": bool(c.processes_personal_data),
+        "is_critical_infra_supplier": bool(c.is_critical_infra_supplier),
+        "has_risk_assessment": bool(c.has_risk_assessment),
+        "has_technical_file": bool(c.has_technical_file),
+        "has_operating_manual": bool(c.has_operating_manual),
+        "has_sbom": bool(c.has_sbom),
+        "has_vuln_management": bool(c.has_vuln_management),
+        "has_update_mechanism": bool(c.has_update_mechanism),
+        "has_incident_response": bool(c.has_incident_response),
+        "has_supply_chain_mgmt": bool(c.has_supply_chain_mgmt),
+        "ce_marking_since": c.ce_marking_since if c.ce_marking_since is not None else "",
+        "product_age": c.product_age if c.product_age is not None else "",
+    }

backend-compliance/compliance/profile/to_reasoning.py

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+"""CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile -> reasoning ProductProfile (adapter/DTO).
+
+The reasoning engine stays the consumer, never the source of truth (spec): the
+canonical leads, this projects it into the Python reasoning ProductProfile so the
+Reasoning engine and the Go gap engine run off ONE semantic profile (acceptance
+#10). AI classification is NOT done here — only `uses_ai` is forwarded; risk
+classification stays delegated to ai-act/ucca (acceptance #3).
+
+This is the ONLY one-way coupling profile -> reasoning; reasoning never imports
+profile, so the reasoning layer stays hermetic.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import ManufacturerRole, MarketModel, ProductLifecyclePhase
+from compliance.reasoning.schemas import ProductProfile
+
+from .canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, CanonicalProductType
+
+_SOFTWARE_TYPES = {CanonicalProductType.SOFTWARE, CanonicalProductType.SAAS, CanonicalProductType.IOT}
+_SOFTWARE_TECH = {"ai", "api", "database", "encryption", "ota_updates", "cloud", "blockchain"}
+_EU_HINTS = {"DE", "AT", "FR", "IT", "NL", "LU", "LI", "EU", "EWR", "EEA", "DACH"}
+_B2X = {"B2B": MarketModel.B2B, "B2C": MarketModel.B2C, "B2B_B2C": MarketModel.BOTH, "B2B2C": MarketModel.BOTH}
+
+
+def _or_none(*values: Optional[bool]) -> Optional[bool]:
+    """True if any value is truthy; None if all are None/absent; else False."""
+    if any(v is True for v in values):
+        return True
+    if all(v is None for v in values):
+        return None
+    return False
+
+
+def _has_software(c: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> Optional[bool]:
+    type_sig = True if c.product_type in _SOFTWARE_TYPES else None
+    tech_sig = True if (set(c.technologies) & _SOFTWARE_TECH) else None
+    return _or_none(c.has_embedded_software, c.has_software_updates, c.uses_ai, type_sig, tech_sig)
+
+
+def _eu_market(markets: List[str]) -> Optional[bool]:
+    if not markets:
+        return None
+    return True if (set(markets) & _EU_HINTS) else False
+
+
+def _has_radio(c: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> Optional[bool]:
+    if c.has_radio_module is not None:
+        return c.has_radio_module
+    if any(comp.kind.value == "radio_module" for comp in c.components):
+        return True
+    return None
+
+
+def to_reasoning_profile(c: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> ProductProfile:
+    role = ManufacturerRole(c.economic_operator_role.value) if c.economic_operator_role else None
+    phase = ProductLifecyclePhase(c.lifecycle_phase.value) if c.lifecycle_phase else None
+    b2x = _B2X.get(c.b2b_or_b2c) if c.b2b_or_b2c else None
+    is_machine = c.is_machine if c.is_machine is not None else (
+        True if c.product_type == CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY else None
+    )
+    generates_data = c.generates_usage_data if c.generates_usage_data is not None else (
+        True if "telemetry" in c.data_processing else None
+    )
+    return ProductProfile(
+        product_name=c.name or "Produkt",
+        product_profile_id=c.product_profile_id,
+        manufacturer_role=role,
+        product_type=[c.product_type.value] if c.product_type else [],
+        has_software=_has_software(c),
+        has_embedded_software=c.has_embedded_software,
+        has_remote_access=c.has_remote_access,
+        has_cloud_connection=True if "cloud" in c.technologies else None,
+        has_ai_functionality=c.uses_ai,
+        has_radio_module=_has_radio(c),
+        has_safety_function=c.has_safety_function,
+        generates_usage_data=generates_data,
+        is_machine=is_machine,
+        is_component=c.is_component,
+        is_spare_part=c.is_spare_part,
+        eu_market=_eu_market(c.markets),
+        b2b_or_b2c=b2x,
+        lifecycle_phase=phase,
+        company_size=c.company_size,
+        sector=c.sector_industry,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/rci/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+"""Regulatory Change Intelligence (RCI) — delta layer over the product-first map.
+
+Answers "what changes relative to my existing Regulatory Map?" — NOT "what does
+the new law say in general". Snapshot the pipeline into a ComplianceBaseline, then
+assess a (simulated/provided) RegulatoryChange into per-obligation deltas + a
+management ChangeImpactSummary. Read/reasoning only — no UI, no ingestion, no RAG,
+no new regulations/controls, no legal evaluation outside the stored map.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .baseline import create_baseline
+from .delta_engine import assess_change
+from .schemas import (
+    ChangeAssessment,
+    ChangeImpactSummary,
+    ChangeType,
+    ComplianceBaseline,
+    DeltaType,
+    ObligationDelta,
+    RegulatoryChange,
+)
+
+__all__ = [
+    "create_baseline",
+    "assess_change",
+    "ComplianceBaseline",
+    "RegulatoryChange",
+    "ObligationDelta",
+    "ChangeImpactSummary",
+    "ChangeAssessment",
+    "DeltaType",
+    "ChangeType",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/rci/baseline.py

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+"""Snapshot the current product-first pipeline into a ComplianceBaseline.
+
+This is the ONLY place RCI runs the pipeline — to freeze a point-in-time map +
+registry-linked obligations + their required evidence. Everything downstream
+(delta computation) works purely against this snapshot, never re-evaluating.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.profile.to_reasoning import to_reasoning_profile
+from compliance.reasoning.obligation_engine import derive_obligations
+from compliance.regulatory_map.renderer import render_regulatory_map
+
+from .schemas import ComplianceBaseline
+
+
+def create_baseline(
+    profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    evidence_refs: Optional[Dict[str, List[str]]] = None,
+    baseline_id: str = "baseline",
+    created_at: Optional[str] = None,
+) -> ComplianceBaseline:
+    reg_map = render_regulatory_map(profile)
+    obligations = derive_obligations(to_reasoning_profile(profile)).applicable_obligations
+
+    applicable: List[str] = []
+    required: Dict[str, List[str]] = {}
+    for ob in obligations:
+        if ob.registry_anchor:  # only registry-linked obligations enter the baseline
+            applicable.append(ob.obligation_id)
+            required[ob.obligation_id] = list(ob.required_evidence)
+
+    return ComplianceBaseline(
+        baseline_id=baseline_id,
+        product_profile_snapshot=profile,
+        regulatory_map_snapshot=reg_map,
+        applicable_obligations=applicable,
+        obligation_evidence_required=required,
+        evidence_refs=dict(evidence_refs or {}),
+        created_at=created_at,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/rci/delta_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+"""RCI delta engine — assess a RegulatoryChange against a ComplianceBaseline.
+
+Answers "what changes relative to my existing Map?" deterministically, working
+ONLY against the stored baseline (no re-evaluation of scope, no new legal
+assessment outside the map). Per-obligation classification -> ObligationDelta;
+aggregate -> ChangeImpactSummary.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Tuple
+
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+
+from .schemas import (
+    ChangeAssessment,
+    ChangeImpactSummary,
+    ChangeType,
+    ComplianceBaseline,
+    DeltaType,
+    ObligationDelta,
+    RegulatoryChange,
+)
+
+_ACTION = {DeltaType.NEW, DeltaType.CHANGED, DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW}
+
+
+def _classify(
+    in_base: bool, has_ev: bool, change_type: ChangeType, rel_app: bool, rel_unc: bool
+) -> Tuple[DeltaType, str, Confidence]:
+    if not (rel_app or rel_unc):
+        return DeltaType.NOT_APPLICABLE, "Die Änderung betrifft kein Regelwerk Ihrer Map.", Confidence.HIGH
+    if rel_unc and not rel_app:
+        return (
+            DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW,
+            "Betrifft ein für Ihr Produkt noch UNSICHERES Regelwerk — erst Anwendbarkeit klären.",
+            Confidence.LOW,
+        )
+    if change_type == ChangeType.REPEAL:
+        if in_base:
+            return DeltaType.REMOVED, "Regelwerk/Pflicht aufgehoben — entfällt für Ihr Produkt.", Confidence.HIGH
+        return DeltaType.NOT_APPLICABLE, "Aufhebung betrifft keine Ihrer bestehenden Pflichten.", Confidence.HIGH
+    if not in_base:
+        return DeltaType.NEW, "Neue Pflicht durch die Änderung — bisher nicht in Ihrer Map.", Confidence.MEDIUM
+    if change_type == ChangeType.GUIDANCE_UPDATE:
+        if has_ev:
+            return (
+                DeltaType.ALREADY_COVERED,
+                "Bestehende Pflicht mit vorhandenen Nachweisen — Leitlinien-Update vermutlich abgedeckt.",
+                Confidence.MEDIUM,
+            )
+        return DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW, "Bestehende Pflicht ohne Nachweis — Leitlinien-Update prüfen.", Confidence.MEDIUM
+    return DeltaType.CHANGED, "Bestehende Pflicht inhaltlich geändert — Umsetzung und Nachweis prüfen.", Confidence.MEDIUM
+
+
+def assess_change(baseline: ComplianceBaseline, change: RegulatoryChange) -> ChangeAssessment:
+    snap = baseline.regulatory_map_snapshot
+    app_regs = {v.regulation_id for v in snap.applicable_regulations}
+    unc_regs = {v.regulation_id for v in snap.uncertain_regulations}
+    base_obs = set(baseline.applicable_obligations)
+
+    affected = set(change.affected_regulations)
+    rel_app = bool(affected & app_regs)
+    rel_unc = bool(affected & unc_regs)
+    affects_product = rel_app or rel_unc
+
+    deltas: List[ObligationDelta] = []
+    for ob in change.affected_obligations:
+        present = baseline.evidence_refs.get(ob, [])
+        required = baseline.obligation_evidence_required.get(ob, [])
+        dt, reason, conf = _classify(ob in base_obs, bool(present), change.change_type, rel_app, rel_unc)
+        missing = [e for e in required if e not in present] if dt in _ACTION else []
+        deltas.append(
+            ObligationDelta(
+                obligation_id=ob,
+                delta_type=dt,
+                reason=reason,
+                affected_evidence=list(present),
+                missing_evidence=missing,
+                confidence=conf,
+            )
+        )
+
+    return ChangeAssessment(
+        change_id=change.change_id,
+        affects_product=affects_product,
+        deltas=deltas,
+        summary=_summary(deltas, [d.domain for d in snap.unsupported_domains]),
+    )
+
+
+def _ids(deltas: List[ObligationDelta], *types: DeltaType) -> List[str]:
+    wanted = set(types)
+    return [d.obligation_id for d in deltas if d.delta_type in wanted]
+
+
+def _summary(deltas: List[ObligationDelta], unsupported: List[str]) -> ChangeImpactSummary:
+    n_new = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.NEW))
+    n_changed = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.CHANGED))
+    n_removed = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.REMOVED))
+    n_covered = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.ALREADY_COVERED))
+    n_review = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW, DeltaType.CHANGED))
+    n_na = len(_ids(deltas, DeltaType.NOT_APPLICABLE))
+    return ChangeImpactSummary(
+        what_changed=(
+            "%d neu, %d geändert, %d entfällt, %d bereits abgedeckt, %d zu prüfen, %d nicht relevant."
+            % (n_new, n_changed, n_removed, n_covered, n_review, n_na)
+        ),
+        what_matters_for_this_product=_ids(deltas, *_ACTION),
+        already_covered=_ids(deltas, DeltaType.ALREADY_COVERED),
+        needs_review=_ids(deltas, DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW, DeltaType.CHANGED),
+        not_relevant=_ids(deltas, DeltaType.NOT_APPLICABLE),
+        unsupported_domains=unsupported,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/rci/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+"""Regulatory Change Intelligence (RCI) — domain objects.
+
+RCI is a read-/reasoning layer ON TOP of the product-first pipeline. It answers
+"what changes relative to my existing Regulatory Map?" — NOT "what does the new
+law say in general". A RegulatoryChange is simulated/provided INPUT (no ingestion,
+no newsletter/mailbox, no RAG); the delta is computed against a stored
+ComplianceBaseline (snapshot of the map).
+
+`delta_type` is a THIRD vocabulary — distinct from `ClaimCoverage` (Welt 1, what
+the customer claims) and `ComplianceStatus` (Welt 2, verified evidence). The three
+must never be conflated. These are application/reasoning types, NOT
+compliance-meta-model classes (architecture freeze v1.0 untouched).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import AuthorityLevel, Confidence
+from compliance.regulatory_map.schemas import RegulatoryMap
+
+
+class DeltaType(str, Enum):
+    NEW = "new"  # obligation now applies that was not in the baseline
+    CHANGED = "changed"  # existing obligation substantively modified
+    REMOVED = "removed"  # obligation no longer applies (repeal)
+    ALREADY_COVERED = "already_covered"  # existing obligation, evidence likely suffices
+    NEEDS_REVIEW = "needs_review"  # a human must check
+    NOT_APPLICABLE = "not_applicable"  # change does not touch this product's map
+
+
+class ChangeType(str, Enum):
+    NEW_REGULATION = "new_regulation"
+    AMENDMENT = "amendment"
+    REPEAL = "repeal"
+    GUIDANCE_UPDATE = "guidance_update"
+
+
+# ── stored snapshot ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+class ComplianceBaseline(BaseModel):
+    baseline_id: str
+    product_profile_snapshot: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+    regulatory_map_snapshot: RegulatoryMap
+    applicable_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # registry-linked obligation_ids
+    # required evidence per obligation (derived) — to compute missing_evidence
+    obligation_evidence_required: Dict[str, List[str]] = Field(default_factory=dict)
+    # evidence the customer ALREADY has, per obligation (provided)
+    evidence_refs: Dict[str, List[str]] = Field(default_factory=dict)
+    created_at: Optional[str] = None
+
+
+# ── simulated/provided change (INPUT — never ingested) ───────────────────
+class RegulatoryChange(BaseModel):
+    change_id: str
+    source: str = "simulated"
+    affected_regulations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    affected_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    change_type: ChangeType
+    effective_date: Optional[str] = None
+    authority_level: AuthorityLevel = AuthorityLevel.LEGAL_TEXT
+    summary: str = ""
+
+
+# ── per-obligation delta ─────────────────────────────────────────────────
+class ObligationDelta(BaseModel):
+    obligation_id: str
+    delta_type: DeltaType
+    reason: str
+    affected_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # evidence already present for it
+    missing_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # required but not yet present
+    confidence: Confidence
+
+
+# ── management-level summary ──────────────────────────────────────────────
+class ChangeImpactSummary(BaseModel):
+    what_changed: str = ""
+    what_matters_for_this_product: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)  # need action
+    already_covered: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    needs_review: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    not_relevant: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    unsupported_domains: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+class ChangeAssessment(BaseModel):
+    change_id: str
+    affects_product: bool
+    deltas: List[ObligationDelta] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    summary: ChangeImpactSummary

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+"""Regulatory Reasoning Engine.
+
+A deterministic reasoning layer ON TOP of the Legal Knowledge Graph (obligation
+registry) and the Compliance Execution Graph (control mapping / evidence). It
+answers, for a concrete product: which regulations apply, which obligations
+follow, whether the customer's implementation covers them, and whether a
+customer interpretation is legally sound.
+
+No new RAG, no new controls, no DB schema changes — scope & reasoning metamodel
+only (spec §14).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .claim_normalizer import normalize_claim
+from .implementation_engine import reason_implementation_claim
+from .interpretation_engine import assess_interpretation
+from .obligation_engine import derive_obligations
+from .scope_engine import discover_scope
+
+__all__ = [
+    "discover_scope",
+    "derive_obligations",
+    "normalize_claim",
+    "reason_implementation_claim",
+    "assess_interpretation",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/claim_normalizer.py

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+"""Customer implementation claim normaliser (spec §4.6).
+
+Turns a free-text statement ("Wir haben einen Update-Prozess.") into structured
+capabilities + related topics + weakness qualifiers. Deterministic substring
+matching — the claim_id is a stable hash so the same statement always maps to
+the same id (no randomness, replay-safe).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import hashlib
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from .schemas import CustomerImplementationClaim
+from .taxonomy_claims import match_capabilities, match_qualifiers, topics_for
+
+
+def _claim_id(raw_statement: str) -> str:
+    digest = hashlib.sha1(raw_statement.strip().lower().encode("utf-8")).hexdigest()
+    return "claim_%s" % digest[:10]
+
+
+def _normalized(capabilities: List[str], qualifiers: List[str]) -> str:
+    if not capabilities:
+        return "Keine bekannte Compliance-Fähigkeit aus der Aussage ableitbar."
+    text = "Fähigkeiten: " + ", ".join(capabilities)
+    if qualifiers:
+        text += " | Einschränkungen: " + ", ".join(qualifiers)
+    return text
+
+
+def normalize_claim(
+    raw_statement: str, claim_id: Optional[str] = None, evidence_refs: Optional[List[str]] = None
+) -> CustomerImplementationClaim:
+    capabilities = match_capabilities(raw_statement)
+    qualifiers = match_qualifiers(raw_statement)
+    return CustomerImplementationClaim(
+        claim_id=claim_id or _claim_id(raw_statement),
+        raw_statement=raw_statement,
+        normalized_claim=_normalized(capabilities, qualifiers),
+        claimed_capability=capabilities,
+        related_topics=topics_for(capabilities),
+        qualifiers=qualifiers,
+        evidence_refs=evidence_refs or [],
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/enums.py

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+"""Enumerations for the Regulatory Reasoning Engine.
+
+Kept dependency-free and Python 3.9 compatible (str-Enums, no `|` unions).
+The reasoning layer sits ON TOP of the Legal Knowledge Graph (obligation
+registry) and the Compliance Execution Graph (control mapping / evidence).
+See memory `project_compliance_graph.md` for the cross-session contract.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+
+
+class ManufacturerRole(str, Enum):
+    MANUFACTURER = "manufacturer"
+    IMPORTER = "importer"
+    DISTRIBUTOR = "distributor"
+    INTEGRATOR = "integrator"
+    OPERATOR = "operator"
+    SERVICE_PROVIDER = "service_provider"
+
+
+class ProductLifecyclePhase(str, Enum):
+    DEVELOPMENT = "development"
+    PLACING_ON_MARKET = "placing_on_market"
+    OPERATION = "operation"
+    MAINTENANCE = "maintenance"
+    UPDATE = "update"
+    END_OF_LIFE = "end_of_life"
+
+
+class MarketModel(str, Enum):
+    B2B = "b2b"
+    B2C = "b2c"
+    BOTH = "both"
+
+
+class ApplicabilityStatus(str, Enum):
+    APPLICABLE = "applicable"
+    PARTIALLY_APPLICABLE = "partially_applicable"
+    UNCERTAIN = "uncertain"
+    NOT_APPLICABLE = "not_applicable"
+
+
+class Confidence(str, Enum):
+    HIGH = "high"
+    MEDIUM = "medium"
+    LOW = "low"
+
+
+class AuthorityLevel(str, Enum):
+    """How binding a statement is — answers MUST visibly separate these."""
+
+    LEGAL_TEXT = "legal_text"
+    RECITAL = "recital"
+    GUIDANCE = "guidance"
+    HARMONIZED_STANDARD = "harmonized_standard"
+    TECHNICAL_STANDARD = "technical_standard"
+    BEST_PRACTICE = "best_practice"
+    INTERNAL_INTERPRETATION = "internal_interpretation"
+
+
+class OverlapType(str, Enum):
+    IDENTICAL = "identical"
+    SIMILAR = "similar"
+    COMPLEMENTARY = "complementary"
+    CONFLICTING = "conflicting"
+    DIFFERENT_SCOPE = "different_scope"
+
+
+class ClaimCoverage(str, Enum):
+    """How a customer's *claim* relates to an obligation — Welt 1 (reasoning).
+
+    This is NOT a conformity verdict. It judges only the customer's statement,
+    never whether the obligation is actually met. The real compliance verdict
+    (erfüllt/offen/unklar from verified evidence) is `ComplianceStatus`, owned by
+    the Compliance Execution Graph — the two must never be conflated.
+    """
+
+    POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES = "potentially_addresses"
+    PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES = "partially_addresses"
+    DOES_NOT_ADDRESS = "does_not_address"
+    INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION = "insufficient_information"
+
+
+class InterpretationVerdict(str, Enum):
+    PLAUSIBLE = "plausible"
+    TOO_NARROW = "too_narrow"
+    TOO_BROAD = "too_broad"
+    PARTIALLY_CORRECT = "partially_correct"
+    UNSUPPORTED = "unsupported"
+    UNCERTAIN = "uncertain"

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/implementation_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+"""Implementation reasoning (spec Modus 3) — Welt 1 only.
+
+Maps a free-text claim ("Wir haben SBOMs und machen Updates, wenn Kunden Fehler
+melden.") onto the product's applicable obligations and reports, per obligation,
+whether the *claim* potentially/partially/does-not address it — plus the
+evidence that WOULD be needed to prove real implementation.
+
+This is NOT a conformity verdict. It judges the customer's statement, never
+whether the obligation is met. The real verdict (ComplianceStatus: erfüllt/
+offen/unklar from verified evidence) lives in the Compliance Execution Graph.
+The four reasoning layers: claim -> interpretation (capabilities/topics on the
+claim) -> potential obligation coverage (`claim_coverage`) -> evidence required.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+from .claim_normalizer import normalize_claim
+from .enums import ClaimCoverage, Confidence
+from .obligation_engine import derive_obligations
+from .schemas import (
+    ClaimObligationMapping,
+    CustomerImplementationClaim,
+    ImplementationReasoningResponse,
+    ProductProfile,
+)
+from .taxonomy_claims import topics_for
+
+DISCLAIMER = (
+    "Diese Auswertung interpretiert ausschließlich die Kundenaussage (ClaimCoverage, Welt 1). "
+    "Sie ist KEINE Konformitätsaussage — der tatsächliche Compliance-Status (ComplianceStatus, "
+    "Welt 2) ergibt sich erst aus geprüften Nachweisen im Compliance Execution Graph."
+)
+
+# Typical sub-elements a capability still misses when only partially claimed.
+STANDARD_GAPS: Dict[str, List[str]] = {
+    "software_bill_of_materials": [
+        "Vulnerability-Monitoring der Komponenten",
+        "Bewertung betroffener Komponenten",
+        "Lieferantenprozess",
+    ],
+    "secure_updates": [
+        "aktive Schwachstellenüberwachung",
+        "Patch-Bewertung",
+        "Fristen und Verantwortlichkeiten",
+        "Nachweis der Updatefähigkeit",
+    ],
+    "vulnerability_management": [
+        "definierter Vulnerability-Handling-Prozess",
+        "Priorisierung und Fristen",
+    ],
+    "authentication": ["MFA für privilegierte Zugänge", "keine Standard-Zugangsdaten"],
+    "security_logging": ["Schutz der Logs vor Manipulation", "Monitoring/Alerting"],
+    "software_integrity": ["Signierung der Updates", "Verifikation der Update-Signatur"],
+    "secure_by_default": ["Härtung der Auslieferungskonfiguration", "Minimierung der Angriffsfläche"],
+    "secure_communication": ["verschlüsselte Übertragung", "Integritätsschutz der Verbindung"],
+    "risk_assessment": ["dokumentierte Risikobewertung", "Aufnahme in die technische Doku"],
+    "technical_documentation": ["vollständige technische Unterlagen", "Aktualisierung über den Lebenszyklus"],
+}
+
+
+def _missing_for(capabilities: List[str]) -> List[str]:
+    out: List[str] = []
+    for cap in capabilities:
+        for gap in STANDARD_GAPS.get(cap, []):
+            if gap not in out:
+                out.append(gap)
+    return out
+
+
+def _coverage(required: List[str], claimed: List[str], qualifiers: List[str]) -> ClaimCoverage:
+    if not required:
+        return ClaimCoverage.INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION
+    req, have = set(required), set(claimed)
+    hit = req & have
+    if not hit:
+        return ClaimCoverage.DOES_NOT_ADDRESS
+    if "absent" in qualifiers or "planned" in qualifiers:
+        return ClaimCoverage.DOES_NOT_ADDRESS
+    if "reactive" in qualifiers and hit & {"secure_updates", "vulnerability_management"}:
+        return ClaimCoverage.PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES
+    if req <= have:
+        return ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES
+    return ClaimCoverage.PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES
+
+
+def reason_implementation_claim(
+    profile: ProductProfile, customer_claim: str
+) -> ImplementationReasoningResponse:
+    claim = normalize_claim(customer_claim)
+    obligations = derive_obligations(profile).applicable_obligations
+    claimed = claim.claimed_capability
+    claim_topics = set(claim.related_topics) | set(claimed)
+
+    mappings: List[ClaimObligationMapping] = []
+    missing_evidence: List[str] = []
+
+    for ob in obligations:
+        from .rules_obligations import obligation_rule
+
+        rule = obligation_rule(ob.obligation_id)
+        required_caps = rule.required_capabilities if rule else []
+        ob_topics = set(topics_for(required_caps)) | set(required_caps)
+        directly_claimed = bool(set(required_caps) & set(claimed))
+        related = bool(ob_topics & claim_topics)
+        if not directly_claimed and not related:
+            continue  # unrelated to the claim -> don't reason about it
+
+        coverage = _coverage(required_caps, claimed, claim.qualifiers)
+        missing = [] if coverage == ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES else _missing_for(required_caps)
+        if coverage != ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES:
+            for ev in ob.required_evidence:
+                if ev not in missing_evidence:
+                    missing_evidence.append(ev)
+        mappings.append(
+            ClaimObligationMapping(
+                claim_id=claim.claim_id,
+                obligation_id=ob.obligation_id,
+                claim_coverage=coverage,
+                missing_elements=missing,
+                required_evidence=ob.required_evidence,
+                explanation=_explain(coverage, ob.title, claim.qualifiers),
+                confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+            )
+        )
+
+    return ImplementationReasoningResponse(
+        claim=claim,
+        mappings=mappings,
+        missing_evidence=missing_evidence,
+        summary=_summary(claim, mappings),
+        disclaimer=DISCLAIMER,
+    )
+
+
+def _explain(coverage: ClaimCoverage, title: str, qualifiers: List[str]) -> str:
+    if coverage == ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES:
+        return "Die Aussage adressiert die Pflicht '%s' direkt — Nachweise erforderlich für eine Bewertung der Umsetzung." % title
+    if coverage == ClaimCoverage.PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES:
+        extra = " Der beschriebene Prozess wirkt reaktiv." if "reactive" in qualifiers else ""
+        return "Die Aussage adressiert die Pflicht '%s' nur teilweise.%s" % (title, extra)
+    if coverage == ClaimCoverage.DOES_NOT_ADDRESS:
+        return "Die Aussage adressiert die Pflicht '%s' nicht." % title
+    return "Zur Pflicht '%s' liegen zu wenige Angaben für eine Einordnung vor." % title
+
+
+def _summary(claim: CustomerImplementationClaim, mappings: List[ClaimObligationMapping]) -> str:
+    if not claim.claimed_capability:
+        return "Die Aussage ist zu unspezifisch — bitte konkretisieren, was umgesetzt wurde."
+    full = sum(1 for m in mappings if m.claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES)
+    partial = sum(1 for m in mappings if m.claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES)
+    none = sum(1 for m in mappings if m.claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.DOES_NOT_ADDRESS)
+    return (
+        "Die beschriebene Maßnahme adressiert wahrscheinlich %d Pflicht(en) direkt und %d "
+        "teilweise; %d werden durch die Aussage nicht berührt. Für eine Bewertung der tatsächlichen "
+        "Umsetzung sind Nachweise erforderlich. Dies ist keine Konformitätsaussage." % (full, partial, none)
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/interpretation_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+"""Interpretation review engine (spec Modus 4).
+
+Evaluates whether a customer's legal interpretation is plausible, too narrow,
+too broad, etc. Matches the interpretation against a curated pattern library;
+no match -> `uncertain` plus a request for the missing context (never invent a
+verdict, spec §6.3).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import hashlib
+from typing import Optional
+
+from .enums import Confidence, InterpretationVerdict
+from .schemas import InterpretationAssessment, ProductProfile
+from .taxonomy_interpretations import INTERPRETATION_PATTERNS, InterpretationPattern
+
+
+def _interpretation_id(raw: str) -> str:
+    digest = hashlib.sha1(raw.strip().lower().encode("utf-8")).hexdigest()
+    return "interp_%s" % digest[:10]
+
+
+def _best_match(text: str) -> Optional[InterpretationPattern]:
+    low = text.lower()
+    best: Optional[InterpretationPattern] = None
+    best_score = 0
+    for pattern in INTERPRETATION_PATTERNS:
+        score = sum(1 for t in pattern.triggers if t in low)
+        if score > best_score:
+            best, best_score = pattern, score
+    return best
+
+
+def assess_interpretation(
+    raw_interpretation: str, profile: Optional[ProductProfile] = None
+) -> InterpretationAssessment:
+    interp_id = _interpretation_id(raw_interpretation)
+    pattern = _best_match(raw_interpretation)
+
+    if pattern is None:
+        return InterpretationAssessment(
+            interpretation_id=interp_id,
+            raw_interpretation=raw_interpretation,
+            assessment=InterpretationVerdict.UNCERTAIN,
+            corrected_interpretation=(
+                "Diese Auslegung lässt sich ohne weitere Angaben nicht bewerten. Bitte Produkt, "
+                "Rolle, Marktzugang und die konkret betroffene Pflicht benennen."
+            ),
+            explanation="Kein bekanntes Auslegungsmuster erkannt — bewusst keine Scheinsicherheit.",
+            confidence=Confidence.LOW,
+        )
+
+    return InterpretationAssessment(
+        interpretation_id=interp_id,
+        raw_interpretation=raw_interpretation,
+        affected_regulations=pattern.affected_regulations,
+        affected_obligations=pattern.affected_obligations,
+        assessment=pattern.verdict,
+        risks=pattern.risks,
+        corrected_interpretation=pattern.corrected_interpretation,
+        legal_basis_refs=pattern.legal_basis_refs,
+        explanation=pattern.explanation,
+        confidence=pattern.confidence,
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/obligation_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+"""Applicable-obligation engine (spec Modus 2).
+
+Maps a product profile (optionally a precomputed scope) to the concrete legal
+obligations, the overlaps between them, and which evidence types satisfy more
+than one obligation at once (the core USP, spec §16).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from .predicates import evaluate, true_leaves
+from .rules_obligations import ALL_OBLIGATIONS
+from .rules_overlaps import OVERLAP_GROUPS
+from .rules_regulations import FIELD_LABELS
+from .rules_types import ObligationRule
+from .schemas import (
+    ApplicableObligation,
+    ObligationOverlap,
+    ObligationsResponse,
+    ProductProfile,
+    RegulatoryScope,
+)
+from .scope_engine import discover_scope
+
+
+def _applicable_regulation_ids(profile: ProductProfile, scope: Optional[RegulatoryScope]) -> List[str]:
+    if scope is None:
+        scope = discover_scope(profile)
+    return [r.regulation_id for r in scope.applicable_regulations]
+
+
+def _applies_because(rule: ObligationRule, profile: ProductProfile) -> List[str]:
+    labels: List[str] = []
+    for leaf in true_leaves(rule.applies_if, profile):
+        label = FIELD_LABELS.get(leaf[0])
+        if label and label not in labels:
+            labels.append(label)
+    if not labels:
+        labels.append("%s ist für dieses Produkt anwendbar." % rule.source_regulation)
+    return labels
+
+
+def _role_ok(rule: ObligationRule, profile: ProductProfile) -> bool:
+    role = profile.manufacturer_role
+    if role is None:
+        return True  # unknown role -> do not exclude
+    return role.value in rule.applies_to_role
+
+
+def derive_obligations(
+    profile: ProductProfile, scope: Optional[RegulatoryScope] = None
+) -> ObligationsResponse:
+    active_regs = set(_applicable_regulation_ids(profile, scope))
+    response = ObligationsResponse()
+    applied_ids: List[str] = []
+
+    for rule in ALL_OBLIGATIONS:
+        if rule.source_regulation not in active_regs:
+            continue
+        if rule.applies_unless is not None and evaluate(rule.applies_unless, profile) is True:
+            continue
+        verdict = evaluate(rule.applies_if, profile)
+        if verdict is not True or not _role_ok(rule, profile):
+            if verdict is False:
+                response.excluded_obligations.append(rule.obligation_id)
+            continue
+        applied_ids.append(rule.obligation_id)
+        response.applicable_obligations.append(
+            ApplicableObligation(
+                obligation_id=rule.obligation_id,
+                title=rule.title,
+                source_regulation=rule.source_regulation,
+                legal_basis_refs=rule.legal_basis_refs,
+                obligation_text=rule.obligation_text,
+                authority_level=rule.authority_level,
+                applies_because=_applies_because(rule, profile),
+                applies_to_role=rule.applies_to_role,
+                lifecycle_phase=rule.lifecycle_phase,
+                overlap_group_id=rule.overlap_group_id,
+                required_evidence=rule.required_evidence,
+                confidence=rule.base_confidence,
+                registry_anchor=rule.registry_anchor,
+                proposed=rule.proposed,
+            )
+        )
+
+    response.overlaps = _overlaps(applied_ids)
+    response.evidence_for_multiple = _evidence_for_multiple(response.applicable_obligations)
+    return response
+
+
+def _overlaps(applied_ids: List[str]) -> List[ObligationOverlap]:
+    applied = set(applied_ids)
+    out: List[ObligationOverlap] = []
+    for group in OVERLAP_GROUPS:
+        present = [m for m in group.members if m in applied]
+        if len(present) >= 2:
+            out.append(
+                ObligationOverlap(
+                    overlap_group_id=group.overlap_group_id,
+                    obligations=present,
+                    overlap_type=group.overlap_type,
+                    canonical_obligation_id=group.canonical_obligation_id,
+                    explanation=group.explanation,
+                )
+            )
+    return out
+
+
+def _evidence_for_multiple(obligations: List[ApplicableObligation]) -> Dict[str, List[str]]:
+    by_evidence: Dict[str, List[str]] = {}
+    for ob in obligations:
+        for ev in ob.required_evidence:
+            by_evidence.setdefault(ev, []).append(ob.obligation_id)
+    return {ev: ids for ev, ids in by_evidence.items() if len(ids) > 1}

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/predicates.py

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+"""Safe, tri-state condition evaluator for applicability rules.
+
+Conditions are plain data (no `eval`): a *leaf* is a 3-tuple
+``(field, op, value)``; a *composite* is ``{"all": [...]}`` or
+``{"any": [...]}``. Evaluation is tri-state — ``True`` / ``False`` /
+``None`` (unknown) — so a missing product fact yields *uncertain*, never a
+false negative.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from enum import Enum
+from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, Tuple, Union
+
+Leaf = Tuple[str, str, Any]
+Condition = Union[Leaf, Dict[str, Any]]
+
+
+def _attr(profile: Any, field: str) -> Any:
+    value = getattr(profile, field, None)
+    if isinstance(value, Enum):
+        return value.value
+    return value
+
+
+def _eval_leaf(leaf: Leaf, profile: Any) -> Optional[bool]:
+    field, op, expected = leaf
+    actual = _attr(profile, field)
+
+    if op == "not_none":
+        return actual is not None
+    if op == "is_none":
+        return actual is None
+
+    if op == "contains_any":
+        # list-valued field (e.g. product_type); empty list = known-empty.
+        items = actual or []
+        hay = " ".join(str(x).lower() for x in items)
+        return any(str(k).lower() in hay for k in expected)
+
+    if actual is None:
+        return None  # unknown fact -> unknown result
+
+    if op == "eq":
+        return bool(actual == expected)
+    if op == "ne":
+        return bool(actual != expected)
+    if op == "truthy":
+        return bool(actual)
+    if op == "falsy":
+        return not bool(actual)
+    if op == "in":
+        return bool(actual in expected)
+    if op == "not_in":
+        return bool(actual not in expected)
+    if op == "date_after":
+        return bool(actual > expected)
+    raise ValueError("unknown predicate op: %r" % (op,))
+
+
+def evaluate(condition: Optional[Condition], profile: Any) -> Optional[bool]:
+    """Return True/False/None(unknown) for a condition tree."""
+    if condition is None:
+        return True
+    if isinstance(condition, tuple):
+        return _eval_leaf(condition, profile)
+
+    if "all" in condition:
+        results = [evaluate(c, profile) for c in condition["all"]]
+        if any(r is False for r in results):
+            return False
+        if any(r is None for r in results):
+            return None
+        return True
+    if "any" in condition:
+        results = [evaluate(c, profile) for c in condition["any"]]
+        if any(r is True for r in results):
+            return True
+        if any(r is None for r in results):
+            return None
+        return False
+    raise ValueError("malformed condition: %r" % (condition,))
+
+
+def true_leaves(condition: Optional[Condition], profile: Any) -> List[Leaf]:
+    """Collect the leaf conditions that evaluated True (for trigger_facts)."""
+    if condition is None:
+        return []
+    if isinstance(condition, tuple):
+        return [condition] if _eval_leaf(condition, profile) is True else []
+    members = condition.get("all") or condition.get("any") or []
+    out: List[Leaf] = []
+    for c in members:
+        out.extend(true_leaves(c, profile))
+    return out
+
+
+def unknown_fields(fields: List[str], profile: Any) -> List[str]:
+    """Subset of `fields` whose value on the profile is None (unknown)."""
+    return [f for f in fields if _attr(profile, f) is None]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_obligations.py

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+"""Aggregated obligation scope rules + lookup helpers."""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from .rules_obligations_cra import CRA_OBLIGATIONS
+from .rules_obligations_machine_data import DATA_ACT_OBLIGATIONS, MACHINE_OBLIGATIONS
+from .rules_types import ObligationRule
+
+ALL_OBLIGATIONS: List[ObligationRule] = (
+    CRA_OBLIGATIONS + MACHINE_OBLIGATIONS + DATA_ACT_OBLIGATIONS
+)
+
+_BY_ID: Dict[str, ObligationRule] = {o.obligation_id: o for o in ALL_OBLIGATIONS}
+
+
+def obligation_rule(obligation_id: str) -> Optional[ObligationRule]:
+    return _BY_ID.get(obligation_id)
+
+
+def obligations_for_regulation(regulation_id: str) -> List[ObligationRule]:
+    return [o for o in ALL_OBLIGATIONS if o.source_regulation == regulation_id]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_obligations_cra.py

@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
+"""CRA obligation scope rules.
+
+`obligation_id`s in the six CRA-P1 families (sbom/vuln/authentication/logging/
+remote_access/updates) are RE-USED verbatim from the Legal-KG registry
+(`obligations/obligation_join_keys.json`) — never re-minted (control_uuid trap,
+memory `project_compliance_graph.md`). Cross-cutting CRA *process* obligations
+(risk assessment, technical documentation, CE, instructions, secure-by-design
+umbrella) are not yet in the registry and are flagged `proposed=True`.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List
+
+from .enums import AuthorityLevel, Confidence
+from .rules_types import ObligationRule
+
+_HAS_SW = ("has_software", "eq", True)
+_EU = ("eu_market", "eq", True)
+_REMOTE_OR_CLOUD = {"any": [("has_remote_access", "eq", True), ("has_cloud_connection", "eq", True)]}
+_LM = AuthorityLevel.LEGAL_TEXT
+
+CRA_OBLIGATIONS: List[ObligationRule] = [
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="sbom_creation",
+        title="Software Bill of Materials erstellen",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Eine SBOM erstellen, die mindestens die obersten Abhängigkeiten des Produkts dokumentiert.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part II (1)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="sbom",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["software_bill_of_materials"],
+        required_evidence=["sbom", "repo_scan"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market", "maintenance"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="provide_security_updates",
+        title="Sicherheitsupdates bereitstellen",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Sicherheitsrelevante Updates zeitnah und über den Supportzeitraum bereitstellen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (2)(c)", "CRA Art. 13"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="updates",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_updates"],
+        required_evidence=["policy", "ticket", "test_report"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["maintenance", "update"],
+        overlap_group_id="SECURITY_UPDATES",
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="support_period_maintenance",
+        title="Supportzeitraum definieren und einhalten",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Einen angemessenen Supportzeitraum festlegen, in dem Schwachstellen behandelt werden.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 13(8)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="updates",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_updates"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market", "maintenance", "update"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="signed_update_integrity",
+        title="Integrität von Updates sicherstellen",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Updates signieren und ihre Integrität bei der Verteilung verifizieren.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (1)(3)(f)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="updates",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["software_integrity"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "test_report"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "maintenance", "update"],
+        overlap_group_id="SECURITY_UPDATES",
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="vuln_handling_process",
+        title="Schwachstellenbehandlungs-Prozess",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Einen dokumentierten Prozess zur Identifikation, Bewertung und Behebung von Schwachstellen betreiben.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 13(8)", "CRA Annex VII"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="vuln",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["vulnerability_management"],
+        required_evidence=["policy", "ticket"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "operation", "maintenance"],
+        overlap_group_id="VULNERABILITY_HANDLING",
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure",
+        title="Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Eine Richtlinie zur koordinierten Offenlegung von Schwachstellen bereitstellen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part II (5)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="vuln",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["coordinated_disclosure"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["operation", "maintenance"],
+        overlap_group_id="VULNERABILITY_HANDLING",
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="exploited_vuln_reporting_authorities",
+        title="Meldung aktiv ausgenutzter Schwachstellen / Vorfälle",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen und schwerwiegende Vorfälle an die zuständigen Behörden melden.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 14", "CRA Art. 16"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="vuln",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["incident_reporting"],
+        required_evidence=["policy", "ticket"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["operation", "maintenance"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="user_authentication_required",
+        title="Authentifizierung vorsehen",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Den Zugang über einen geeigneten Authentifizierungsmechanismus schützen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (2)(d)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="authentication",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["authentication"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "pentest"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "operation"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="no_default_credentials",
+        title="Keine unveränderlichen Standard-Zugangsdaten",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Sichere Standardkonfiguration; keine fest hinterlegten oder unveränderlichen Standard-Passwörter.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (2)(a)", "CRA Annex I (2)(b)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="authentication",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_by_default"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "test_report"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="event_logging_security_events",
+        title="Sicherheitsrelevante Ereignisse protokollieren",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Sicherheitsrelevante Ereignisse und Zugriffe aufzeichnen, um Vorfälle nachvollziehen zu können.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part I (2)(k)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="logging",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["security_logging"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "audit_log"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["operation", "maintenance"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="remote_access_attack_surface_min",
+        title="Angriffsfläche minimieren",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Die Angriffsfläche begrenzen, insbesondere exponierte Remote-/Cloud-Schnittstellen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (1)(2)(a)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="remote_access",
+        applies_if={"all": [_REMOTE_OR_CLOUD, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_by_default"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "repo_scan", "pentest"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "operation"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="remote_access_confidentiality_integrity",
+        title="Vertraulichkeit/Integrität der Fernverbindung",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Daten bei Fernzugriff/Cloud-Anbindung verschlüsselt und integritätsgeschützt übertragen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I (1)(2)(b)", "CRA Annex I (1)(2)(c)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="remote_access",
+        applies_if={"all": [_REMOTE_OR_CLOUD, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_communication"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "pentest"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["operation"],
+        registry_anchor=True,
+    ),
+    # --- Cross-cutting CRA process obligations (not yet in registry) ---------
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="cra_secure_by_design",
+        title="Security by Design",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Das Produkt so entwerfen, entwickeln und herstellen, dass ein angemessenes Cybersicherheitsniveau gewährleistet ist.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part I (1)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="cra_process",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["secure_by_default", "risk_assessment"],
+        required_evidence=["policy", "test_report"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="cra_risk_assessment",
+        title="Cybersicherheits-Risikobewertung",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Eine Cybersicherheits-Risikobewertung durchführen und dokumentieren; in die technische Dokumentation aufnehmen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 13(2)", "CRA Annex I Part I (1)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="cra_process",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["risk_assessment"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="RISK_ASSESSMENT",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="cra_technical_documentation",
+        title="Technische Dokumentation",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Technische Dokumentation erstellen und aktuell halten, die Konformität mit den Anforderungen belegt.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 31", "CRA Annex VII"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="cra_process",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["technical_documentation"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market", "maintenance"],
+        overlap_group_id="TECHNICAL_DOCUMENTATION",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="cra_ce_conformity_assessment",
+        title="Konformitätsbewertung / CE-Kennzeichnung",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Vor dem Inverkehrbringen das passende Konformitätsbewertungsverfahren durchlaufen und CE kennzeichnen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 32", "CRA Art. 28"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="cra_process",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["conformity_assessment"],
+        required_evidence=["test_report", "policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="CE_CONFORMITY",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="cra_instructions_for_use",
+        title="Informationen und Anweisungen für Nutzer",
+        source_regulation="CRA",
+        obligation_text="Nutzern verständliche Sicherheitsinformationen und -anweisungen bereitstellen (z. B. zu Updates und Support-Ende).",
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex II"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="cra_process",
+        applies_if={"all": [_HAS_SW, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["technical_documentation"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="INSTRUCTIONS_FOR_USE",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_obligations_machine_data.py

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+"""MaschinenVO and Data Act obligation scope rules.
+
+These regulations are NOT yet in the Legal-KG registry (which currently covers
+the six CRA-P1 families). Every obligation here is therefore `proposed=True`:
+the reasoning layer proposes the snake_case id, the Obligation Registry session
+remains the only authority that may canonicalise it (re-link, never re-mint).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List
+
+from .enums import AuthorityLevel, Confidence
+from .rules_types import ObligationRule
+
+_EU = ("eu_market", "eq", True)
+_IS_MACHINE = ("is_machine", "eq", True)
+_LM = AuthorityLevel.LEGAL_TEXT
+
+MACHINE_OBLIGATIONS: List[ObligationRule] = [
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="machine_risk_assessment",
+        title="Maschinen-Risikobeurteilung",
+        source_regulation="MaschinenVO",
+        obligation_text="Eine Risikobeurteilung der Maschine durchführen, um Gefährdungen zu ermitteln und zu mindern.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Anhang III (1.1.1)", "EN ISO 12100"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="machine_safety",
+        applies_if={"all": [_IS_MACHINE, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["risk_assessment"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="RISK_ASSESSMENT",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="machine_safety_control_systems",
+        title="Sichere Steuerungssysteme",
+        source_regulation="MaschinenVO",
+        obligation_text="Sicherheitsbezogene Teile der Steuerung so auslegen, dass Ausfälle nicht zu gefährlichen Zuständen führen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Anhang III (1.2.1)", "EN ISO 13849-1"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="machine_safety",
+        applies_if={"all": [_IS_MACHINE, ("has_safety_function", "eq", True), _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["functional_safety"],
+        required_evidence=["test_report", "policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="machine_protection_against_corruption",
+        title="Schutz gegen Korrumpierung sicherheitsrelevanter Funktionen",
+        source_regulation="MaschinenVO",
+        obligation_text="Sicherstellen, dass eine (auch beabsichtigte) Korrumpierung der Software/Verbindung keine gefährliche Situation auslöst.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Anhang III (1.1.9)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="machine_safety",
+        applies_if={
+            "all": [
+                _IS_MACHINE,
+                ("has_safety_function", "eq", True),
+                {"any": [("has_remote_access", "eq", True), ("has_software", "eq", True)]},
+                _EU,
+            ]
+        },
+        required_capabilities=["software_integrity", "secure_by_default"],
+        required_evidence=["test_report", "config_export"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "operation", "maintenance"],
+        overlap_group_id="VULNERABILITY_HANDLING",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="machine_instructions_for_use",
+        title="Betriebsanleitung",
+        source_regulation="MaschinenVO",
+        obligation_text="Eine vollständige Betriebsanleitung mit Sicherheitshinweisen bereitstellen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Anhang III (1.7.4)"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="machine_safety",
+        applies_if={"all": [_IS_MACHINE, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["technical_documentation"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="INSTRUCTIONS_FOR_USE",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="machine_ce_conformity",
+        title="Konformitätsbewertung / CE (Maschine)",
+        source_regulation="MaschinenVO",
+        obligation_text="Das passende Konformitätsbewertungsverfahren der MaschinenVO durchlaufen und CE kennzeichnen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Art. 25", "Anhang IV"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="machine_safety",
+        applies_if={"all": [_IS_MACHINE, _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["conformity_assessment"],
+        required_evidence=["test_report", "policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["placing_on_market"],
+        overlap_group_id="CE_CONFORMITY",
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+]
+
+DATA_ACT_OBLIGATIONS: List[ObligationRule] = [
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="data_act_data_access_by_design",
+        title="Datenzugang by design",
+        source_regulation="DataAct",
+        obligation_text="Vernetzte Produkte so gestalten, dass die erzeugten Produktdaten standardmäßig zugänglich sind.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["Data Act (EU) 2023/2854 Art. 3"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="data_act",
+        applies_if={
+            "all": [
+                ("generates_usage_data", "eq", True),
+                {"any": [("has_cloud_connection", "eq", True), ("has_remote_access", "eq", True)]},
+                _EU,
+            ]
+        },
+        required_capabilities=["data_access_provision"],
+        required_evidence=["config_export", "policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["development", "placing_on_market"],
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+    ObligationRule(
+        obligation_id="data_act_user_data_access",
+        title="Datenzugang für Nutzer",
+        source_regulation="DataAct",
+        obligation_text="Nutzern Zugang zu den von ihnen erzeugten Daten gewähren und Weitergabe an Dritte ermöglichen.",
+        legal_basis_refs=["Data Act (EU) 2023/2854 Art. 4", "Art. 5"],
+        authority_level=_LM,
+        family="data_act",
+        applies_if={"all": [("generates_usage_data", "eq", True), _EU]},
+        required_capabilities=["data_access_provision"],
+        required_evidence=["policy"],
+        lifecycle_phase=["operation"],
+        proposed=True,
+    ),
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_overlaps.py

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+"""Obligation overlap groups (spec §4.5 / Modus 2).
+
+Overlaps are emitted only for the members that are actually applicable to the
+product. `canonical_obligation_id` points at the strongest / most specific
+obligation in the group (preferring a registry-anchored CRA id).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from dataclasses import dataclass
+from typing import List
+
+from .enums import OverlapType
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class OverlapGroup:
+    overlap_group_id: str
+    members: List[str]
+    overlap_type: OverlapType
+    canonical_obligation_id: str
+    explanation: str
+
+
+OVERLAP_GROUPS: List[OverlapGroup] = [
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="VULNERABILITY_HANDLING",
+        members=[
+            "vuln_handling_process",
+            "coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure",
+            "machine_protection_against_corruption",
+        ],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.COMPLEMENTARY,
+        canonical_obligation_id="vuln_handling_process",
+        explanation=(
+            "CRA adressiert die Schwachstellenbehandlung des Produkts. Die MaschinenVO wird "
+            "komplementär relevant, sobald eine Cyber-Schwachstelle eine Sicherheitsfunktion "
+            "beeinflussen kann (Anhang III 1.1.9). Nicht identisch, aber gemeinsam zu erfüllen."
+        ),
+    ),
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="SECURITY_UPDATES",
+        members=["provide_security_updates", "signed_update_integrity"],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.COMPLEMENTARY,
+        canonical_obligation_id="provide_security_updates",
+        explanation=(
+            "Updates bereitstellen und ihre Integrität sichern sind zwei Seiten desselben "
+            "Update-Prozesses; ein Nachweis (Update-Policy, Release Notes) deckt teils beide ab."
+        ),
+    ),
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="RISK_ASSESSMENT",
+        members=["cra_risk_assessment", "machine_risk_assessment"],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.DIFFERENT_SCOPE,
+        canonical_obligation_id="cra_risk_assessment",
+        explanation=(
+            "Zwei getrennte Risikobetrachtungen: CRA = Cybersicherheits-Risiko, MaschinenVO = "
+            "Sicherheits-/Gefährdungsbeurteilung. Methodisch verwandt, inhaltlich unterschiedlich."
+        ),
+    ),
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="TECHNICAL_DOCUMENTATION",
+        members=["cra_technical_documentation", "machine_risk_assessment"],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.SIMILAR,
+        canonical_obligation_id="cra_technical_documentation",
+        explanation=(
+            "Beide Regime verlangen eine technische Dokumentation; Teile (Risikobetrachtung, "
+            "Konstruktionsunterlagen) lassen sich in einem konsolidierten technischen Dossier führen."
+        ),
+    ),
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="CE_CONFORMITY",
+        members=["cra_ce_conformity_assessment", "machine_ce_conformity"],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.COMPLEMENTARY,
+        canonical_obligation_id="machine_ce_conformity",
+        explanation=(
+            "Ein Produkt kann zwei CE-Regime gleichzeitig erfüllen müssen (MaschinenVO + CRA). "
+            "Eine gemeinsame CE-Kennzeichnung, aber getrennte Konformitätsbewertungen."
+        ),
+    ),
+    OverlapGroup(
+        overlap_group_id="INSTRUCTIONS_FOR_USE",
+        members=["cra_instructions_for_use", "machine_instructions_for_use"],
+        overlap_type=OverlapType.SIMILAR,
+        canonical_obligation_id="machine_instructions_for_use",
+        explanation=(
+            "Betriebsanleitung (MaschinenVO) und Sicherheitsinformationen (CRA) überschneiden sich; "
+            "ein integriertes Anleitungsdokument kann beide Pflichten bedienen."
+        ),
+    ),
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_regulations.py

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+"""Regulation-level applicability trigger rules (scope discovery, spec Modus 1).
+
+Each rule is pure data consumed by `scope_engine`. Triggers reference
+`ProductProfile` fields through the safe predicate evaluator. `required_facts`
+that are unknown turn the verdict *uncertain* and surface `fact_prompts`.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from dataclasses import dataclass, field
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from .enums import Confidence
+from .predicates import Condition
+
+# Positive, human-readable label per profile fact (for trigger_facts output).
+FIELD_LABELS: Dict[str, str] = {
+    "has_software": "Produkt enthält Software / digitale Elemente",
+    "has_embedded_software": "Produkt enthält eingebettete Software",
+    "has_remote_access": "Produkt besitzt Fernzugriff / Fernwartung",
+    "has_cloud_connection": "Produkt ist mit einer Cloud verbunden",
+    "has_radio_module": "Produkt enthält ein Funkmodul",
+    "has_safety_function": "Produkt erfüllt eine Sicherheitsfunktion",
+    "generates_usage_data": "Vernetztes Produkt erzeugt nutzbare Produktdaten",
+    "is_machine": "Produkt ist eine Maschine",
+    "is_component": "Produkt ist ein (Sicherheits-)Bauteil",
+    "eu_market": "Produkt wird auf dem EU-Markt bereitgestellt",
+    "is_essential_or_important_entity": "Unternehmen ist wesentliche/wichtige Einrichtung",
+    "manufacturer_role": "Wirtschaftsakteur-Rolle (Hersteller/Importeur/Händler)",
+}
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class RegulationRule:
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    trigger: Condition
+    required_facts: List[str]
+    fact_prompts: Dict[str, str]
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str]
+    summary: str
+    confidence_when_applicable: Confidence = Confidence.HIGH
+    exclusion: Optional[Condition] = None
+    # Status is downgraded to PARTIALLY_APPLICABLE / MEDIUM when the trigger
+    # fires only via inference rather than a directly stated fact.
+    inferred: bool = False
+    excludable_roles: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+_ECONOMIC_ROLES = ["manufacturer", "importer", "distributor"]
+
+REGULATION_RULES: List[RegulationRule] = [
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="CRA",
+        name="Cyber Resilience Act (EU) 2024/2847",
+        trigger={
+            "all": [
+                {"any": [("has_software", "eq", True), ("has_embedded_software", "eq", True)]},
+                ("eu_market", "eq", True),
+            ]
+        },
+        required_facts=["has_software", "eu_market", "manufacturer_role"],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "has_software": "Enthält das Produkt Software / digitale Elemente?",
+            "eu_market": "Wird das Produkt auf dem EU-Markt bereitgestellt oder in Verkehr gebracht?",
+            "manufacturer_role": "Welche Rolle nehmen Sie ein (Hersteller / Importeur / Händler)?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 2(1)", "CRA Art. 3(1)"],
+        summary="Produkte mit digitalen Elementen, die auf dem EU-Markt bereitgestellt werden.",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.HIGH,
+        excludable_roles=["operator"],
+    ),
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="MaschinenVO",
+        name="Maschinenverordnung (EU) 2023/1230",
+        trigger={
+            "any": [
+                ("is_machine", "eq", True),
+                {"all": [("is_component", "eq", True), ("has_safety_function", "eq", True)]},
+            ]
+        },
+        required_facts=["is_machine", "eu_market"],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "is_machine": "Ist das Produkt eine Maschine oder ein Sicherheitsbauteil?",
+            "has_safety_function": "Erfüllt das Bauteil eine Sicherheitsfunktion?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO (EU) 2023/1230 Art. 2", "Anhang III"],
+        summary="Maschinen oder Sicherheitsbauteile, ggf. mit sicherheitsrelevanter Steuerung.",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+    ),
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="RED",
+        name="Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU",
+        trigger=("has_radio_module", "eq", True),
+        required_facts=["has_radio_module"],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "has_radio_module": "Besitzt das Produkt ein Funkmodul (WLAN, Bluetooth, Mobilfunk)?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["RED 2014/53/EU Art. 1", "Art. 3(3)(d-f)"],
+        summary="Funkanlagen; Art. 3(3) deckt zusätzlich Cybersecurity-Anforderungen ab.",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="EMV",
+        name="EMV-Richtlinie 2014/30/EU",
+        trigger={
+            "any": [
+                ("has_software", "eq", True),
+                ("has_embedded_software", "eq", True),
+                ("has_radio_module", "eq", True),
+            ]
+        },
+        required_facts=[],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "is_electrical": "Ist das Produkt ein elektrisches / elektronisches Betriebsmittel?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["EMV-RL 2014/30/EU Art. 2"],
+        summary="Elektrische/elektronische Betriebsmittel (hier aus den digitalen Elementen abgeleitet).",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+        inferred=True,
+    ),
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="DataAct",
+        name="Data Act (EU) 2023/2854",
+        trigger={
+            "all": [
+                {"any": [("has_cloud_connection", "eq", True), ("has_remote_access", "eq", True)]},
+                ("generates_usage_data", "eq", True),
+            ]
+        },
+        required_facts=["generates_usage_data"],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "generates_usage_data": "Erzeugt das vernetzte Produkt nutzbare Produkt-/Nutzungsdaten?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["Data Act (EU) 2023/2854 Art. 2(5)", "Art. 3-5"],
+        summary="Vernetzte Produkte, die Nutzungsdaten erzeugen und zugänglich machen.",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    RegulationRule(
+        regulation_id="NIS2",
+        name="NIS2-Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2555",
+        trigger=("is_essential_or_important_entity", "eq", True),
+        required_facts=["company_size", "sector", "is_essential_or_important_entity"],
+        fact_prompts={
+            "company_size": "Unternehmensgröße (Mitarbeiterzahl / Umsatz)?",
+            "sector": "In welchem Sektor ist das Unternehmen tätig (Anhang I/II)?",
+            "is_essential_or_important_entity": "Fällt das Unternehmen als wesentliche/wichtige Einrichtung unter NIS2?",
+        },
+        legal_basis_refs=["NIS2-RL (EU) 2022/2555 Art. 2", "Art. 3"],
+        summary="Adressiert die ORGANISATION (Größe/Sektor/Rolle), nicht das Produkt.",
+        confidence_when_applicable=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+    ),
+]
+
+
+def regulation_rule(regulation_id: str) -> Optional[RegulationRule]:
+    for rule in REGULATION_RULES:
+        if rule.regulation_id == regulation_id:
+            return rule
+    return None

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/rules_types.py

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+"""Shared types for obligation scope rules.
+
+`required_evidence` MUST draw from the framework-AGNOSTIC evidence catalog
+owned by the Compliance Execution Graph (memory `project_compliance_graph.md`,
+User-Direktive 2026-06-25). Do not invent framework-specific evidence types.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from dataclasses import dataclass, field
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from .enums import AuthorityLevel, Confidence
+from .predicates import Condition
+
+# Framework-agnostic shared evidence catalog (the only allowed tokens).
+EVIDENCE_CATALOG = frozenset(
+    {
+        "config_export",
+        "test_report",
+        "repo_scan",
+        "sbom",
+        "policy",
+        "audit_log",
+        "pentest",
+        "ticket",
+    }
+)
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class ObligationRule:
+    obligation_id: str
+    title: str
+    source_regulation: str
+    obligation_text: str
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str]
+    authority_level: AuthorityLevel
+    family: str
+    applies_if: Condition
+    required_capabilities: List[str]
+    required_evidence: List[str]
+    base_confidence: Confidence = Confidence.HIGH
+    applies_unless: Optional[Condition] = None
+    lifecycle_phase: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+    applies_to_role: List[str] = field(default_factory=lambda: ["manufacturer", "importer"])
+    overlap_group_id: Optional[str] = None
+    # True => obligation_id is owned by the Legal-KG registry (re-link, never re-mint).
+    registry_anchor: bool = False
+    # True => Machine/Data-Act obligation the registry has not canonicalised yet.
+    proposed: bool = False
+
+    def __post_init__(self) -> None:
+        bad = [e for e in self.required_evidence if e not in EVIDENCE_CATALOG]
+        if bad:
+            raise ValueError(
+                "obligation %s uses non-catalog evidence %r" % (self.obligation_id, bad)
+            )

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+"""Pydantic domain objects for the Regulatory Reasoning Engine.
+
+Trigger facts that drive scope are tri-state (`Optional[bool] = None`): `None`
+means "fact unknown" and produces an *uncertain* verdict plus a concrete
+missing-fact prompt — never silent false security (spec §6.3).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from datetime import date
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from .enums import (
+    ApplicabilityStatus,
+    AuthorityLevel,
+    ClaimCoverage,
+    Confidence,
+    InterpretationVerdict,
+    ManufacturerRole,
+    MarketModel,
+    OverlapType,
+    ProductLifecyclePhase,
+)
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Input
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+class ProductProfile(BaseModel):
+    """The customer's product / system. Tri-state booleans => unknown facts."""
+
+    product_name: str
+    product_profile_id: Optional[str] = None
+    manufacturer_role: Optional[ManufacturerRole] = None
+    product_type: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+    has_software: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_embedded_software: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_remote_access: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_cloud_connection: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_ai_functionality: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_radio_module: Optional[bool] = None
+    has_safety_function: Optional[bool] = None
+    generates_usage_data: Optional[bool] = None
+
+    is_machine: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_component: Optional[bool] = None
+    is_spare_part: Optional[bool] = None
+
+    placed_on_market_after: Optional[date] = None
+    intended_use: Optional[str] = None
+    eu_market: Optional[bool] = None
+    b2b_or_b2c: Optional[MarketModel] = None
+    lifecycle_phase: Optional[ProductLifecyclePhase] = None
+
+    # Organisation context — only needed for NIS2 (not a product fact).
+    company_size: Optional[str] = None
+    sector: Optional[str] = None
+    is_essential_or_important_entity: Optional[bool] = None
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Scope
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+class ApplicableRegulation(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    applicability_status: ApplicabilityStatus
+    trigger_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence
+    explanation: str
+
+
+class ExcludedRegulation(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    reason: str
+
+
+class UncertainRegulation(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str
+
+
+class RegulatoryScope(BaseModel):
+    product_profile_id: Optional[str] = None
+    applicable_regulations: List[ApplicableRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    excluded_regulations: List[ExcludedRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    uncertain_regulations: List[UncertainRegulation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+    reasoning_summary: str = ""
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Obligations
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+class ApplicableObligation(BaseModel):
+    obligation_id: str
+    title: str
+    source_regulation: str
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    obligation_text: str
+    authority_level: AuthorityLevel
+    applies_because: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    applies_to_role: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    lifecycle_phase: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    overlap_group_id: Optional[str] = None
+    required_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence
+    # True only when obligation_id is owned by the Legal-KG registry (CRA P1).
+    registry_anchor: bool = False
+    # Machine/Data-Act obligations the registry has not canonicalised yet.
+    proposed: bool = False
+
+
+class ObligationOverlap(BaseModel):
+    overlap_group_id: str
+    obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    overlap_type: OverlapType
+    canonical_obligation_id: str
+    explanation: str
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Customer claims & assessments
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+class CustomerImplementationClaim(BaseModel):
+    claim_id: str
+    raw_statement: str
+    normalized_claim: str = ""
+    claimed_capability: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    related_topics: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    qualifiers: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    evidence_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+class ClaimObligationMapping(BaseModel):
+    """One row of Welt-1 reasoning: how a customer claim relates to an obligation.
+
+    Layers (spec / architect): claim -> interpretation (on the claim object) ->
+    *potential* obligation coverage (`claim_coverage`) -> evidence required.
+    Carries NO compliance verdict.
+    """
+
+    claim_id: str
+    obligation_id: str
+    claim_coverage: ClaimCoverage
+    missing_elements: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    required_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str
+    confidence: Confidence
+
+
+class InterpretationAssessment(BaseModel):
+    interpretation_id: str
+    raw_interpretation: str
+    affected_regulations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    affected_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    assessment: InterpretationVerdict
+    risks: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    corrected_interpretation: str = ""
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str
+    confidence: Confidence
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# API request / response envelopes
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+class ScopeRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: ProductProfile
+
+
+class ScopeResponse(BaseModel):
+    regulatory_scope: RegulatoryScope
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence
+
+
+class ObligationsRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: ProductProfile
+    regulatory_scope: Optional[RegulatoryScope] = None
+
+
+class ObligationsResponse(BaseModel):
+    applicable_obligations: List[ApplicableObligation] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    overlaps: List[ObligationOverlap] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    excluded_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    evidence_for_multiple: Dict[str, List[str]] = Field(default_factory=dict)
+
+
+class ImplementationReasoningRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: ProductProfile
+    customer_claim: str
+
+
+class ImplementationReasoningResponse(BaseModel):
+    claim: CustomerImplementationClaim
+    mappings: List[ClaimObligationMapping] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    missing_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    summary: str = ""
+    # Makes the Welt-1 boundary explicit: this is advisory claim-mapping, not a
+    # conformity verdict (that is ComplianceStatus in the Execution Graph).
+    disclaimer: str = ""
+
+
+class InterpretationRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: Optional[ProductProfile] = None
+    customer_interpretation: str
+
+
+class InterpretationResponse(BaseModel):
+    assessment: InterpretationVerdict
+    affected_regulations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    affected_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    corrected_interpretation: str = ""
+    risks: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str = ""
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/scope_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+"""Scope discovery engine (spec Modus 1).
+
+Answers "which regulations apply to my product?" — and, crucially, never says
+"X applies" without the triggers, and never hides a missing fact behind a false
+verdict. Pure rule evaluation, deterministic.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from .enums import ApplicabilityStatus, Confidence
+from .predicates import Condition, evaluate, true_leaves, unknown_fields
+from .rules_regulations import REGULATION_RULES, FIELD_LABELS, RegulationRule
+from .schemas import (
+    ApplicableRegulation,
+    ExcludedRegulation,
+    ProductProfile,
+    RegulatoryScope,
+    UncertainRegulation,
+)
+
+_DOWNGRADE = {Confidence.HIGH: Confidence.MEDIUM, Confidence.MEDIUM: Confidence.LOW, Confidence.LOW: Confidence.LOW}
+
+
+def _fields_in(condition: Optional[Condition]) -> List[str]:
+    if condition is None:
+        return []
+    if isinstance(condition, tuple):
+        return [condition[0]]
+    out: List[str] = []
+    for c in condition.get("all") or condition.get("any") or []:
+        out.extend(_fields_in(c))
+    return out
+
+
+def _trigger_facts(rule: RegulationRule, profile: ProductProfile) -> List[str]:
+    labels: List[str] = []
+    for leaf in true_leaves(rule.trigger, profile):
+        label = FIELD_LABELS.get(leaf[0])
+        if label and label not in labels:
+            labels.append(label)
+    return labels
+
+
+def _missing_prompts(rule: RegulationRule, profile: ProductProfile) -> List[str]:
+    fields = list(dict.fromkeys(rule.required_facts + _fields_in(rule.trigger)))
+    unknown = unknown_fields(fields, profile)
+    prompts: List[str] = []
+    for f in unknown:
+        prompt = rule.fact_prompts.get(f)
+        if prompt and prompt not in prompts:
+            prompts.append(prompt)
+    return prompts
+
+
+def discover_scope(profile: ProductProfile) -> RegulatoryScope:
+    scope = RegulatoryScope(product_profile_id=profile.product_profile_id)
+
+    for rule in REGULATION_RULES:
+        role_value = profile.manufacturer_role.value if profile.manufacturer_role is not None else None
+        role_excluded = role_value is not None and role_value in rule.excludable_roles
+        trig = evaluate(rule.trigger, profile)
+        missing = _missing_prompts(rule, profile)
+
+        if role_excluded:
+            scope.excluded_regulations.append(
+                ExcludedRegulation(
+                    regulation_id=rule.regulation_id,
+                    name=rule.name,
+                    reason="Rolle '%s' ist von dieser Regulierung nicht unmittelbar adressiert." % role_value,
+                )
+            )
+            continue
+
+        if trig is True:
+            conf = Confidence.MEDIUM if rule.inferred else rule.confidence_when_applicable
+            status = (
+                ApplicabilityStatus.PARTIALLY_APPLICABLE if rule.inferred else ApplicabilityStatus.APPLICABLE
+            )
+            unresolved = unknown_fields(rule.required_facts, profile)
+            if unresolved:
+                conf = _DOWNGRADE[conf]
+                for f in unresolved:
+                    prompt = rule.fact_prompts.get(f)
+                    if prompt and prompt not in scope.missing_facts:
+                        scope.missing_facts.append(prompt)
+            scope.applicable_regulations.append(
+                ApplicableRegulation(
+                    regulation_id=rule.regulation_id,
+                    name=rule.name,
+                    applicability_status=status,
+                    trigger_facts=_trigger_facts(rule, profile),
+                    legal_basis_refs=rule.legal_basis_refs,
+                    confidence=conf,
+                    explanation=rule.summary,
+                )
+            )
+        elif trig is None:
+            scope.uncertain_regulations.append(
+                UncertainRegulation(
+                    regulation_id=rule.regulation_id,
+                    name=rule.name,
+                    missing_facts=missing,
+                    explanation=rule.summary,
+                )
+            )
+            for m in missing:
+                if m not in scope.missing_facts:
+                    scope.missing_facts.append(m)
+        else:  # trig is False -> definitively excluded by a known fact
+            scope.excluded_regulations.append(
+                ExcludedRegulation(
+                    regulation_id=rule.regulation_id,
+                    name=rule.name,
+                    reason="Auslösende Voraussetzungen sind anhand der bekannten Fakten nicht erfüllt.",
+                )
+            )
+
+    scope.confidence = _overall_confidence(scope)
+    scope.reasoning_summary = _summary(scope)
+    return scope
+
+
+def _overall_confidence(scope: RegulatoryScope) -> Confidence:
+    if scope.applicable_regulations and not scope.uncertain_regulations and not scope.missing_facts:
+        return Confidence.HIGH
+    if scope.applicable_regulations:
+        return Confidence.MEDIUM
+    return Confidence.LOW
+
+
+def _summary(scope: RegulatoryScope) -> str:
+    applicable = ", ".join(r.regulation_id for r in scope.applicable_regulations) or "—"
+    uncertain = ", ".join(r.regulation_id for r in scope.uncertain_regulations) or "—"
+    return "Wahrscheinlich anwendbar: %s. Unsicher (fehlende Fakten): %s." % (applicable, uncertain)

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/taxonomy_claims.py

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+"""Deterministic taxonomy for normalising free-text customer claims.
+
+Capability names echo the planned Obligation -> Capability layer of the
+Compliance Execution Graph (memory `project_compliance_graph.md`), so the
+reasoning layer's claim capabilities line up with the registry's capabilities.
+Matching is lowercase substring matching — deterministic, no LLM, no RAG.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+# capability -> trigger substrings (German + English), matched lowercase.
+CAPABILITY_KEYWORDS: Dict[str, List[str]] = {
+    "software_bill_of_materials": [
+        "sbom", "stückliste", "stueckliste", "bill of materials", "komponentenliste",
+    ],
+    "secure_updates": ["update", "patch", "aktualisier", "release", "rollout"],
+    "software_integrity": ["signier", "signatur", "signed", "integrität", "integritaet", "hash"],
+    "vulnerability_management": [
+        "schwachstelle", "vulnerab", "cve", "schwachstellenmanagement", "vuln",
+    ],
+    "coordinated_disclosure": [
+        "disclosure", "offenlegung", "security.txt", "responsible disclosure",
+    ],
+    "incident_reporting": [
+        "incident", "vorfall", "behörde", "behoerde", "csirt", "meldepflicht", "an die behörde",
+    ],
+    "authentication": [
+        "authentifizier", "login", "passwort", "password", "mfa", "2fa", "anmeldung",
+    ],
+    "secure_by_default": [
+        "härtung", "haertung", "hardening", "default", "standardkonfig",
+        "sichere konfiguration", "angriffsfläche", "angriffsflaeche",
+    ],
+    "security_logging": ["logging", "log ", "logs", "protokoll", "audit-trail", "ereignisprotokoll"],
+    "secure_communication": ["verschlüssel", "verschluessel", "encryption", "tls", "vpn", "ssl"],
+    "risk_assessment": [
+        "risikoanalyse", "risikobeurteil", "risk assessment", "gefährdungsbeurteil",
+        "gefaehrdungsbeurteil", "bedrohungsanalyse", "threat model",
+    ],
+    "technical_documentation": [
+        "dokumentation", "technische unterlagen", "betriebsanleitung", "handbuch", "documentation",
+    ],
+    "conformity_assessment": ["konformität", "konformitaet", "conformity", "baumuster", "ce-kenn"],
+    "functional_safety": [
+        "performance level", "sil ", "iso 13849", "funktionale sicherheit", "safety control",
+    ],
+    "data_access_provision": [
+        "datenzugang", "data access", "datenportabilität", "datenexport", "data export",
+    ],
+}
+
+# capability -> broader compliance topics it touches (spec related_topics).
+CAPABILITY_TOPICS: Dict[str, List[str]] = {
+    "software_bill_of_materials": ["component_transparency", "supply_chain", "vulnerability_management"],
+    "secure_updates": ["secure_updates", "vulnerability_remediation", "release_management"],
+    "software_integrity": ["secure_updates", "supply_chain", "tamper_protection"],
+    "vulnerability_management": ["vulnerability_handling", "monitoring", "patch_management"],
+    "coordinated_disclosure": ["vulnerability_handling", "transparency"],
+    "incident_reporting": ["incident_handling", "authority_notification"],
+    "authentication": ["access_control", "identity"],
+    "secure_by_default": ["hardening", "attack_surface", "configuration"],
+    "security_logging": ["monitoring", "forensics", "incident_handling"],
+    "secure_communication": ["confidentiality", "integrity", "remote_access"],
+    "risk_assessment": ["risk_management", "secure_by_design"],
+    "technical_documentation": ["documentation", "conformity"],
+    "conformity_assessment": ["conformity", "ce_marking"],
+    "functional_safety": ["machine_safety", "control_systems"],
+    "data_access_provision": ["data_sharing", "portability"],
+}
+
+# qualifier -> substrings that signal a weak/incomplete implementation.
+QUALIFIER_KEYWORDS: Dict[str, List[str]] = {
+    "reactive": [
+        "wenn kunden", "wenn ein kunde", "nach meldung", "auf anfrage", "auf nachfrage",
+        "nur wenn", "reaktiv", "wenn fehler", "when customers", "on request", "when reported",
+        "ad hoc", "ad-hoc", "bei bedarf",
+    ],
+    "manual": ["manuell", "von hand", "manual", "händisch", "haendisch"],
+    "planned": [
+        "geplant", "in planung", "wollen wir", "planen wir", "noch nicht", "zukünftig", "künftig",
+    ],
+    "absent": ["haben wir nicht", "gibt es nicht", "nicht vorhanden", "keinen prozess", "keine"],
+}
+
+
+def match_capabilities(text: str) -> List[str]:
+    low = text.lower()
+    return [cap for cap, kws in CAPABILITY_KEYWORDS.items() if any(k in low for k in kws)]
+
+
+def match_qualifiers(text: str) -> List[str]:
+    low = text.lower()
+    return [q for q, kws in QUALIFIER_KEYWORDS.items() if any(k in low for k in kws)]
+
+
+def topics_for(capabilities: List[str]) -> List[str]:
+    out: List[str] = []
+    for cap in capabilities:
+        for t in CAPABILITY_TOPICS.get(cap, []):
+            if t not in out:
+                out.append(t)
+    return out

backend-compliance/compliance/reasoning/taxonomy_interpretations.py

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+"""Known customer interpretation patterns (spec Modus 4).
+
+Deterministic: a customer interpretation is matched by lowercase substring
+triggers against a curated library of common misconceptions. No match ->
+the engine returns `uncertain` and asks for the missing context (no false
+security, spec §6.3).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from dataclasses import dataclass, field
+from typing import List
+
+from .enums import Confidence, InterpretationVerdict
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class InterpretationPattern:
+    pattern_id: str
+    triggers: List[str]
+    verdict: InterpretationVerdict
+    corrected_interpretation: str
+    explanation: str
+    affected_regulations: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+    affected_obligations: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+    risks: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+    confidence: Confidence = Confidence.MEDIUM
+
+
+INTERPRETATION_PATTERNS: List[InterpretationPattern] = [
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="cra_only_new_products",
+        triggers=[
+            "nur für neue", "nur fuer neue", "nur neu entwickelt", "nur neuentwicklung",
+            "nur bei neuentwicklung", "only new product", "gilt nur für neue produkte",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "CRA-Pflichten knüpfen primär an Produkt, Rolle, Marktzugang, Bereitstellung und "
+            "Übergangsfristen an, nicht nur an Neuentwicklung. Ein fertig entwickeltes "
+            "Katalogprodukt kann betroffen sein, wenn es nach dem maßgeblichen Zeitpunkt weiter "
+            "auf dem EU-Markt bereitgestellt wird."
+        ),
+        explanation=(
+            "Die relevante Frage ist nicht nur, ob das Produkt neu entwickelt wurde, sondern ob es "
+            "nach dem Anwendungszeitpunkt weiterhin bereitgestellt oder in Verkehr gebracht wird."
+        ),
+        affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+        risks=["Katalog-/Bestandsprodukt fällt trotz abgeschlossener Entwicklung unter den CRA."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 2", "CRA Art. 69 (Übergangsbestimmungen)"],
+        confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="cra_b2b_exempt",
+        triggers=[
+            "gilt nicht für b2b", "nur für verbraucher", "nur b2c", "nicht im b2b",
+            "only consumer", "b2b ist ausgenommen",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Der CRA gilt produkt- und marktbezogen, unabhängig von B2B oder B2C. Eine generelle "
+            "B2B-Ausnahme existiert nicht; Industrieprodukte mit digitalen Elementen sind erfasst."
+        ),
+        explanation="Der Anwendungsbereich knüpft an 'Produkte mit digitalen Elementen' an, nicht an die Kundengruppe.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+        risks=["Industrielle B2B-Steuerungen werden fälschlich als ausgenommen behandelt."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 2", "CRA Art. 3(1)"],
+        confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="sbom_is_enough",
+        triggers=[
+            "sbom reicht", "mit sbom sind wir", "sbom genügt", "sbom genuegt", "nur eine sbom",
+            "sbom allein",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Eine SBOM erfüllt nur einen Teil der Komponenten-Transparenz. Schwachstellen-"
+            "überwachung, Update-/Patch-Prozess und technische Dokumentation bleiben eigenständige Pflichten."
+        ),
+        explanation="SBOM ist Voraussetzung, ersetzt aber nicht Vulnerability-Handling und Updates.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+        affected_obligations=["sbom_creation", "vuln_handling_process", "provide_security_updates"],
+        risks=["Falsche Annahme vollständiger Erfüllung trotz fehlendem Vulnerability-Prozess."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part II (1)", "CRA Annex I Part II (2)"],
+        confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="open_source_exempt",
+        triggers=[
+            "open source ist ausgenommen", "open-source ist ausgenommen", "oss ist ausgenommen",
+            "freie software ist ausgenommen", "open source fällt nicht",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.PARTIALLY_CORRECT,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Nur nicht-kommerziell bereitgestellte Open-Source-Software ist ausgenommen. Sobald OSS "
+            "kommerziell in ein Produkt integriert und auf dem Markt bereitgestellt wird, greift der CRA."
+        ),
+        explanation="Die Ausnahme zielt auf nicht-kommerzielle OSS-Bereitstellung, nicht auf kommerzielle Produktintegration.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+        risks=["Kommerziell integrierte OSS-Komponenten werden fälschlich als ausgenommen behandelt."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 2", "CRA Erwägungsgründe (Open-Source-Stewards)"],
+        confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="reactive_updates_ok",
+        triggers=[
+            "updates nur wenn", "reaktive updates reichen", "wenn kunden melden reicht",
+            "updates wenn fehler gemeldet",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Der CRA verlangt aktive Schwachstellenüberwachung und zeitnahe Sicherheitsupdates über "
+            "den Supportzeitraum, nicht nur reaktive Updates nach Kundenmeldung."
+        ),
+        explanation="Ein rein reaktiver Updateprozess erfüllt die Pflicht zur aktiven Schwachstellenbehandlung nicht.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+        affected_obligations=["provide_security_updates", "vuln_handling_process"],
+        risks=["Verzögerte Reaktion auf öffentlich bekannte Schwachstellen; Pflichtverletzung."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Annex I Part II (1)", "CRA Annex I (2)(c)"],
+        confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="machinery_covers_cyber",
+        triggers=[
+            "maschinenrichtlinie deckt cyber", "maschinenvo deckt alles", "ce der maschine reicht",
+            "ce maschine reicht für cyber", "maschinen-ce reicht",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.PARTIALLY_CORRECT,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Die MaschinenVO deckt die sicherheitsrelevante Korrumpierung ab (Anhang III 1.1.9), "
+            "ersetzt aber nicht die produktbezogenen CRA-Security-Pflichten. Beide Regime gelten parallel."
+        ),
+        explanation="Maschinen-CE und CRA überschneiden sich nur dort, wo Cyber eine Sicherheitsfunktion betrifft.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA", "MaschinenVO"],
+        affected_obligations=["machine_protection_against_corruption", "vuln_handling_process"],
+        risks=["CRA-Pflichten werden übersehen, weil die Maschine bereits CE-gekennzeichnet ist."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["MaschinenVO Anhang III (1.1.9)", "CRA Art. 13"],
+        confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+    ),
+    InterpretationPattern(
+        pattern_id="no_radio_no_cyber",
+        triggers=[
+            "ohne funkmodul kein cyber", "kein funk also kein cra", "ohne funk keine security",
+            "ohne funkmodul keine cyber",
+        ],
+        verdict=InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW,
+        corrected_interpretation=(
+            "Der CRA knüpft an digitale Elemente an, nicht an ein Funkmodul. Ohne Funk entfällt die "
+            "RED, der CRA bleibt jedoch anwendbar, sobald Software vorhanden ist."
+        ),
+        explanation="Funkmodul ist nur für die RED relevant; die CRA-Anwendbarkeit folgt aus der Software.",
+        affected_regulations=["CRA", "RED"],
+        risks=["CRA wird fälschlich verneint, weil kein Funkmodul vorhanden ist."],
+        legal_basis_refs=["CRA Art. 3(1)", "RED 2014/53/EU Art. 1"],
+        confidence=Confidence.HIGH,
+    ),
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/regulatory_map/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+"""Regulatory Map — customer-readable read-model over the engine's scope output.
+
+Composes scope + registry-linked obligations + overlaps into one map:
+product -> trigger facts -> applicable / uncertain / excluded regulations ->
+obligations -> overlaps -> unsupported domains -> executive summary. Explains the
+engine's state, never extends it. No new logic, no UI, no RAG, no percentage.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .renderer import render_regulatory_map
+from .schemas import (
+    ApplicableRegulationView,
+    ExcludedRegulationView,
+    ObligationRef,
+    OverlapView,
+    RegulatoryMap,
+    RegulatoryMapRequest,
+    UncertainRegulationView,
+)
+
+__all__ = [
+    "render_regulatory_map",
+    "RegulatoryMap",
+    "RegulatoryMapRequest",
+    "ApplicableRegulationView",
+    "UncertainRegulationView",
+    "ExcludedRegulationView",
+    "OverlapView",
+    "ObligationRef",
+]

backend-compliance/compliance/regulatory_map/renderer.py

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+"""Regulatory Map renderer (step 4) — pure composition, no new logic.
+
+It explains the engine's state, it does not extend it: every statement comes
+from `resolve_product_scope` (scope verdict) or `derive_obligations` (registry-
+linked obligations + overlaps). No legal decisions here; obligations are shown
+ONLY where a registry id is linkable (registry_anchor); the executive summary
+carries counts but NO percentage.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+from compliance.navigator.engine import navigate
+from compliance.product_scope.orchestrator import resolve_product_scope
+from compliance.product_scope.schemas import RegulatoryScopeResult, ScopeStatus
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.profile.to_reasoning import to_reasoning_profile
+from compliance.reasoning.obligation_engine import derive_obligations
+
+from .schemas import (
+    ApplicableRegulationView,
+    ExcludedRegulationView,
+    ObligationRef,
+    OverlapView,
+    RegulatoryMap,
+    UncertainRegulationView,
+)
+
+_DOMAIN_BY_REG = {
+    "CRA": "cyber",
+    "MaschinenVO": "machine_safety",
+    "RED": "radio",
+    "DataAct": "data",
+    "EMV": "emv",
+    "NIS2": None,
+}
+
+
+def _product_summary(c: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> str:
+    bits: List[str] = [c.name or "Produkt"]
+    if c.product_type:
+        bits.append("(%s)" % c.product_type.value)
+    sig: List[str] = []
+    if c.is_machine:
+        sig.append("Maschine")
+    if c.has_remote_access or c.connected_to_internet or "cloud" in c.technologies:
+        sig.append("vernetzt")
+    if c.has_embedded_software:
+        sig.append("Firmware")
+    if c.economic_operator_role:
+        sig.append("Rolle: %s" % c.economic_operator_role.value)
+    if c.markets:
+        sig.append("Märkte: %s" % ", ".join(c.markets))
+    if sig:
+        bits.append("— " + "; ".join(sig))
+    return " ".join(bits)
+
+
+def render_regulatory_map(profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile) -> RegulatoryMap:
+    scope_resp = resolve_product_scope(profile)
+    summary = _product_summary(profile)
+
+    if scope_resp.status == ScopeStatus.NEEDS_FACTS:
+        return RegulatoryMap(
+            scope_resolved=False,
+            product_summary=summary,
+            executive_summary=(
+                "Regulatorischer Scope noch nicht bestimmbar — zuerst Mindestfakten klären: "
+                + "; ".join(scope_resp.missing_facts[:6])
+                + "."
+            ),
+        )
+
+    scope = scope_resp.regulatory_scope
+    assert scope is not None
+    obligations = derive_obligations(to_reasoning_profile(profile))
+    nav_questions = navigate(profile).suggested_questions
+
+    linked_ids = {o.obligation_id for o in obligations.applicable_obligations if o.registry_anchor}
+    by_reg: Dict[str, List[ObligationRef]] = {}
+    shared_ev: Dict[str, List[str]] = {}
+    for o in obligations.applicable_obligations:
+        if not o.registry_anchor:
+            continue
+        by_reg.setdefault(o.source_regulation, []).append(
+            ObligationRef(
+                obligation_id=o.obligation_id,
+                title=o.title,
+                legal_basis_refs=o.legal_basis_refs,
+                authority_level=o.authority_level,
+            )
+        )
+        for ev in o.required_evidence:
+            shared_ev.setdefault(ev, []).append(o.obligation_id)
+
+    applicable_views = []
+    for r in scope.applicable_regulations:
+        obs = by_reg.get(r.regulation_id, [])
+        applicable_views.append(
+            ApplicableRegulationView(
+                regulation_id=r.regulation_id,
+                name=r.name,
+                why_applicable=r.explanation,
+                triggered_by=r.trigger_facts,
+                obligations=obs,
+                obligations_note="" if obs else "Pflichten für dieses Regelwerk sind noch nicht registry-verlinkt.",
+                confidence=r.confidence,
+            )
+        )
+
+    uncertain_views = []
+    for u in scope.uncertain_regulations:
+        domain = _DOMAIN_BY_REG.get(u.regulation_id)
+        qrefs = [q.question_id for q in nav_questions if domain and domain in q.regulatory_domains_unblocked]
+        uncertain_views.append(
+            UncertainRegulationView(
+                regulation_id=u.regulation_id, name=u.name, missing_facts=u.missing_facts, question_refs=qrefs
+            )
+        )
+
+    overlap_views = []
+    for ov in obligations.overlaps:
+        members = [m for m in ov.obligations if m in linked_ids]
+        if len(members) >= 2:
+            overlap_views.append(
+                OverlapView(overlap_group_id=ov.overlap_group_id, shared_obligations=members, explanation=ov.explanation)
+            )
+
+    trigger_facts: List[str] = []
+    for v in applicable_views:
+        for t in v.triggered_by:
+            if t not in trigger_facts:
+                trigger_facts.append(t)
+
+    return RegulatoryMap(
+        scope_resolved=True,
+        product_summary=summary,
+        trigger_facts=trigger_facts,
+        applicable_regulations=applicable_views,
+        uncertain_regulations=uncertain_views,
+        excluded_regulations=[
+            ExcludedRegulationView(regulation_id=e.regulation_id, name=e.name, exclusion_reason=e.reason)
+            for e in scope.excluded_regulations
+        ],
+        unsupported_domains=scope.unsupported_domains,
+        overlaps=overlap_views,
+        shared_evidence={ev: ids for ev, ids in shared_ev.items() if len(ids) > 1},
+        executive_summary=_executive_summary(summary, applicable_views, uncertain_views, scope, len(linked_ids)),
+    )
+
+
+def _executive_summary(
+    summary: str,
+    applicable: List[ApplicableRegulationView],
+    uncertain: List[UncertainRegulationView],
+    scope: RegulatoryScopeResult,
+    n_obligations: int,
+) -> str:
+    appl = ", ".join(v.regulation_id for v in applicable) or "—"
+    unc = ", ".join(v.regulation_id for v in uncertain) or "keine"
+    exc = ", ".join(e.regulation_id for e in scope.excluded_regulations) or "keine"
+    uns = ", ".join(d.domain for d in scope.unsupported_domains) or "keine"
+    return (
+        "Für %s gelten nach derzeitigem Stand wahrscheinlich: %s. Unsicher (fehlende Fakten): %s. "
+        "Ausgeschlossen: %s. Nicht abgedeckt (Regelkorpus fehlt): %s. Ermittelt: %d registry-verlinkte "
+        "Pflichten. Es wurden keine weiteren Regelwerke im aktuellen Korpus identifiziert."
+        % (summary, appl, unc, exc, uns, n_obligations)
+    )

backend-compliance/compliance/regulatory_map/schemas.py

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+"""Read-model for the Regulatory Map (step 4).
+
+A customer-readable view that COMPOSES what the engine already computed (scope +
+obligations + overlaps). It adds no scope/obligation logic. All fields are
+application-level presentation types — NOT compliance-meta-model classes
+(architecture freeze v1.0 untouched).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Dict, List
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from compliance.product_scope.schemas import UnsupportedDomain
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import AuthorityLevel, Confidence
+
+
+class RegulatoryMapRequest(BaseModel):
+    product_profile: CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile
+
+
+class ObligationRef(BaseModel):
+    obligation_id: str
+    title: str
+    legal_basis_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    authority_level: AuthorityLevel
+
+
+class ApplicableRegulationView(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    why_applicable: str
+    triggered_by: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    obligations: List[ObligationRef] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    obligations_note: str = ""  # set when obligations are not yet registry-linkable
+    confidence: Confidence
+
+
+class UncertainRegulationView(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    missing_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    question_refs: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+
+
+class ExcludedRegulationView(BaseModel):
+    regulation_id: str
+    name: str
+    exclusion_reason: str
+
+
+class OverlapView(BaseModel):
+    overlap_group_id: str
+    shared_obligations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    explanation: str = ""
+
+
+class RegulatoryMap(BaseModel):
+    scope_resolved: bool
+    product_summary: str
+    trigger_facts: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    applicable_regulations: List[ApplicableRegulationView] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    uncertain_regulations: List[UncertainRegulationView] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    excluded_regulations: List[ExcludedRegulationView] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    unsupported_domains: List[UnsupportedDomain] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    overlaps: List[OverlapView] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    shared_evidence: Dict[str, List[str]] = Field(default_factory=dict)
+    executive_summary: str = ""

backend-compliance/tests/test_company.py

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+"""Tests for Company Intelligence (Phase 2A) — Company Capability Profile.
+
+Acceptance: from a CompanyContext (certifications, declarations, evidence) the
+engine derives operational capabilities with a four-state trust model and a HARD
+RULE: a certification is NEVER auto-treated as "erfuellt" — at most INFERRED.
+
+The Certification->Capability mapping is Execution's domain. It is injected here as
+a MOCK (the yaml-like dict below lives ONLY in tests); product code ships no table.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from compliance.company import (
+    CapabilityMappingEntry,
+    Certification,
+    CompanyContext,
+    Declaration,
+    ExistingEvidence,
+    VerificationStatus,
+    build_company_profile,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import Confidence
+
+# --- MOCK mapping (Execution-owned in reality; here only for the tests) -------
+# mapping:
+#   ISO27001 -> [cap_patch_management, cap_supplier_management]
+MOCK_MAPPING = {
+    "ISO27001": CapabilityMappingEntry(
+        capability_ids=["cap_patch_management", "cap_supplier_management"],
+        confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM,
+    )
+}
+
+
+def _candidate(profile, capability_id):
+    return [c for c in profile.candidate_capabilities if c.capability_id == capability_id]
+
+
+def _confirmed_ids(profile):
+    return {c.capability_id for c in profile.confirmed_capabilities}
+
+
+# A certification yields INFERRED candidates via the injected mapping.
+def test_certification_infers_candidates_via_injected_mapping():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(company_id="acme", certifications=[Certification(certification_id="ISO27001")])
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx, MOCK_MAPPING)
+    ids = {c.capability_id for c in profile.candidate_capabilities}
+    assert ids == {"cap_patch_management", "cap_supplier_management"}
+    for c in profile.candidate_capabilities:
+        assert c.verification_status == VerificationStatus.INFERRED
+        assert c.source == "certification:ISO27001"
+
+
+# Without an injected mapping there are NO inferred capabilities — only the claim.
+# This is the architectural guarantee that the table lives only in Execution.
+def test_no_mapping_no_inferred_capabilities():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(company_id="acme", certifications=[Certification(certification_id="ISO27001")])
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx)  # default EMPTY mapping
+    assert profile.candidate_capabilities == []
+    # the certification still produced evidence-of-claim (refinement 1)
+    assert len(profile.capability_evidence) == 1
+    assert profile.capability_evidence[0].source == "certification:ISO27001"
+    assert profile.capability_evidence[0].certification_id == "ISO27001"
+
+
+# A customer declaration yields a DECLARED candidate.
+def test_declaration_yields_declared_candidate():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(company_id="acme", declarations=[Declaration(capability_id="cap_patch_management")])
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx, MOCK_MAPPING)
+    cands = _candidate(profile, "cap_patch_management")
+    assert len(cands) == 1
+    assert cands[0].verification_status == VerificationStatus.DECLARED
+
+
+# declared + inferred coexist as distinct signals for the same capability.
+def test_declared_and_inferred_coexist():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(
+        company_id="acme",
+        certifications=[Certification(certification_id="ISO27001")],
+        declarations=[Declaration(capability_id="cap_patch_management")],
+    )
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx, MOCK_MAPPING)
+    statuses = {c.verification_status for c in _candidate(profile, "cap_patch_management")}
+    assert statuses == {VerificationStatus.DECLARED, VerificationStatus.INFERRED}
+
+
+# HARD RULE: a certification alone NEVER yields a confirmed capability.
+def test_hard_rule_certification_never_confirmed():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(company_id="acme", certifications=[Certification(certification_id="ISO27001")])
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx, MOCK_MAPPING)
+    assert _confirmed_ids(profile) == set()
+    for c in profile.candidate_capabilities:
+        assert c.verification_status != VerificationStatus.CONFIRMED
+
+
+# Only real evidence confirms a capability — and it leaves the candidate list.
+def test_evidence_confirms_capability():
+    ctx = CompanyContext(
+        company_id="acme",
+        certifications=[Certification(certification_id="ISO27001")],
+        evidence=[ExistingEvidence(evidence_id="pol-1", evidence_type="policy", proves_capability_id="cap_patch_management")],
+    )
+    profile = build_company_profile(ctx, MOCK_MAPPING)
+    assert "cap_patch_management" in _confirmed_ids(profile)
+    confirmed = [c for c in profile.confirmed_capabilities if c.capability_id == "cap_patch_management"][0]
+    assert confirmed.verification_status == VerificationStatus.CONFIRMED
+    assert confirmed.confidence == Confidence.HIGH
+    assert confirmed.sources == ["pol-1"]
+    # a confirmed capability is no longer a mere candidate
+    assert _candidate(profile, "cap_patch_management") == []
+    # the un-proven capability stays an inferred candidate
+    assert _candidate(profile, "cap_supplier_management")[0].verification_status == VerificationStatus.INFERRED
+
+
+# The four-state vocabulary exists and is ordered declared->inferred->confirmed (+unknown).
+def test_four_states_present():
+    assert {s.value for s in VerificationStatus} == {"declared", "inferred", "confirmed", "unknown"}
+
+
+# verification_status is a FOURTH vocabulary, disjoint from ClaimCoverage and DeltaType.
+def test_verification_status_distinct_vocabulary():
+    from compliance.rci.schemas import DeltaType
+    from compliance.reasoning.enums import ClaimCoverage
+
+    verif = {s.value for s in VerificationStatus}
+    assert verif.isdisjoint({c.value for c in ClaimCoverage})
+    assert verif.isdisjoint({d.value for d in DeltaType})

backend-compliance/tests/test_interpretation_in_map.py

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+"""Tests for Interpretation-in-Map (step 5).
+
+Acceptance: a customer interpretation is judged against the existing map, using
+only assess_interpretation; affected regulations/obligations are referenced from
+the map; unsupported domains (wastewater/chemicals) are flagged
+future_corpus_needed, not pseudo-evaluated; output is customer-readable.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import pytest
+from fastapi import FastAPI
+from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
+
+from compliance.interpretation_map import interpret_in_map
+from compliance.profile.canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    EnvironmentalImpact,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import InterpretationVerdict
+from compliance.reasoning.interpretation_engine import assess_interpretation
+from compliance.regulatory_map import render_regulatory_map
+
+
+def ready_profile(**ov) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    base = dict(
+        name="Industriespülmaschine",
+        product_type=CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY,
+        markets=["EU", "DE"],
+        economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER,
+        lifecycle_phase=CanonicalLifecyclePhase.PLACING_ON_MARKET,
+        is_machine=True,
+        is_component=False,
+        has_software_updates=True,
+        has_embedded_software=True,
+        has_remote_access=True,
+        technologies=["cloud", "ota_updates"],
+    )
+    base.update(ov)
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(**base)
+
+
+def _map(**ov):
+    return render_regulatory_map(ready_profile(**ov))
+
+
+# 1 + 2. evaluated against the map, using ONLY assess_interpretation.
+def test_uses_assess_interpretation_verdict():
+    text = "Wir glauben, der CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte."
+    result = interpret_in_map(_map(), text)
+    assert result.assessment == assess_interpretation(text).assessment == InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW
+    assert "CRA" in result.affected_regulations  # CRA is in the map
+    assert result.in_scope_of_map is True
+
+
+# 3. the six verdict values pass through unchanged.
+def test_verdict_values():
+    m = _map()
+    assert interpret_in_map(m, "CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte.").assessment == InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW
+    assert interpret_in_map(m, "Open Source ist ausgenommen, also betrifft uns der CRA nicht.").assessment == InterpretationVerdict.PARTIALLY_CORRECT
+    assert interpret_in_map(m, "Der Mond beeinflusst unsere Updatezyklen.").assessment == InterpretationVerdict.UNCERTAIN
+
+
+# 4. affected regulations/obligations are referenced FROM the map.
+def test_affected_refs_from_map():
+    m = _map()
+    result = interpret_in_map(m, "Eine SBOM reicht, dann sind wir fertig.")
+    map_ob_ids = {o.obligation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations for o in v.obligations}
+    map_reg_ids = {v.regulation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations} | {v.regulation_id for v in m.uncertain_regulations}
+    assert "sbom_creation" in result.affected_obligations
+    assert set(result.affected_obligations) <= map_ob_ids
+    assert set(result.affected_regulations) <= map_reg_ids
+
+
+# 5. environmental aspects are NOT pseudo-evaluated.
+def test_environmental_not_pseudo_evaluated():
+    m = _map(environmental=EnvironmentalImpact(discharges_to_wastewater=True))
+    result = interpret_in_map(m, "Beim Abwasser sind wir nicht betroffen, das spielt für uns keine Rolle.")
+    domains = {d.domain for d in result.future_corpus_domains}
+    assert "environment_water" in domains
+    assert "future_corpus_needed" in result.explanation
+
+
+# 6. output is customer-readable.
+def test_customer_readable():
+    result = interpret_in_map(_map(), "Der CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte.")
+    assert "zu eng" in result.explanation
+    assert result.explanation.startswith("Ihre Interpretation ist wahrscheinlich")
+
+
+# affected refs never leave the map (no abstract legal questions).
+def test_affected_regs_never_outside_map():
+    m = _map()
+    map_reg_ids = (
+        {v.regulation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations}
+        | {v.regulation_id for v in m.uncertain_regulations}
+        | {v.regulation_id for v in m.excluded_regulations}
+    )
+    for text in ["CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte.", "Ohne Funkmodul keine Cyber-Pflichten.", "SBOM reicht."]:
+        result = interpret_in_map(m, text)
+        assert set(result.affected_regulations) <= map_reg_ids
+
+
+# endpoint smoke.
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
+def client():
+    from compliance.api.reasoning_routes import router
+
+    app = FastAPI()
+    app.include_router(router)
+    return TestClient(app)
+
+
+def test_endpoint_interpretation_in_map(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/interpretation-in-map",
+        json={
+            "product_profile": {
+                "name": "M",
+                "product_type": "machinery",
+                "markets": ["EU"],
+                "economic_operator_role": "manufacturer",
+                "lifecycle_phase": "placing_on_market",
+                "is_machine": True,
+                "is_component": False,
+                "has_software_updates": True,
+                "has_embedded_software": True,
+                "has_remote_access": True,
+                "technologies": ["cloud"],
+            },
+            "customer_interpretation": "Der CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte.",
+        },
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert body["assessment"] == "too_narrow"
+    assert "CRA" in body["affected_regulations"]
+    assert "zu eng" in body["explanation"]

backend-compliance/tests/test_navigator.py

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+"""Tests for the Product Regulatory Navigator (missing-facts layer).
+
+Acceptance: a well-filled company-profile yields <= 10 questions; known facts are
+not re-asked; environmental questions are trigger-only (no law evaluation); the
+Navigator decides which facts are missing, NOT what applies.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from compliance.navigator import NavigatorResult, apply_answers, navigate
+from compliance.navigator.questions import QUESTION_CATALOG, QuestionPriority
+from compliance.profile import from_company_profile
+from compliance.profile.canonical import CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile, EconomicOperatorRole
+
+COMPANY = {
+    "industry": "Maschinenbau",
+    "business_model": "B2B",
+    "company_size": "medium",
+    "target_markets": ["DE", "EU"],
+    "primary_jurisdiction": "DE",
+    "machine_builder": {
+        "productTypes": ["special_machine"],
+        "containsFirmware": True,
+        "hasSafetyFunction": True,
+        "isNetworked": True,
+        "hasRemoteAccess": True,
+        "hasOTAUpdates": True,
+        "hasRiskAssessment": True,
+    },
+}
+
+
+def _empty() -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X")
+
+
+# 1. well-filled company-profile -> at most 10 questions.
+def test_filled_company_profile_at_most_10_questions():
+    result = navigate(from_company_profile(COMPANY))
+    assert len(result.suggested_questions) <= 10
+
+
+# 2. known facts (markets, is_machine) are not re-asked; true gaps still are.
+def test_known_facts_not_reasked():
+    result = navigate(from_company_profile(COMPANY))
+    assert "markets" not in result.missing_facts
+    assert "is_machine" not in result.missing_facts
+    # genuine gaps the company-profile cannot provide are still surfaced
+    assert "economic_operator_role" in result.missing_facts
+    assert "has_radio_module" in result.missing_facts
+
+
+# 3. environmental questions are trigger-only — no environmental-law evaluation.
+def test_environmental_questions_are_triggers_only():
+    result = navigate(_empty())
+    env = [q for q in result.suggested_questions if q.target_field.startswith("environmental.")]
+    assert len(env) >= 3
+    assert all(q.answer_type.value == "bool" for q in env)
+
+
+# 4. the Navigator decides only missing facts, never what applies.
+def test_navigator_decides_only_missing_facts():
+    assert set(NavigatorResult.model_fields.keys()) == {
+        "missing_facts",
+        "suggested_questions",
+        "completeness_summary",
+    }
+    # no question carries a verdict — only metadata about what it would unblock
+    for q in QUESTION_CATALOG:
+        assert q.regulatory_domains_unblocked  # metadata, not a decision
+        assert hasattr(q, "answer_type")
+
+
+# 5. apply_answers updates the profile; answered facts drop out of missing.
+def test_apply_answers_updates_profile():
+    profile = from_company_profile(COMPANY)
+    updated = apply_answers(
+        profile,
+        {
+            "economic_operator_role": "manufacturer",
+            "markets": ["DE", "US"],
+            "has_radio_module": True,
+            "env_wastewater": True,
+        },
+    )
+    assert updated.economic_operator_role == EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER
+    assert updated.markets == ["DE", "US"]
+    assert updated.has_radio_module is True
+    assert updated.environmental.discharges_to_wastewater is True
+
+    after = navigate(updated)
+    assert "economic_operator_role" not in after.missing_facts
+    assert "has_radio_module" not in after.missing_facts
+    assert "environmental.discharges_to_wastewater" not in after.missing_facts
+
+
+# 6. questions are ordered P0 -> P1 -> P2.
+def test_priority_ordering():
+    questions = navigate(_empty()).suggested_questions
+    orders = [q.order() for q in questions]
+    assert orders == sorted(orders)
+    assert questions[0].priority == QuestionPriority.P0
+
+
+# 7. ready_for_scope flips once all P0 facts are answered.
+def test_ready_for_scope_after_p0():
+    profile = _empty()
+    assert navigate(profile).completeness_summary.ready_for_scope is False
+    answered = apply_answers(
+        profile,
+        {
+            "markets": ["DE"],
+            "economic_operator_role": "manufacturer",
+            "lifecycle_phase": "placing_on_market",
+            "is_machine": True,
+            "is_component": False,
+        },
+    )
+    summary = navigate(answered).completeness_summary
+    assert summary.ready_for_scope is True
+
+
+# 8. empty profile asks the full (bounded) catalog.
+def test_empty_profile_bounded_catalog():
+    result = navigate(_empty())
+    assert len(result.suggested_questions) == len(QUESTION_CATALOG)
+    assert result.completeness_summary.total_relevant == len(QUESTION_CATALOG)

backend-compliance/tests/test_product_scope.py

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+"""Tests for the product-scope orchestrator (step 3).
+
+Acceptance: missing P0 facts -> discover_scope NOT run; ready -> run exactly once;
+response separates applicable/excluded/uncertain; environmental triggers appear
+only as unsupported_domain (future_corpus_needed), never as a legal evaluation.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import pytest
+from fastapi import FastAPI
+from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
+
+import compliance.product_scope.orchestrator as orch
+from compliance.product_scope import ScopeStatus, resolve_product_scope
+from compliance.profile.canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    EnvironmentalImpact,
+)
+
+_KNOWN_REGS = {"CRA", "MaschinenVO", "RED", "EMV", "DataAct", "NIS2"}
+
+
+def ready_profile(**ov) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    base = dict(
+        name="Industriespülmaschine",
+        product_type=CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY,
+        markets=["EU", "DE"],
+        economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER,
+        lifecycle_phase=CanonicalLifecyclePhase.PLACING_ON_MARKET,
+        is_machine=True,
+        is_component=False,
+        has_software_updates=True,
+        has_embedded_software=True,
+        has_remote_access=True,
+        has_safety_function=True,
+        technologies=["cloud", "ota_updates"],
+    )
+    base.update(ov)
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(**base)
+
+
+def _spy(monkeypatch):
+    calls = {"n": 0}
+    real = orch.discover_scope
+
+    def counting(profile):
+        calls["n"] += 1
+        return real(profile)
+
+    monkeypatch.setattr(orch, "discover_scope", counting)
+    return calls
+
+
+# 1. missing P0 facts -> discover_scope is NOT executed.
+def test_needs_facts_does_not_run_scope(monkeypatch):
+    calls = _spy(monkeypatch)
+    resp = resolve_product_scope(CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X"))
+    assert resp.status == ScopeStatus.NEEDS_FACTS
+    assert resp.regulatory_scope is None
+    assert resp.missing_facts
+    assert calls["n"] == 0
+
+
+# 2. ready_for_scope -> discover_scope runs exactly once.
+def test_ready_runs_scope_once(monkeypatch):
+    calls = _spy(monkeypatch)
+    resp = resolve_product_scope(ready_profile())
+    assert resp.status == ScopeStatus.RESOLVED
+    assert resp.regulatory_scope is not None
+    assert calls["n"] == 1
+    applicable = {r.regulation_id for r in resp.regulatory_scope.applicable_regulations}
+    assert "CRA" in applicable and "MaschinenVO" in applicable
+
+
+# 3. the response separates the regulation categories.
+def test_response_separates_categories():
+    scope = resolve_product_scope(ready_profile()).regulatory_scope
+    assert scope is not None
+    # all three buckets exist and only carry known regulation ids
+    for bucket in (scope.applicable_regulations, scope.excluded_regulations, scope.uncertain_regulations):
+        for r in bucket:
+            assert r.regulation_id in _KNOWN_REGS
+    assert scope.uncertain_regulations  # e.g. RED/DataAct/NIS2 with unknown facts
+
+
+# 4. environmental triggers surface ONLY as unsupported_domain, never as law.
+def test_environmental_only_unsupported_domain():
+    profile = ready_profile(
+        environmental=EnvironmentalImpact(discharges_to_wastewater=True, uses_cleaning_chemicals=True)
+    )
+    scope = resolve_product_scope(profile).regulatory_scope
+    assert scope is not None
+    domains = {d.domain for d in scope.unsupported_domains}
+    assert "environment_water" in domains and "chemicals" in domains
+    assert all(d.status == "future_corpus_needed" for d in scope.unsupported_domains)
+    # no environmental "regulation" leaked into the scope verdict
+    all_regs = (
+        scope.applicable_regulations + scope.excluded_regulations + scope.uncertain_regulations
+    )
+    assert all(r.regulation_id in _KNOWN_REGS for r in all_regs)
+
+
+# 5. endpoint smoke — both cases.
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
+def client():
+    from compliance.api.reasoning_routes import router
+
+    app = FastAPI()
+    app.include_router(router)
+    return TestClient(app)
+
+
+def test_endpoint_needs_facts(client):
+    r = client.post("/reasoning/product-scope", json={"product_profile": {"name": "X"}})
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert body["status"] == "needs_facts"
+    assert body["regulatory_scope"] is None
+    assert body["missing_facts"]
+
+
+def test_endpoint_resolved(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/product-scope",
+        json={
+            "product_profile": {
+                "name": "M",
+                "product_type": "machinery",
+                "markets": ["EU"],
+                "economic_operator_role": "manufacturer",
+                "lifecycle_phase": "placing_on_market",
+                "is_machine": True,
+                "is_component": False,
+                "has_software_updates": True,
+                "has_embedded_software": True,
+                "has_remote_access": True,
+                "technologies": ["cloud"],
+            }
+        },
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert body["status"] == "resolved"
+    applicable = {x["regulation_id"] for x in body["regulatory_scope"]["applicable_regulations"]}
+    assert "CRA" in applicable and "MaschinenVO" in applicable

backend-compliance/tests/test_profile_convergence.py

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+"""Tests for the Product Profile convergence layer.
+
+Covers the 10 acceptance criteria of the CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile spec:
+lossless ProductWizard mapping, company-profile prefill, AI stays delegated,
+markets no longer hardcoded, and the new Navigator fields (role/radio/usage-data/
+lifecycle/BOM) plus one-semantic-profile across reasoning + gap.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from compliance.profile import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    ComponentKind,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    ProductComponent,
+    from_company_profile,
+    from_product_wizard,
+    to_gap_profile,
+    to_reasoning_profile,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning import discover_scope
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import ManufacturerRole, ProductLifecyclePhase
+
+# A realistic ProductWizard payload — exactly the gap.ProductProfile JSON shape.
+WIZARD = {
+    "name": "Industriespülmaschine",
+    "description": "vernetzte Spülmaschine",
+    "product_type": "machinery",
+    "technologies": ["cloud", "ota_updates", "sensor", "actuator"],
+    "data_processing": ["telemetry"],
+    "markets": ["EU"],
+    "connected_to_internet": True,
+    "has_software_updates": True,
+    "uses_ai": False,
+    "processes_personal_data": False,
+    "is_critical_infra_supplier": False,
+    "existing_certifications": ["CE"],
+    "applied_norms": ["ISO12100"],
+    "has_risk_assessment": True,
+    "has_technical_file": True,
+    "has_operating_manual": True,
+    "has_sbom": False,
+    "has_vuln_management": False,
+    "has_update_mechanism": True,
+    "has_incident_response": False,
+    "has_supply_chain_mgmt": False,
+    "ce_marking_since": "",
+    "product_age": "5",
+}
+
+COMPANY = {
+    "company_name": "ACME Maschinen GmbH",
+    "industry": "Maschinenbau",
+    "business_model": "B2B",
+    "company_size": "medium",
+    "target_markets": ["DE", "EU"],
+    "primary_jurisdiction": "DE",
+    "headquarters_country": "DE",
+    "uses_ai": False,
+    "is_data_controller": True,
+    "machine_builder": {
+        "productDescription": "Industriespülmaschine",
+        "productTypes": ["special_machine"],
+        "containsSoftware": True,
+        "containsFirmware": True,
+        "containsAI": False,
+        "hasSafetyFunction": True,
+        "safetyFunctionDescription": "Türverriegelung",
+        "isNetworked": True,
+        "hasRemoteAccess": True,
+        "hasOTAUpdates": True,
+        "hasRiskAssessment": True,
+        "criticalSectorClients": False,
+    },
+}
+
+
+# 1. ProductWizard data maps losslessly into the canonical and back to gap shape.
+def test_product_wizard_lossless_roundtrip():
+    canonical = from_product_wizard(WIZARD)
+    assert to_gap_profile(canonical) == WIZARD
+
+
+# 2. company-profile can prefill the canonical profile.
+def test_company_profile_prefill():
+    c = from_company_profile(COMPANY)
+    assert c.sector_industry == "Maschinenbau"
+    assert c.b2b_or_b2c == "B2B"
+    assert c.company_size == "medium"
+    assert "DE" in c.markets and "EU" in c.markets
+    assert c.has_safety_function is True
+    assert c.has_remote_access is True
+    assert c.has_embedded_software is True
+    assert c.is_machine is True
+    assert c.description == "Industriespülmaschine"
+
+
+# 3. AI-Act/ucca stays delegated — only uses_ai is forwarded, no risk classification.
+def test_ai_classification_stays_delegated():
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", uses_ai=True)
+    rp = to_reasoning_profile(c)
+    assert rp.has_ai_functionality is True
+    assert not hasattr(rp, "ai_risk_category")  # no AI classification produced here
+
+
+# 4. markets are a real list, never hardcoded ['EU'].
+def test_markets_not_hardcoded_eu():
+    assert CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X").markets == []
+    c = from_product_wizard({**WIZARD, "markets": ["US", "JP", "CA"]})
+    assert c.markets == ["US", "JP", "CA"]
+    assert to_gap_profile(c)["markets"] == ["US", "JP", "CA"]
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(c).eu_market is False  # non-EU markets -> not EU
+
+
+# 5. economic-operator role exists and maps to the reasoning role.
+def test_economic_operator_role_exists():
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.IMPORTER)
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(c).manufacturer_role == ManufacturerRole.IMPORTER
+
+
+# 6. radio_module exists (direct + inferred from a BOM component).
+def test_radio_module_exists():
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", has_radio_module=True)).has_radio_module is True
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", components=[ProductComponent(name="WLAN", kind=ComponentKind.RADIO_MODULE)])
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(c).has_radio_module is True
+
+
+# 7. generates_usage_data exists (direct + inferred from telemetry).
+def test_generates_usage_data_exists():
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", generates_usage_data=True)
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(c).generates_usage_data is True
+    inferred = from_product_wizard(WIZARD)  # data_processing has telemetry
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(inferred).generates_usage_data is True
+
+
+# 8. lifecycle_phase exists and maps.
+def test_lifecycle_phase_exists():
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X", lifecycle_phase=CanonicalLifecyclePhase.MAINTENANCE)
+    assert to_reasoning_profile(c).lifecycle_phase == ProductLifecyclePhase.MAINTENANCE
+
+
+# 9. BOM components are structured.
+def test_bom_components_structured():
+    c = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(
+        name="Spülmaschine",
+        components=[
+            ProductComponent(name="Umwälzpumpe", kind=ComponentKind.PUMP),
+            ProductComponent(name="Heizung", kind=ComponentKind.HEATING),
+            ProductComponent(name="SPS", kind=ComponentKind.PLC),
+            ProductComponent(name="Abwasserablauf", kind=ComponentKind.WASTEWATER_OUTLET),
+        ],
+    )
+    kinds = {comp.kind for comp in c.components}
+    assert ComponentKind.PLC in kinds and ComponentKind.WASTEWATER_OUTLET in kinds
+
+
+# 10. reasoning engine + gap engine run off ONE semantic profile.
+def test_one_semantic_profile_reasoning_and_gap():
+    canonical = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(
+        name="Industriespülmaschine",
+        product_type=CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY,
+        economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER,
+        markets=["EU", "DE"],
+        is_machine=True,
+        has_safety_function=True,
+        has_remote_access=True,
+        has_software_updates=True,
+        has_embedded_software=True,
+        technologies=["cloud", "ota_updates"],
+    )
+    gap = to_gap_profile(canonical)
+    rp = to_reasoning_profile(canonical)
+
+    # same facts, two projections
+    assert gap["markets"] == ["EU", "DE"]
+    assert rp.eu_market is True
+    assert rp.has_remote_access is True
+    assert rp.has_cloud_connection is True
+    assert rp.is_machine is True
+    assert rp.manufacturer_role == ManufacturerRole.MANUFACTURER
+
+    # the projected reasoning profile actually drives the reasoning engine
+    scope = discover_scope(rp)
+    applicable = {r.regulation_id for r in scope.applicable_regulations}
+    assert "CRA" in applicable
+    assert "MaschinenVO" in applicable

backend-compliance/tests/test_rci.py

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+"""Tests for Regulatory Change Intelligence (RCI).
+
+Acceptance: a simulated RegulatoryChange against a stored ComplianceBaseline can
+answer: (1) does it affect this product? (2) which obligations are new/changed?
+(3) which are likely already covered by existing evidence? (4) what must a human
+review? (5) what is not relevant?
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from compliance.profile.canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+)
+from compliance.rci import (
+    ChangeType,
+    DeltaType,
+    RegulatoryChange,
+    assess_change,
+    create_baseline,
+)
+
+PROFILE = CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(
+    name="Industriespülmaschine",
+    product_type=CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY,
+    markets=["EU", "DE"],
+    economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER,
+    lifecycle_phase=CanonicalLifecyclePhase.PLACING_ON_MARKET,
+    is_machine=True,
+    is_component=False,
+    has_software_updates=True,
+    has_embedded_software=True,
+    has_remote_access=True,
+    technologies=["cloud", "ota_updates"],
+)
+
+# Evidence the customer already has, per obligation.
+EVIDENCE = {"provide_security_updates": ["policy", "ticket"], "sbom_creation": ["sbom"]}
+
+BASELINE = create_baseline(PROFILE, EVIDENCE, baseline_id="b1")
+
+
+def _change(obs, regs=("CRA",), ctype=ChangeType.AMENDMENT, cid="c"):
+    return RegulatoryChange(
+        change_id=cid, affected_regulations=list(regs), affected_obligations=list(obs), change_type=ctype
+    )
+
+
+def _by_id(assessment):
+    return {d.obligation_id: d for d in assessment.deltas}
+
+
+# Baseline snapshots the registry-linked obligations from the frozen map.
+def test_baseline_snapshots_registry_obligations():
+    assert "sbom_creation" in BASELINE.applicable_obligations
+    assert "provide_security_updates" in BASELINE.applicable_obligations
+    assert BASELINE.regulatory_map_snapshot.scope_resolved is True
+
+
+# 1 + 2. affects the product + flags a NEW obligation.
+def test_affects_product_and_new_obligation():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["cra_new_requirement_xyz"], cid="c1"))
+    assert a.affects_product is True
+    assert _by_id(a)["cra_new_requirement_xyz"].delta_type == DeltaType.NEW
+
+
+# 2. an existing obligation amended -> CHANGED.
+def test_existing_obligation_changed():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["sbom_creation"], cid="c2"))
+    assert _by_id(a)["sbom_creation"].delta_type == DeltaType.CHANGED
+
+
+# 3. existing obligation with evidence + guidance update -> ALREADY_COVERED.
+def test_already_covered_by_evidence():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["provide_security_updates"], ctype=ChangeType.GUIDANCE_UPDATE, cid="c3"))
+    assert _by_id(a)["provide_security_updates"].delta_type == DeltaType.ALREADY_COVERED
+    assert a.summary.already_covered == ["provide_security_updates"]
+
+
+# 4. what a human must review (existing obligation without evidence).
+def test_needs_review():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["vuln_handling_process"], ctype=ChangeType.GUIDANCE_UPDATE, cid="c4"))
+    assert _by_id(a)["vuln_handling_process"].delta_type == DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW
+    assert "vuln_handling_process" in a.summary.needs_review
+    assert "vuln_handling_process" in a.summary.what_matters_for_this_product
+
+
+# 5. a change to a regulation NOT in the map -> not relevant.
+def test_not_relevant_offmap_regulation():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["psd2_strong_customer_auth"], regs=["PSD2"], ctype=ChangeType.NEW_REGULATION, cid="c5"))
+    assert a.affects_product is False
+    assert _by_id(a)["psd2_strong_customer_auth"].delta_type == DeltaType.NOT_APPLICABLE
+    assert a.summary.not_relevant == ["psd2_strong_customer_auth"]
+
+
+# repeal removes an existing obligation.
+def test_repeal_removes_existing():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["sbom_creation"], ctype=ChangeType.REPEAL, cid="c6"))
+    assert _by_id(a)["sbom_creation"].delta_type == DeltaType.REMOVED
+
+
+# missing evidence is computed against the obligation's required evidence.
+def test_missing_evidence_on_changed():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["sbom_creation"], cid="c7"))  # requires sbom+repo_scan, has sbom
+    d = _by_id(a)["sbom_creation"]
+    assert "sbom" in d.affected_evidence
+    assert "repo_scan" in d.missing_evidence
+
+
+# a change to an UNCERTAIN regulation -> needs review (resolve applicability first).
+def test_uncertain_regulation_needs_review():
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, _change(["red_cyber_req"], regs=["RED"], cid="c8"))
+    assert a.affects_product is True  # RED is in the map's uncertain bucket
+    assert _by_id(a)["red_cyber_req"].delta_type == DeltaType.NEEDS_REVIEW
+
+
+# RCI answers "vs my map", not "what does the law say" — and works only on the snapshot.
+def test_works_against_stored_map_no_reevaluation():
+    # a change with no affected_obligations still resolves affects_product from the map
+    a = assess_change(BASELINE, RegulatoryChange(change_id="c9", affected_regulations=["CRA"], affected_obligations=[], change_type=ChangeType.AMENDMENT))
+    assert a.affects_product is True
+    assert a.deltas == []
+
+
+# delta_type is a THIRD vocabulary, disjoint from ClaimCoverage (Welt 1).
+def test_delta_vocabulary_distinct_from_claimcoverage():
+    from compliance.reasoning.enums import ClaimCoverage
+
+    assert {d.value for d in DeltaType}.isdisjoint({c.value for c in ClaimCoverage})
+
+
+# the management summary aggregates the five buckets coherently.
+def test_summary_buckets():
+    a = assess_change(
+        BASELINE,
+        RegulatoryChange(
+            change_id="c10",
+            affected_regulations=["CRA"],
+            affected_obligations=["cra_new_one", "sbom_creation", "provide_security_updates"],
+            change_type=ChangeType.AMENDMENT,
+        ),
+    )
+    s = a.summary
+    assert "cra_new_one" in s.what_matters_for_this_product  # NEW
+    assert "sbom_creation" in s.needs_review  # CHANGED -> review
+    assert s.what_changed  # non-empty management line

backend-compliance/tests/test_reasoning_engine.py

@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+"""Tests for the Regulatory Reasoning Engine.
+
+Covers the five typical machine-builder scenarios and the ten acceptance
+questions from the build spec (§15). Engine tests are pure (no DB); the
+endpoint smoke tests mount only the reasoning router.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from datetime import date
+
+import pytest
+from fastapi import FastAPI
+from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
+
+from compliance.reasoning import (
+    assess_interpretation,
+    derive_obligations,
+    discover_scope,
+    normalize_claim,
+    reason_implementation_claim,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import (
+    ApplicabilityStatus,
+    ClaimCoverage,
+    InterpretationVerdict,
+)
+from compliance.reasoning.schemas import ProductProfile
+from compliance.reasoning.enums import ManufacturerRole
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Fixtures / builders
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def sps_profile(**overrides) -> ProductProfile:
+    base = dict(
+        product_name="SPS mit HMI",
+        product_type=["SPS", "HMI", "Schaltschrank"],
+        has_software=True,
+        has_remote_access=True,
+        has_cloud_connection=True,
+        eu_market=True,
+        manufacturer_role=ManufacturerRole.MANUFACTURER,
+    )
+    base.update(overrides)
+    return ProductProfile(**base)
+
+
+def _reg_ids(scope, attr):
+    return [getattr(r, "regulation_id") for r in getattr(scope, attr)]
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 1. Gilt CRA für eine SPS mit Fernwartung?
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_cra_applies_to_sps_with_remote_access():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile())
+    cra = [r for r in scope.applicable_regulations if r.regulation_id == "CRA"]
+    assert cra and cra[0].applicability_status == ApplicabilityStatus.APPLICABLE
+    assert cra[0].confidence.value == "high"
+    assert any("digitale Elemente" in f or "Fernzugriff" in f for f in cra[0].trigger_facts) or cra[0].trigger_facts
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 2. Katalogprodukt 2027 weiter verkauft -> CRA gilt; "nur neue Produkte" zu eng
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_cra_applies_to_finished_catalog_product():
+    profile = sps_profile(placed_on_market_after=date(2027, 1, 1), lifecycle_phase="placing_on_market")
+    scope = discover_scope(profile)
+    assert "CRA" in _reg_ids(scope, "applicable_regulations")
+
+
+def test_interpretation_only_new_products_is_too_narrow():
+    result = assess_interpretation("Wir glauben, der CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte.")
+    assert result.assessment == InterpretationVerdict.TOO_NARROW
+    assert "CRA" in result.affected_regulations
+    assert result.corrected_interpretation
+    assert result.legal_basis_refs
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 3. Reicht eine SBOM allein? -> nein, nur teilweise
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_sbom_alone_is_not_enough():
+    resp = reason_implementation_claim(sps_profile(), "Wir haben SBOMs.")
+    sbom = [m for m in resp.mappings if m.obligation_id == "sbom_creation"]
+    assert sbom and sbom[0].claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES
+    # but other obligations are surfaced as gaps -> claim does not address everything
+    assert any(m.claim_coverage != ClaimCoverage.POTENTIALLY_ADDRESSES for m in resp.mappings)
+    assert "Nachweise" in resp.summary
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 4. Ist ein reaktiver Updateprozess ausreichend? -> nur teilweise
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_reactive_update_process_is_partial():
+    resp = reason_implementation_claim(
+        sps_profile(), "Wir machen Updates, wenn Kunden Fehler melden."
+    )
+    upd = [m for m in resp.mappings if m.obligation_id == "provide_security_updates"]
+    assert upd and upd[0].claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.PARTIALLY_ADDRESSES
+    assert "reactive" in resp.claim.qualifiers
+    assert any("Schwachstellenüberwachung" in e for e in upd[0].missing_elements)
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 5. Wann überschneiden sich CRA und MaschinenVO?
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_cra_and_machinery_overlap_on_cyber_safety():
+    profile = sps_profile(is_machine=True, has_safety_function=True)
+    resp = derive_obligations(profile)
+    ids = [o.obligation_id for o in resp.applicable_obligations]
+    assert "machine_protection_against_corruption" in ids
+    assert "vuln_handling_process" in ids
+    vuln_overlap = [o for o in resp.overlaps if o.overlap_group_id == "VULNERABILITY_HANDLING"]
+    assert vuln_overlap
+    assert "machine_protection_against_corruption" in vuln_overlap[0].obligations
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 6. Wann ist Data Act zusätzlich relevant?
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_data_act_relevant_when_product_generates_data():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile(generates_usage_data=True))
+    assert "DataAct" in _reg_ids(scope, "applicable_regulations")
+    obs = derive_obligations(sps_profile(generates_usage_data=True))
+    assert any(o.source_regulation == "DataAct" for o in obs.applicable_obligations)
+
+
+def test_data_act_uncertain_when_data_unknown():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile())  # generates_usage_data=None
+    assert "DataAct" in _reg_ids(scope, "uncertain_regulations")
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 7. Welche Pflichten gelten nicht ohne Funkmodul?
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_no_radio_module_excludes_red():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile(has_radio_module=False))
+    assert "RED" in _reg_ids(scope, "excluded_regulations")
+    assert "RED" not in _reg_ids(scope, "applicable_regulations")
+
+
+def test_radio_unknown_makes_red_uncertain():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile())  # has_radio_module=None
+    assert "RED" in _reg_ids(scope, "uncertain_regulations")
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 8. Welche Fakten fehlen für eine NIS2-Bewertung?
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_nis2_missing_facts():
+    scope = discover_scope(sps_profile())
+    nis2 = [r for r in scope.uncertain_regulations if r.regulation_id == "NIS2"]
+    assert nis2
+    joined = " ".join(nis2[0].missing_facts).lower()
+    assert "unternehmensgröße" in joined and "sektor" in joined
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 9. Welche Nachweise decken mehrere Pflichten gleichzeitig? (USP)
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_evidence_covers_multiple_obligations():
+    resp = derive_obligations(sps_profile())
+    multi = resp.evidence_for_multiple
+    assert multi  # at least one evidence type spans >1 obligation
+    assert all(len(ids) > 1 for ids in multi.values())
+    assert "policy" in multi  # the CRA process docs share a policy evidence
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# 10. Auslegungen: zu eng / zu weit / plausibel / unbekannt
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_interpretation_unknown_returns_uncertain():
+    result = assess_interpretation("Der Mond beeinflusst unsere Updatezyklen.")
+    assert result.assessment == InterpretationVerdict.UNCERTAIN
+    assert result.corrected_interpretation
+
+
+def test_interpretation_open_source_partially_correct():
+    result = assess_interpretation("Open Source ist ausgenommen, also betrifft uns der CRA nicht.")
+    assert result.assessment == InterpretationVerdict.PARTIALLY_CORRECT
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Registry-alignment + contract guards
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+def test_cra_obligations_reuse_registry_ids_not_minted():
+    resp = derive_obligations(sps_profile())
+    anchored = [o for o in resp.applicable_obligations if o.registry_anchor]
+    assert "sbom_creation" in [o.obligation_id for o in anchored]
+    assert "provide_security_updates" in [o.obligation_id for o in anchored]
+    # machine obligations are proposed, never claimed as registry-owned
+    machine = [o for o in resp.applicable_obligations if o.source_regulation == "MaschinenVO"]
+    assert all(o.proposed and not o.registry_anchor for o in machine)
+
+
+def test_required_evidence_only_uses_shared_catalog():
+    from compliance.reasoning.rules_types import EVIDENCE_CATALOG
+    from compliance.reasoning.rules_obligations import ALL_OBLIGATIONS
+
+    for rule in ALL_OBLIGATIONS:
+        assert set(rule.required_evidence) <= EVIDENCE_CATALOG
+
+
+def test_claim_normalizer_is_deterministic():
+    a = normalize_claim("Wir haben einen Update-Prozess.")
+    b = normalize_claim("Wir haben einen Update-Prozess.")
+    assert a.claim_id == b.claim_id
+    assert "secure_updates" in a.claimed_capability
+
+
+def test_unspecific_claim_asks_for_detail():
+    resp = reason_implementation_claim(sps_profile(), "Wir sind sicher aufgestellt.")
+    assert resp.mappings == [] or all(
+        m.claim_coverage == ClaimCoverage.INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION for m in resp.mappings
+    )
+    assert "unspezifisch" in resp.summary.lower()
+
+
+def test_claim_reasoning_carries_no_compliance_verdict():
+    """Welt-1 boundary: claim mapping must never read as a conformity verdict."""
+    resp = reason_implementation_claim(
+        sps_profile(), "Wir haben SBOMs und einen Update-Prozess."
+    )
+    # claim-relative vocabulary only
+    for m in resp.mappings:
+        assert m.claim_coverage in set(ClaimCoverage)
+    # no compliance wording leaks into summary or explanations
+    assert "erfüllt" not in resp.summary
+    assert all("erfüllt" not in m.explanation for m in resp.mappings)
+    # explicit disclaimer separating ClaimCoverage (Welt 1) from ComplianceStatus (Welt 2)
+    assert resp.disclaimer
+    assert "ComplianceStatus" in resp.disclaimer and "Nachweis" in resp.disclaimer
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Endpoint smoke tests
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
+def client():
+    from compliance.api.reasoning_routes import router
+
+    app = FastAPI()
+    app.include_router(router)
+    return TestClient(app)
+
+
+def test_endpoint_scope(client):
+    r = client.post("/reasoning/scope", json={"product_profile": {"product_name": "X", "has_software": True, "eu_market": True, "manufacturer_role": "manufacturer"}})
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert "CRA" in [x["regulation_id"] for x in body["regulatory_scope"]["applicable_regulations"]]
+
+
+def test_endpoint_obligations(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/obligations",
+        json={"product_profile": {"product_name": "X", "has_software": True, "has_remote_access": True, "eu_market": True, "manufacturer_role": "manufacturer"}},
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    assert r.json()["applicable_obligations"]
+
+
+def test_endpoint_implementation(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/implementation-reasoning",
+        json={"product_profile": {"product_name": "X", "has_software": True, "eu_market": True, "manufacturer_role": "manufacturer"}, "customer_claim": "Wir haben SBOMs."},
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert body["mappings"]
+    assert body["disclaimer"]
+
+
+def test_endpoint_interpretation(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/interpretation-assessment",
+        json={"customer_interpretation": "CRA gilt nur für neue Produkte."},
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    assert r.json()["assessment"] == "too_narrow"

backend-compliance/tests/test_regulatory_map.py

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+"""Tests for the Regulatory Map renderer (step 4).
+
+Acceptance: the renderer makes no own legal decisions (it composes the scope +
+registry-linked obligations); CRA/MaschVO/EMV are separate; RED/DataAct/NIS2 are
+uncertain; environmental is unsupported (not applicable); obligations appear only
+when registry-linkable; the executive summary has no percentage.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import pytest
+from fastapi import FastAPI
+from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
+
+from compliance.product_scope import resolve_product_scope
+from compliance.profile.canonical import (
+    CanonicalLifecyclePhase,
+    CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile,
+    CanonicalProductType,
+    EconomicOperatorRole,
+    EnvironmentalImpact,
+)
+from compliance.regulatory_map import render_regulatory_map
+
+_PROPOSED_IDS = {
+    "machine_risk_assessment", "machine_safety_control_systems", "machine_protection_against_corruption",
+    "machine_instructions_for_use", "machine_ce_conformity", "data_act_data_access_by_design",
+    "data_act_user_data_access", "cra_secure_by_design", "cra_risk_assessment",
+    "cra_technical_documentation", "cra_ce_conformity_assessment", "cra_instructions_for_use",
+}
+
+
+def ready_profile(**ov) -> CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile:
+    base = dict(
+        name="Industriespülmaschine",
+        product_type=CanonicalProductType.MACHINERY,
+        markets=["EU", "DE"],
+        economic_operator_role=EconomicOperatorRole.MANUFACTURER,
+        lifecycle_phase=CanonicalLifecyclePhase.PLACING_ON_MARKET,
+        is_machine=True,
+        is_component=False,
+        has_software_updates=True,
+        has_embedded_software=True,
+        has_remote_access=True,
+        technologies=["cloud", "ota_updates"],
+    )
+    base.update(ov)
+    return CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(**base)
+
+
+# 1. renderer makes no own decisions — it mirrors the scope verdict exactly.
+def test_no_own_legal_decisions():
+    p = ready_profile()
+    m = render_regulatory_map(p)
+    scope = resolve_product_scope(p).regulatory_scope
+    assert {v.regulation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations} == {
+        r.regulation_id for r in scope.applicable_regulations
+    }
+    assert {v.regulation_id for v in m.uncertain_regulations} == {
+        r.regulation_id for r in scope.uncertain_regulations
+    }
+
+
+# 2/3/5. CRA/MaschVO/EMV separate applicable; RED/DataAct/NIS2 uncertain.
+def test_regulation_separation():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(ready_profile())
+    applicable = {v.regulation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations}
+    uncertain = {v.regulation_id for v in m.uncertain_regulations}
+    assert {"CRA", "MaschinenVO", "EMV"} <= applicable
+    assert {"RED", "DataAct", "NIS2"} <= uncertain
+
+
+# 4. environmental triggers surface as unsupported_domain, never applicable.
+def test_environmental_unsupported_not_applicable():
+    p = ready_profile(environmental=EnvironmentalImpact(discharges_to_wastewater=True, uses_cleaning_chemicals=True))
+    m = render_regulatory_map(p)
+    domains = {d.domain for d in m.unsupported_domains}
+    assert "environment_water" in domains and "chemicals" in domains
+    assert all(v.regulation_id in {"CRA", "MaschinenVO", "RED", "DataAct", "EMV", "NIS2"} for v in m.applicable_regulations)
+
+
+# 6. obligations are shown only when a registry id is linkable.
+def test_obligations_only_registry_linkable():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(ready_profile())
+    shown = {o.obligation_id for v in m.applicable_regulations for o in v.obligations}
+    assert shown  # CRA registry obligations are shown
+    assert "sbom_creation" in shown
+    assert not (shown & _PROPOSED_IDS)  # no proposed (non-registry) obligation leaks in
+    # MaschinenVO is applicable but its obligations are proposed -> empty + note
+    machvo = next(v for v in m.applicable_regulations if v.regulation_id == "MaschinenVO")
+    assert machvo.obligations == []
+    assert machvo.obligations_note
+
+
+# 7. executive summary contains no percentage.
+def test_executive_summary_no_percent():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(ready_profile())
+    assert "%" not in m.executive_summary
+    assert "prozent" not in m.executive_summary.lower()
+
+
+# 8. output is customer-readable and structured.
+def test_customer_readable():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(ready_profile())
+    assert m.product_summary
+    assert "wahrscheinlich" in m.executive_summary
+    assert "Unsicher" in m.executive_summary
+    assert m.trigger_facts
+
+
+# needs-facts profile -> map says scope not yet resolved.
+def test_needs_facts_map():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile(name="X"))
+    assert m.scope_resolved is False
+    assert "Mindestfakten" in m.executive_summary
+    assert m.applicable_regulations == []
+
+
+# uncertain RED links to the radio navigator question.
+def test_uncertain_links_to_navigator_question():
+    m = render_regulatory_map(ready_profile())
+    red = next(v for v in m.uncertain_regulations if v.regulation_id == "RED")
+    assert "has_radio_module" in red.question_refs
+
+
+# endpoint smoke.
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
+def client():
+    from compliance.api.reasoning_routes import router
+
+    app = FastAPI()
+    app.include_router(router)
+    return TestClient(app)
+
+
+def test_endpoint_regulatory_map(client):
+    r = client.post(
+        "/reasoning/regulatory-map",
+        json={
+            "product_profile": {
+                "name": "M",
+                "product_type": "machinery",
+                "markets": ["EU"],
+                "economic_operator_role": "manufacturer",
+                "lifecycle_phase": "placing_on_market",
+                "is_machine": True,
+                "is_component": False,
+                "has_software_updates": True,
+                "has_embedded_software": True,
+                "has_remote_access": True,
+                "technologies": ["cloud"],
+            }
+        },
+    )
+    assert r.status_code == 200
+    body = r.json()
+    assert body["scope_resolved"] is True
+    assert {v["regulation_id"] for v in body["applicable_regulations"]} >= {"CRA", "MaschinenVO"}
+    assert "%" not in body["executive_summary"]

docs-src/development/capability_model_v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+# Capability Model v1 — Objektarten & Beziehungstypen (Schema-Papier, NICHT materialisiert)
+
+Status: **OFFEN / Entscheidung erforderlich (2026-06-26).** Dies ist Schritt **#5a** (Papier).
+Schritt **#5b** (Materialisierung: `capabilities.json`, Migration, Obligation→Capability-Links,
+Guidance-Mapping, Runtime) ist **GEGATED** auf die Annahme dieses Papiers. **Es wurde noch keine
+Zeile Daten verschoben.**
+
+Baut auf [legal_obligation_layer_v1.md](legal_obligation_layer_v1.md),
+[obligation_registry_v1.md](obligation_registry_v1.md) und dem Cross-Domain-Review
+(`obligations/cross_domain_relationships.json`, Commit `ed31fdc0`).
+
+---
+
+## 0. Warum ein Papier statt `capabilities.json`
+
+Die Plattform hat drei empirische Architektur-Sprünge gemacht:
+1. **Control ≠ Wissensobjekt** → Legal Obligation (sofort implementiert, datenbestätigt).
+2. **Procedure ist eigenständig** (implementiert: `cra_procedures.json`).
+3. **Capabilities tauchen domänenübergreifend wieder auf** (Cross-Domain-Review).
+
+(1) und (2) waren breit datenbelegt → sofort umgesetzt. Bei (3) ist die **Objektart selbst noch
+nicht definiert.** Wir wissen NICHT genau, was eine Capability ist. Materialisieren wir jetzt,
+riskieren wir, in drei Wochen festzustellen: „Attack Surface war gar keine Capability" → Umbau.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Der Auslöser: die 8 „Capabilities" sind NICHT eine Objektart
+
+Der Cross-Domain-Review fand 16 `SHARED_CAPABILITY`-Paare → 8 Cluster. Bei Inspektion zerfallen
+sie in **zwei verschiedene Objektarten**:
+
+| Cluster (Opus-Benennung) | Art | Begründung |
+|---|---|---|
+| `mfa` | **Capability** | implementierbar als Funktion |
+| `session_management` | **Capability** | implementierbar |
+| `transport_encryption` (tls/mutual_tls/cert) | **Capability** | implementierbar (vom Klassifikator fein gesplittet → 1 Capability) |
+| `code_signing` | **Capability** | implementierbar |
+| `anomaly_detection` | **Capability** | implementierbar |
+| `access_control` | **Ziel** (schwach) | abstraktes Ziel, kein Baustein — eher OVERLAP (siehe Konsolidierung) |
+
+Dazu die **zwei Gap-„Obligations" aus Handoff #4** (NIST SI-7/CM-7 waren breiter als jeder
+einzelne Treffer):
+
+| Kandidat | Art | Begründung |
+|---|---|---|
+| `software_integrity_protection` (SI-7) | **Sicherheitsziel** | wird NICHT direkt gebaut; erreicht durch code_signing + hash_verification + secure_boot |
+| `attack_surface_minimization` (CM-7) | **Sicherheitsziel** | erreicht durch least_functionality + Port-Deaktivierung + Interface-Reduktion |
+
+**Kernbeobachtung (User):** Es gibt **Typ 1 — technische Fähigkeiten** (implementierbar) und
+**Typ 2 — Sicherheitsziele** (nicht direkt implementierbar, durch mehrere Capabilities erreicht).
+Sie in eine `capabilities.json` zu werfen wäre der Fehler.
+
+```
+Integrity Protection (Ziel)            Access Protection (Ziel)
+   ↑ erreicht durch                       ↑ erreicht durch
+code_signing · hash_verification ·     mfa · session_management ·
+secure_boot (Capabilities)             credential_storage (Capabilities)
+```
+
+Das erklärt rückwirkend auch das **systematische Synth-Über-Tiering** (Auth 14→6, Remote 14→5):
+das LLM mischte ziel-nahe Obligations mit fähigkeits-nahen Mechanismen, weil die Modellsprache
+die Ebenen nicht trennte.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Kandidat-Objektarten
+
+| Objektart | Definition | Diskriminator-Test |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Regulation** | Rechtsakt (CRA, NIS2, DSGVO, MaschVO) | „Ist es ein Gesetz/VO?" |
+| **Legal Obligation** | rechtlich verankerte Pflicht. **CORE** (abstrakt, oft = Sicherheitsziel) ⊇ **DOMAIN** (spezialisiert) — die CORE/DOMAIN-Achse existiert bereits (portability). | „Steht das so (sinngemäß) im Recht? Kann ein Prüfer FEHLT/ERFÜLLT sagen?" |
+| **Capability** *(NEU)* | implementierbare, **regulierungs-agnostische** technische Funktion, als Einheit baubar & testbar | „Kann ein Hersteller GENAU DAS bauen/konfigurieren?" → ja |
+| **Procedure** | wiederholbarer operativer Prozess, der eine Capability ausbringt/erhält (bereits modelliert) | „Ist es eine Tätigkeit/ein Ablauf?" |
+| **Control** | testbare Prüfanweisung | „Kann man es prüfen (pass/fail)?" |
+| **Evidence** | Nachweis-Artefakt (Audit-Log, SBOM, Release Notes) | „Ist es ein Beleg-Dokument/Datum?" |
+| **Guidance** *(quer)* | externe Empfehlung WIE (NIST/OWASP/ENISA/BSI). **Nicht-bindend.** | „Beschreibt es eine empfohlene Umsetzung, kein Primärrecht?" |
+
+---
+
+## 3. DER ZENTRALE KNACKPUNKT: Ist „Security Objective" eine eigene Klasse?
+
+### Modell A — flach (Objektive = Obligations)
+```
+Regulation → Legal Obligation → Capability → Procedure → Control → Evidence
+```
+Sicherheitsziele sind einfach **CORE Legal Obligations**; domänen-scoped Pflichten sind DOMAIN-
+Obligations, die per `specializes` an die CORE hängen.
+
+### Modell B — mit eigener Security-Objective-Klasse
+```
+Regulation → Legal Obligation → Security Objective → Capability → Procedure → Control → Evidence
+```
+
+### Modell C — hybrid (Capability als einzige neue Klasse) ← **EMPFEHLUNG**
+```
+Regulation → Legal Obligation (CORE ⊇ DOMAIN) --realized_by--> Capability → Procedure → Control → Evidence
+                                   ▲                                  ▲
+                                   └── specializes (DOMAIN→CORE)      └── described_by ── Guidance (NIST/OWASP/…)
+```
+
+**Empfehlung: Modell C.** Begründung aus den Daten:
+- Die „Sicherheitsziele" (`software_integrity_protection`, `attack_surface_minimization`, CIA,
+  access-protection) **SIND im CRA bindende Pflichten** (Annex I (2)(a–m) ist Primärrecht). Ein
+  Sicherheitsziel ist also eine **CORE Legal Obligation**, kein neuer Objekttyp.
+- Die **CORE/DOMAIN-Achse existiert schon** (portability_core ⊇ health/data_act). `attack_surface_
+  minimization` (CORE) ⊇ `remote_access_attack_surface_min` (DOMAIN) ist exakt dasselbe Muster.
+  → keine neue Klasse, nur konsequente Nutzung des Vorhandenen.
+- **Genau EINE** wirklich neue Klasse (**Capability**) ist sparsam und niedrig-risiko.
+- Modell B verdoppelt die normative Ebene (Obligation vs Objective), die im CRA 1:1 zusammenfällt
+  → Klasse, die niemand sauber befüllt.
+
+**Konsequenz für die #4-Gap:** `software_integrity_protection` + `attack_surface_minimization`
+werden als **CORE Legal Obligations** angelegt (nicht als Capabilities), und die domänen-scoped
+Treffer (`signed_update_integrity`, `remote_access_attack_surface_min`) `specializes` → CORE.
+NIST SI-7/CM-7 mappen dann `primary_implementation` auf die CORE.
+
+**Offen für den User:** Modell C akzeptieren? Oder ist die regulierungs-AGNOSTISCHE Vereinheitlichung
+(eine „confidentiality" über CRA+NIS2+ISO) so wertvoll, dass „Security Objective" doch eine eigene
+Klasse verdient (Modell B)? Das ist die einzige wirklich offene Architekturentscheidung.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Beziehungstypen — das Modell ist ein GRAPH, keine flache Ebene
+
+Der Review fand **vier distinkte Cross-Domain-Strukturrelationen** (nicht eine):
+`SUPPORTED_BY` 23 · `SHARED_CAPABILITY` 16 · `SHARED_EVIDENCE` 7 · `SHARED_PROCEDURE` 5 (+ 1 Merge).
+Das ist kein Baum. Vorgeschlagenes gerichtetes Kanten-Vokabular:
+
+| Kante | von → nach | aus Review-Relation |
+|---|---|---|
+| `specializes` | DOMAIN-Obligation → CORE-Obligation | (SUPPORTED_BY, Spezialfall) |
+| `contributes_to` | Obligation → Obligation | (SUPPORTED_BY, Beitrag) |
+| `realized_by` | Obligation → Capability | (SHARED_CAPABILITY ⇒ 2 Obl. teilen 1 Capability) |
+| `deployed_via` | Capability → Procedure | (SHARED_PROCEDURE) |
+| `verified_by` | Procedure/Capability → Control | — |
+| `produces` | Procedure → Evidence | (SHARED_EVIDENCE ⇒ 2 Obl. teilen 1 Nachweis) |
+| `described_by` | Capability → Guidance | (guidance_basis) |
+| `same_as` | Obligation ↔ Obligation | (SAME_OBLIGATION, Merge) |
+
+`SHARED_CAPABILITY`/`SHARED_EVIDENCE`/`SHARED_PROCEDURE` sind also **keine Obligation-Obligation-
+Kanten**, sondern Belege, dass zwei Obligations **denselben Knoten einer tieferen Ebene** teilen
+(Capability / Evidence / Procedure). Genau das ist der Mehrwert gegenüber „sieht ähnlich aus".
+
+---
+
+## 5. Die 8 offenen Fragen (Antwort + Tradeoff)
+
+1. **Was ist eine Capability?** Eine implementierbare, regulierungs-agnostische technische Funktion,
+   als Einheit baubar/konfigurierbar/testbar (MFA, TLS, Code Signing, Session-Mgmt, Anomaly-Detection).
+2. **Unterschied zur Obligation?** Obligation = rechtliche Pflicht (WAS das Recht verlangt, regulierungs-
+   verankert, normativ). Capability = technisches Mittel (WIE man sie erfüllt, agnostisch). n:m.
+3. **Unterschied zum Security Objective?** Ziel = erwünschter Sicherheitszustand (CIA, attack-surface-min);
+   Capability = Mittel dorthin. **Empfehlung (Modell C):** das Ziel ist eine CORE Obligation, kein
+   eigener Typ → Unterschied reduziert sich auf Obligation(abstrakt) vs Capability(Mittel).
+4. **Wann Guidance?** Wenn es eine **nicht-bindende externe Empfehlung zur Umsetzung** ist (NIST AC-12,
+   OWASP ASVS V6). Hängt an der **Capability** (meist) bzw. Procedure — NIE als `legal_basis` einer
+   LEGAL_MINIMUM-Obligation (Primärrecht-Regel bleibt).
+5. **Wann Procedure?** Wenn es ein **wiederholbarer operativer Ablauf** ist, der eine Capability
+   ausbringt/erhält (MFA konfigurieren, Schlüssel rotieren, Patch-Zyklus fahren).
+6. **Capability → mehrere Obligations?** **JA, belegt:** `mfa` erfüllt 6 Obligations (auth+remote),
+   `code_signing` 2 (auth+updates). n:m.
+7. **Obligation → mehrere Capabilities?** **JA, belegt:** access-protection ← mfa + session_management
+   + credential_storage. n:m.
+8. **Wo hängen NIST/OWASP/ENISA/BSI?** Primär an der **Capability** (sie beschreiben deren Umsetzung),
+   teils an Procedure. **Das erklärt, warum die über-getierten BP-Obligations `guidance_basis` trugen:
+   sie waren in Wahrheit Capabilities.** Sauberer Sitz von `guidance_basis` = Capability.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Worked Examples (4 Domänen, echte IDs)
+
+**Authentication** — `user_authentication_required` (Obl, CORE: access-protection)
+`--realized_by-->` { `mfa`, `session_management`, `credential_storage` } (Capabilities)
+`--described_by-->` NIST IA-2 / OWASP ASVS V6 (Guidance).
+
+**Updates** — `provide_security_updates` (Obl, LEGAL_MINIMUM) `--realized_by-->`
+{ `code_signing` (= signed_update_integrity-Capability), `automatic_update_delivery`, `rollback` }
+— exakt die `capability_candidate`-Marker aus `cra_updates.json`.
+
+**Remote Access** — CORE `attack_surface_minimization` (NEU, = CM-7-Ziel) `⊇ specializes ⊇`
+`remote_access_attack_surface_min` (DOMAIN) `--realized_by-->` { `least_functionality`, `port_disabling` }.
+
+**SBOM** — Sonderfall: die SBOM-Familie ist im Cross-Review der **Evidence-/Procedure-Input** für
+`vuln_identification_inventory` (5× SUPPORTED_BY-Hub), weniger Capability. → bestätigt, dass nicht
+jede Domäne primär Capabilities beisteuert; manche liefern **Evidence**. Stützt den Graph-Charakter.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Entscheidung, die ich vom User brauche (vor #5b)
+
+1. **Modell C** (Capability = einzige neue Klasse; Sicherheitsziele = CORE-Obligations) — akzeptiert?
+   Oder Modell B (Security Objective als eigene Klasse für regulierungs-agnostische Vereinheitlichung)?
+2. **Kanten-Vokabular** aus §4 — so einfrieren?
+3. **`guidance_basis` wandert konzeptionell an die Capability** — einverstanden? (Bricht nichts sofort;
+   die Obligations behalten den Verweis bis #5b.)
+4. Erst danach **#5b**: `capabilities.json` (capability_id, fulfills_obligations[] via `realized_by`,
+   guidance_basis hochgezogen), die 2 CORE-Gap-Obligations, der Merge (`vuln_remediation_patching` ≈
+   `provide_security_updates`), und die 2 Remote-Grenzfälle final tiern.
+
+## 8. Bewusst NICHT in #5a (gegated)
+
+Keine `capabilities.json`, keine Migration, kein Obligation-Rewrite, kein Guidance-Move, kein Runtime.
+Erst Modell-Annahme, dann Daten. „Erst das Schema, dann verschieben."

docs-src/development/compliance_meta_model_v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+# Compliance Operating System — Meta Model v1.0 (FROZEN)
+
+> **STATUS: EINGEFROREN (2026-06-26). ARCHITEKTUR-FREEZE IN KRAFT.**
+> Ab v1.0 dürfen neue Regulierungen das Modell **nicht mehr verändern** — sie müssen sich
+> **einfügen**. Das Modell wird nur wieder geöffnet, wenn eine Regulierung **nachweislich
+> scheitert** (eine Anforderung lässt sich ohne neue Objektklasse nicht abbilden).
+> Validiert gegen 5 Regulierungsarten: DSGVO · CRA · MaschVO · Data Act · NIS2.
+
+Konsolidiert + friert ein: [legal_obligation_layer_v1.md](legal_obligation_layer_v1.md),
+[capability_model_v1.md](capability_model_v1.md) (Modell C), [meta_model_validation_v1.md](meta_model_validation_v1.md).
+Was hier eingefroren wird, ist **ausschließlich die Meta-Semantik** — NICHT die Registry, NICHT die
+Capabilities-Liste, NICHT die Procedures (diese wachsen als Daten weiter).
+
+## 1. Objektklassen (6 + Guidance) — eingefroren
+
+| Klasse | Was | Regulierungs-Bindung |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Regulation** | Rechtsakt | — |
+| **Legal Obligation** | rechtlich verankerte Pflicht; **CORE ⊇ DOMAIN** | regulierungs-anchored |
+| **Capability** | implementierbare technische Faehigkeit (OPTIONAL für eine Obligation) | **agnostisch** (n:m über Regulierungen) |
+| **Procedure** | wiederholbarer operativer Prozess | agnostisch |
+| **Control** | testbare Prüfanweisung | agnostisch |
+| **Evidence** | Nachweis-Artefakt | agnostisch |
+| **Guidance** *(quer)* | externe nicht-bindende Empfehlung (NIST/OWASP/ISO/BSI) — hängt an der **Capability** | agnostisch |
+
+## 2. Die Kette + kanonisches Kanten-Vokabular — eingefroren
+
+```
+Regulation
+   ↓ definiert
+Legal Obligation  (CORE ⊇ DOMAIN)
+   ↓ realized_by      (OPTIONAL — rein prozessuale/dokumentarische Obligations überspringen Capability)
+Capability
+   ↓ deployed_via     (alias: operationalized_by)
+Procedure
+   ↓ verified_by
+Control
+   ↓ produces         (alias: produces_evidence_for)
+Evidence
+   → Produktstatus
+```
+
+Kanten (gerichtet, eingefroren):
+`specializes` (DOMAIN→CORE) · `realized_by` (Obligation→Capability) · `deployed_via` (Capability→Procedure) ·
+`verified_by` (Procedure/Capability→Control) · `produces` (Procedure→Evidence) · `described_by` (Capability→Guidance) ·
+`supports` / `depends_on` / `contributes_to` (Obligation↔Obligation) · `same_as` (Merge/Alias).
+**Das Modell ist ein GRAPH, kein Baum** (n:m an realized_by, supports, produces).
+
+## 3. Attribute (KEINE Klassen) — eingefroren
+
+`applicability` · `tier` (LEGAL_MINIMUM/BEST_PRACTICE) · `legal_basis` (Primärrecht) ·
+`guidance_basis` (NIST/OWASP/…, kanonisch an der Capability) · `objective_tags`
+(integrity/confidentiality/attack_surface/… — Vorwärts-Kompat zu einer späteren Security-Objective-
+Klasse) · `risk_level` · `deadline` · **`hazard` (Attribut, KEINE Klasse)**.
+
+**Watch-Point (bewusste Nicht-Klasse):** `Hazard/Threat` bleibt ein Risiko-Treiber-Attribut. Es wird
+*erst dann* eine eigene Klasse, wenn quantitatives Risiko (FMEA: Hazard→Risiko→Maßnahme) als
+First-Class-Graph-Knoten modelliert werden soll — das ist die einzige bekannte künftige Öffnungs-Ursache.
+
+## 4. Architektur-Freeze-Policy
+
+1. **Neue Regulierung = Daten, nicht Architektur.** Sie läuft durch `Parser → Discovery-Pipeline →
+   Review → Registry` und fügt Obligations/Capabilities/Procedures/Evidence hinzu.
+2. **Eine neue Objektklasse ist eine Architektur-Änderung** und erfordert explizite Wieder-Öffnung +
+   Begründung (nachgewiesenes Scheitern der Abbildung). Default-Erwartung: **0 neue Klassen.**
+3. Verfeinerungen an Attributen (neues `*_tag`, neues risk-Attribut) sind erlaubt, solange keine
+   neue Klasse entsteht.
+
+## 5. Reuse-Metrik (KPI je neuer Regulierung) — der Wissens-Akkumulations-Beweis
+
+Für jede neue Regulierung gemessen (Baseline = der jeweils vorhandene Bestand):
+
+| Kennzahl | Soll/Bedeutung |
+|---|---|
+| **Neue Objektklassen** | **= 0** (Invariante; sonst Freeze gebrochen) |
+| Neue Capabilities | additiv (z.B. +8) |
+| **Wiederverwendete Capabilities %** | Kern-KPI (z.B. NIS2 ~70–80 % erwartet) |
+| Wiederverwendete Procedures % | (z.B. 58 %) |
+| Wiederverwendete Evidence % | (z.B. 81 %) |
+| Neue Obligations | additiv (z.B. +42) |
+
+Zielaussage: *„Beim AI Act: 0 neue Objektklassen, 12 neue Capabilities, 41 neue Obligations,
+78 % der vorhandenen Capabilities wiederverwendet."* → belegt, dass das System **Wissen akkumuliert**,
+statt je Regulierung neu gebaut zu werden. (Tool zur Berechnung folgt mit dem ersten Live-Durchlauf.)
+
+## 6. Der Burggraben (warum das mehr ist als ein Advisor / RAG)
+
+Der Kunde denkt nicht in Artikeln, sondern: *„Wir haben Remote-Updates / signierte Firmware / einen
+Vuln-Prozess."* Über die Capability-Schicht bildet das System diese Aussagen auf **alle betroffenen
+Obligations mehrerer Regulierungen** ab und beantwortet die eigentliche Frage aus dem Kundengespräch:
+> **„Habe ich das Gesetz richtig verstanden, und reicht das, was wir umgesetzt haben?"**
+
+Das ist regel-/wissensgestütztes Reasoning über ein gemeinsames Modell — keine RAG-Aufgabe.
+(Die Reasoning-Session hält dabei die Welt-Grenze: `ClaimCoverage` „potenziell relevant" ⊥
+`ComplianceStatus` „erfüllt aus Nachweisen".)
+
+## 7. Was NICHT eingefroren ist (wächst weiter als Daten)
+
+Registry-Inhalte (Obligations je Regulierung), die Capabilities-Liste, Procedures, Evidence-Typen,
+Applicability-Prädikate, Citation-Spans. Diese Schicht ist **Wissensaufbau** — explizit erwünschtes
+Wachstum gegen das eingefrorene Modell.
+
+## 8. Erster Live-Durchlauf (User-Priorität nach Informationswert)
+
+1. **MaschVO** ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ — beweist „Compliance-OS ≠ Cybersecurity" (physische Safety, CE, Restgefahren).
+2. **NIS2** ⭐⭐⭐⭐ — misst maximalen Capability-Reuse (erwartet 70–80 %).
+3. **AI Act** ⭐⭐⭐⭐ — Risikoklassifizierung/Governance, vermutlich 0 neue Klassen.
+4. **Data Act** ⭐⭐⭐ — bestätigt „Capability optional".

docs-src/development/meta_model_validation_v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Meta-Model Validation v1 — Ist das Modell regulierungsunabhängig?
+
+Status: **Phase 6 — Meta-Validierung (2026-06-26). KEIN neues Coding, KEINE Regulierung ingestiert.**
+Dieses Dokument ist der Stresstest VOR der nächsten Regulierung. Baut auf
+[capability_model_v1.md](capability_model_v1.md) (Modell C, #5b materialisiert) +
+[legal_obligation_layer_v1.md](legal_obligation_layer_v1.md).
+
+## Die eigentliche Frage
+
+Nicht „welche Regulierung kommt als nächstes?", sondern:
+
+> **Kann eine völlig neue Regulierung in dieses Modell eingeordnet werden, OHNE eine neue
+> Objektklasse einzuführen?**
+
+Wenn ja für MaschVO + Data Act + AI Act + NIS2 → das ist kein CRA-Graph mehr, sondern ein
+**Compliance Meta Model**. Ab dann bringt jede Regulierung primär *Daten*, nicht *Architektur*.
+
+## Das zu testende Modell (6 Klassen + Attribute, KEINE weitere Klasse erlaubt)
+
+```
+Regulation
+   ↓ definiert
+Legal Obligation   (CORE ⊇ DOMAIN; tier=LEGAL_MINIMUM/BEST_PRACTICE; objective_tags[]; applicability)
+   ↓ realized_by   (OPTIONAL)
+Capability         (regulierungs-agnostische technische Faehigkeit; guidance_basis hier)
+   ↓ deployed_via
+Procedure
+   ↓ verified_by
+Control
+   ↓ produces
+Evidence
+```
+Quer: **Guidance** (NIST/OWASP/ISO/BSI) hängt an der Capability. **Attribute** (keine Klassen):
+`tier`, `objective_tags`, `applicability`, später `deadline`/`risk_level`/`severity`.
+Kanten: realized_by · specializes · contributes_to · deployed_via · verified_by · produces · described_by · same_as.
+
+---
+
+## Test 1 — Maschinenverordnung (EU) 2023/1230
+
+| Modell-Klasse | MaschVO-Inhalt |
+|---|---|
+| Legal Obligation (CORE) | `hazard_minimization` (Sicherheits-Analogon zu attack_surface_minimization), `safe_control_systems`, `machine_risk_assessment`, `ce_conformity`, `instructions_for_use` — exakt die `machine_*`-Obligations, die die Reasoning-Session bereits unabhängig geprägt hat. |
+| Capability | **physische Sicherheitsfunktionen**: `emergency_stop`, `safety_interlock`, `two_hand_control`, `guarding`, `safe_torque_off`. → die **Capability-Klasse generalisiert von Cyber auf physische Safety** (gleiche Klasse, andere Domäne). |
+| Procedure | Risikobeurteilung (ISO 12100), CE-Konformitätsbewertung. |
+| Evidence | Technische Unterlagen, Risikobeurteilungsbericht, Konformitätserklärung. |
+
+**Stress-Punkt:** „**Hazard**" (mechanisch/elektrisch/thermisch) = Schadensquelle — weder Obligation
+noch Capability. Kandidat für eine neue Klasse? → **Nein, für die Repräsentation:** ein Hazard ist
+ein *Risiko-Treiber* (Attribut/Applicability der Risikobeurteilungs-Procedure); eine Capability
+*mitigiert* einen Hazard, genau wie eine Cyber-Capability eine (implizite) Bedrohung kontert. `PL/SIL`
+= Attribut (wie `tier`). **Hazard wird erst dann eine Klasse, wenn ihr quantitatives FMEA-Risiko als
+First-Class-Graph-Knoten wollt** (vgl. [[project-fmea-safety-direction]]) — nicht für Compliance-Abbildung.
+
+**Verdikt: KEINE neue Klasse.** (Stärkstes Ergebnis: die Capability-Klasse trägt von Cyber zu Safety.)
+
+---
+
+## Test 2 — Data Act (EU) 2023/2854
+
+| Modell-Klasse | Data-Act-Inhalt |
+|---|---|
+| Legal Obligation | `data_act_data_access_by_design`, `data_act_user_data_access`, `data_portability_switching`, `fair_contract_terms` (FRAND), `interoperability` — deckt sich mit den `data_act_*`-Obligations der Reasoning-Session. |
+| Capability | `data_export_api`, `interoperability_interface`, `access_control` (**Reuse**). ABER: `fair_contract_terms` hat **KEINE technische Capability**. |
+| Procedure | FRAND-Klauseln entwerfen; Switching-Prozess. |
+| Evidence | Vertrag/Klauselwerk, API-Doku. |
+
+**Stress-Punkt:** **vertraglich-rechtliche Pflichten** (FRAND, Verbot unfairer Klauseln) haben kein
+technisches Mittel. → Beleg, dass **`realized_by Capability` OPTIONAL ist**: manche Obligations werden
+rein über **Procedure (Entwurf) + Evidence (Vertrag)** erfüllt. Das ist KEINE neue Klasse — wir haben
+es schon gesehen (SBOM-Familie war Evidence-/Procedure-lastig, kaum Capability).
+
+**Verdikt: KEINE neue Klasse.** Verfeinerung: Capability ist optional (Obligation → Procedure → Evidence
+ohne Capability ist gültig).
+
+---
+
+## Test 3 — AI Act (EU) 2024/1689
+
+| Modell-Klasse | AI-Act-Inhalt |
+|---|---|
+| Legal Obligation | `ai_risk_management_system`, `ai_data_governance`, `ai_technical_documentation`, `ai_transparency_disclosure`, `human_oversight`, `accuracy_robustness`, `fundamental_rights_assessment`. |
+| Capability | `event_logging` (**Reuse**!), `bias_detection`, `accuracy_testing`, `human_oversight_mechanism`, `ai_transparency_notice`. |
+| Procedure | Risikomanagement-Prozess; FRIA-Durchführung; Human-Oversight-Prozess. |
+| Evidence | Technische Dokumentation, FRIA-Bericht, Logs. |
+
+**Stress-Punkt:** **Risiko-Klassifikation** (unacceptable/high/limited/minimal) bestimmt, WELCHE
+Obligations gelten. → das ist **Applicability** (existiert bereits; analog zu CRA-Produktklasse).
+`human_oversight` = Procedure + Capability (Oversight-UI). `transparency` = Disclosure (Capability/Evidence,
+wie Cookie/DSE-Offenlegung). `FRIA` = Procedure + Evidence.
+
+**Verdikt: KEINE neue Klasse.** Verfeinerung: Risiko-Tier = Applicability-Attribut (vorhanden).
+
+---
+
+## Test 4 — NIS2 (EU) 2022/2555
+
+| Modell-Klasse | NIS2-Inhalt |
+|---|---|
+| Legal Obligation | `nis2_risk_management_measures`, `nis2_incident_reporting`, `supply_chain_security`, `governance_accountability`, `business_continuity`. |
+| Capability | **MFA, transport_encryption, security_monitoring_alerting, patch/update, backup** — **dieselben Capabilities wie CRA**. Das ist die Auszahlung: NIS2-Obligations `realized_by` die bereits gebaute Capability-Schicht. |
+| Procedure | Incident-Response-Prozess; Lieferketten-Audit; Governance-Prozess. |
+| Evidence | Incident-Reports, Audit-Logs, Vorstandsprotokolle. |
+
+**Stress-Punkt:** **Meldefristen** (24h/72h/1 Monat) = zeitgebundene Procedure → `deadline` = Attribut.
+`governance_accountability` (Management-Haftung) = organisatorische Obligation → Procedure + Evidence.
+
+**Verdikt: KEINE neue Klasse.** Stärkster Reuse-Fall (teilt die CRA-Capability-Schicht vollständig).
+
+---
+
+## Ergebnis: 4 × NEIN → das Metamodell steht
+
+Alle vier Regulierungen passen in die 6 Klassen **ohne neue Objektklasse** — unter zwei
+Verfeinerungen, die der Test selbst aufdeckt (beide sind KEINE neuen Klassen):
+
+1. **`realized_by Capability` ist OPTIONAL.** Vertraglich/dokumentarisch/prozessuale Obligations
+   (Data-Act-FRAND, NIS2-Governance, AI-Act-FRIA) werden rein über Procedure + Evidence erfüllt.
+2. **Risiko-Niveau / Frist / Hazard-Schwere / Risiko-Tier sind ATTRIBUTE**, keine Klassen
+   (`tier`-Muster: `deadline`, `risk_level`, `severity`, `risk_tier`).
+
+**Der einzige Watch-Point:** **Hazard / Threat.** Heute implizit (Obligations existieren, um sie zu
+kontern). Eine eigene Klasse wird *erst* nötig, wenn ihr **quantitatives Risiko first-class** modelliert
+(FMEA: Hazard→Risiko→Maßnahme als Graph-Knoten). Für die reine Compliance-Abbildung: nicht nötig.
+→ Das ist die präzise Antwort auf „wo wäre erstmals eine neue Klasse nötig?".
+
+## Empirische Stütze (nicht nur Theorie)
+
+Die 3. Session (Reasoning Engine) hat **unabhängig** `proposed=True`-Obligations für MaschVO
+(`machine_*`) und Data Act (`data_act_*`) geprägt — und brauchte dafür **keine neue Objektklasse**,
+nur Obligation-IDs. Zwei Sessions kommen unabhängig zum selben Schluss.
+
+## Konsequenz für die Reasoning-Schicht (Produktvision)
+
+Heute: `Product → Applicable Regulations → Applicable Obligations`.
+Mit der Capability-Schicht wird daraus:
+```
+Applicable Capabilities → Required Procedures → Expected Evidence
+```
+Antwort auf die Kundenaussage „Ich habe X umgesetzt" ist dann nicht „CRA Artikel …", sondern:
+```
+✓ Capability A   ✓ Capability B   ✗ Capability C
+   ↓
+erfüllt CRA, MaschVO, NIS2  (teilweise)
+```
+Eine Capability erfüllt Obligations über *mehrere Regulierungen* (n:m) → eine Umsetzung wird gegen
+das gesamte Regelwerk bewertet. Das ist qualitativ ein anderes Produkt als RAG.
+
+## Entscheidung / nächster Schritt
+
+Wenn dieses Dokument akzeptiert ist („keine weitere Klasse nötig"), verschiebt sich die Arbeit von
+**Architektur** zu **Wissensaufbau**: jede neue Regulierung läuft durch
+`Parser → Discovery-Pipeline → Review → Registry` (vorhandene Tooling), statt das Modell zu ändern.
+Offen für den User: (a) Metamodell als stabil einfrieren? (b) den Hazard/Threat-Watch-Point als
+bewusste Nicht-Klasse dokumentieren (bis FMEA-Quantifizierung)? (c) dann erste Regulierung als DATEN.
+
+## Bewusst NICHT in diesem Schritt
+
+Kein Code, keine Regulierung ingestiert, keine neue Klasse angelegt. Reiner Modell-Stresstest.

docs-src/development/session_ownership_model_v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+# Session Ownership Model v1 — Arbeitsteilung nach Modell-Besitz
+
+Status: **Vorschlag/Vertrag (2026-06-26).** Antwort auf „Wie verteilen wir die Arbeit?":
+**nach BESITZ der Datenmodelle, NICHT nach Regulierung.** Ergänzt
+[compliance_meta_model_v1.md](compliance_meta_model_v1.md) (Architektur-Freeze v1.0).
+
+## Leitregel
+
+> **Jede Session besitzt genau EIN Datenmodell. Andere Sessions dürfen es LESEN, nie SCHREIBEN.**
+
+Verteilung nach Regulierung wäre instabil (jede Reg. zieht durch alle Schichten). Verteilung nach
+Modell-Besitz ist stabil: drei Wissenswelten, die BreakPilot zusammenführt — **Recht · Produkt · Compliance**.
+
+## Die drei Domänen
+
+### Domäne 1 — Legal Knowledge Graph („Was steht im Recht?")
+Besitzt: Dokumente · Parser · CELLAR · Chunk/Span · **citation_span** · Authority · `source_class` ·
+`source_role` · Explainability · Retriever.
+Kennt NICHT: Capabilities, Procedures, Produktfeatures.
+Liefert: `citation_span → legal_basis → authority`.
+
+### Domäne 2 — Compliance Execution Graph („Wie wird eine Pflicht erfüllt?")
+Besitzt: **Obligation Registry · Capability Registry · Procedures · Controls · Evidence** ·
+Discovery-Pipeline · Reuse-Metrik · Cross-Regulation · Runtime (obligation-status).
+Kennt NICHT: Dokumente/Parser/Spans, Produktfeatures.
+Modell: `Obligation → Capability → Procedure → Control → Evidence` (Meta-Model v1.0, eingefroren).
+
+### Domäne 3 — Product Knowledge Graph („Was hat der Kunde gebaut?")
+Besitzt: Produktmodell · Komponenten · **Business Features** · **Feature → Capability** ·
+Product Profile (`CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile`) · Scope Discovery · Missing-Facts (Navigator).
+Kennt NICHT: Paragraphen, Controls.
+Beispiel-Features: SPS · HMI · Cloud · MQTT · OPC-UA · Fernwartung · VPN · WLAN · Ethernet ·
+Bluetooth · USB · Kamera · KI · Mobile App · OTA · Sensorik · Aktorik.
+
+## Die drei öffentlichen Verträge (die EINZIGE Kopplung)
+
+```
+1. Legal → Compliance     citation_span  → legal_basis      (Recht hängt an der Obligation)
+2. Product → Compliance    Business Feature → Capability      ← WICHTIGSTE Schnittstelle des Systems
+3. Compliance → Legal      obligation_id  → legal_basis      (jede Pflicht ist begründbar)
+```
+
+**Vertrag 2 (`Feature → Capability`) ist die Innovation.** Er macht aus Kundensprache Regulierungs-
+sprache: „Wir haben Fernwartung" → Capabilities {transport_encryption, multi_factor_authentication,
+least_privilege_access_control} → Obligations über CRA + MaschVO + NIS2 → fehlende Nachweise.
+**Owner des Mappings: Domäne 3** (liest die Capability Registry von Domäne 2 read-only).
+
+## Der vollständige Fluss (das Kundengespräch)
+
+```
+Produktbeschreibung → Product Graph → Capabilities → Compliance Graph → Legal Graph → Antwort
+```
+beantwortet: „Wir bauen diese Maschine mit diesen Funktionen — welche Gesetze gelten, was erfüllen
+wir, was fehlt, wo interpretieren wir falsch?"
+
+## Mapping auf aktuelle Branches + OFFENE FRAGEN (User/Team entscheidet)
+
+| Domäne | Kandidat-Branch heute | Klärungsbedarf |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 Legal Knowledge | (Re-Ingest/Span-Arbeit — Owner benennen) | **Wer besitzt Parser/CELLAR/Span?** noch nicht eindeutig einer Branch zugeordnet |
+| 2 Compliance Execution | `feat/obligation-aggregation` (Registry/Capability/Discovery) **+** `feat/advisor-status` (Controls/Evidence/Endpoint) | **Domäne 2 liegt aktuell auf ZWEI Branches** → zusammenführen oder klare Subteilung |
+| 3 Product Knowledge | `feat/regulatory-reasoning-engine` (Reasoning **→ umfokussieren** auf Product Graph) | Reasoning besitzt schon `CanonicalProductRegulatoryProfile` + Navigator → wird Domäne 3 |
+| — | `feat/iace-gt-warewashing` (IACE Hazard-Engine-Qualität) | **4. Session existiert.** User-Prinzip „keine 4. Session" → IACE als Sub-Track von Domäne 2 (Hazard→Obligation) einordnen ODER bewusst separater Engine-Quality-Track |
+
+## Erste Aufgaben je Domäne
+
+- **Domäne 1:** Re-Ingest fertig · Span-Anker stabil · `obligation_id` im Legal Graph joinbar (über
+  Vertrag, NICHT selbst vergeben) · zitierfähige API.
+- **Domäne 2:** Capability Registry ausbauen · Procedure Registry erweitern · Runtime auf Capability-
+  Ebene · `Obligation↔Capability↔Procedure↔Evidence` stabilisieren.
+- **Domäne 3 (wichtigster neuer Block):** Feature-Katalog (~150–300 Features Maschinen-/Anlagenbau) ·
+  `Feature → Capability` kuratieren · Produktprofil ableiten · Missing-Facts-Engine.
+
+## Nicht jetzt
+NIS2/AI-Act/Data-Act-Runs verschoben (liefern Reuse-Kennzahlen, aber keine neue Produktfrage). KEINE
+weitere Datenmodell-Klasse (Freeze v1.0). Product Knowledge Graph hat Vorrang — er schließt die Lücke
+zwischen Kunden- und Regulierungssprache.
+
+## RESOLVED (2026-06-26, User-Entscheidung) — die 3 offenen Fragen geklärt, Vertrag final
+
+1. **Legal Knowledge Owner = die Re-Ingest-/Knowledge-Session.** Besitzt Parser/CELLAR/Span/Authority/
+   Retrieval/Citation-API. **Vergibt KEINE `obligation_id`** — liefert nur `citation_span → legal_basis`;
+   die `obligation_id` entsteht im Compliance-Graph. Verhindert, dass dieselbe Pflicht zweimal modelliert wird.
+2. **4. Session NICHT auflösen → umbenennen in „Quality & Validation".** Besitzt KEINE Daten/Registry —
+   NUR Tests: Golden/Regression/Precision/Recall/Halluzination/Benchmark/Hazard-Qualität/FMEA-Validierung.
+   Darf produktive Modelle NIE verändern; sagt nur „funktioniert / funktioniert nicht". → **4 Verantwort-
+   lichkeiten:** Legal *liefert* Wissen · Compliance *modelliert* Wissen · Product *liefert* Kontext ·
+   Quality *prüft* alles.
+3. **Compliance Execution bleibt 2 Branches (dauerhaft getrennt, NICHT mergen):**
+   - **Branch A** (`feat/obligation-aggregation`) = **BUILD**: Registry · Discovery · Ontology · Capabilities ·
+     Procedures · Graph (ändert sich ~wöchentlich).
+   - **Branch B** (`feat/advisor-status`) = **RUNTIME / Execution Engine**: API · Advisor · Endpoint · Status ·
+     Evidence · Reasoning (ändert sich ~täglich).
+   Unterschiedliche Geschwindigkeit → bewusst getrennt.
+
+**Plattform-Zielbild: 4 Bibliotheken** — `Legal Library → Product Library → Capability Library →
+Evidence Library`; darauf sitzen Advisor · Runtime · Auditor · Ticket-System · CE-/CRA-/NIS2-/AI-Act-
+Assistent — **alle auf derselben Wissensbasis**. Die **Capability Library/Registry ist der Dreh- und
+Angelpunkt** zwischen Product- und Compliance-Graph → muss ein **stabiler, versionierter API-Vertrag**
+sein (stabile `cap.*`-IDs, nie umbenennen; produktneutral). Das ist #59.
+
+## Update (2026-06-26): Domäne 3 = FEATURE Knowledge Graph + Sequenz-Entscheidung
+
+**Rename Domäne 3 → „Feature Knowledge Graph".** Kunden kaufen keine Capabilities/Obligations — sie
+kaufen Maschinen mit **Fernwartung, Cloud, OTA, SPS, HMI, KI**. Der Advisor MUSS dort beginnen, wo der
+Kunde steht (`Fernwartung`), nicht bei `cap.transport_encryption`. Domäne 3 besitzt zusätzlich die
+**Feature Library** (alle bekannten ~200–400 Features: Fernwartung/Cloud/OTA/VPN/WLAN/Bluetooth/USB/
+Ethernet/OPC-UA/MQTT/CAN/Profinet/EtherCAT/SPS/Safety-SPS/HMI/Vision/Kamera/RFID/NFC/Mobile-App/REST-API/
+Webserver/SSH/Benutzerverwaltung/Rollenmodell/Logging/KI/…). **Feature Library ≠ Product Profile:**
+Library = alle bekannten Features; Profile = die Features EINES konkreten Produkts.
+
+**Volle Pipeline (der eigentliche Advisor):**
+```
+Feature Library → Product Profile → Capabilities → Legal Obligations → Procedures → Controls → Evidence
+```
+„Fernwartung + Cloud + VPN + OTA + Benutzerverwaltung" → N Capabilities → M Obligations → K
+Regulierungen → Procedures → Controls → Evidence. Das beginnt das Gespräch in Kundensprache.
+
+**Sequenz-Entscheidung (User 2026-06-26):**
+1. **JETZT:** `cap.*`-Vertrag (capability_registry_v1) an Domäne 3 übergeben = der Multiplikator.
+2. **Domäne 3 Vollgas:** Feature Library + Komponenten + **`Feature → cap.*`** + Product Profile +
+   Missing-Facts. Zuerst OHNE Regulierungen — reine Kundensprache.
+3. **Domäne 2 STOPP bei #59:** Capability Registry bleibt STABIL (nur Bugfixes, KEINE neuen Capabilities/
+   Procedures), bis Domäne 3 zeigt, WELCHE Capabilities real gebraucht werden (sonst modelliert man 30,
+   von denen 12 genutzt werden).
+4. **Domäne 1:** Re-Ingest abschließen, Span-Anker, Citation-API stabilisieren.
+
+### Domäne 2 — Wake-up-Trigger (statt vagem „pausiert")
+
+Domäne 2 ruht NICHT unbestimmt — sie wird wieder aktiv, sobald EINER dieser Trigger feuert:
+```
+Feature Graph (Domäne 3) >= 200 Features      → Feature Coverage Report (erster Auftrag, s.u.)
+ODER Span-Anker verfügbar (Domäne 1)          → pending_span_anchor auflösen (citation_pending → echte Spans)
+ODER neue Regulierung ingestiert              → Discovery-Cut + Reuse-Metrik
+ODER Runtime (Branch B) kennt neue Evidence-Typen → required_procedures/evidence_patterns endgültig füllen
+```
+Bis dahin steht überall `citation_pending` / `required_procedures: []` — bewusst, kein Defekt.
+
+### Erster Folgeauftrag von Domäne 2 (sobald Feature Library v1 steht): FEATURE COVERAGE REPORT
+
+NICHT „neue CRA-Domäne". Sondern die **Wissenslücken-Analyse**, die diese Architektur erstmals ermöglicht:
+pro Feature die Kette `Feature → cap.* → realizes_obligations → Procedures → Evidence` traversieren und
+**Coverage % je Feature** berechnen — wie vollständig ist die Modellierungskette?
+```
+Fernwartung → 100 %   ·   USB → 94 %   ·   Bluetooth → 83 %   ·   Cloud → 71 %
+```
+Output: je Feature die Lücken — fehlende Capability · fehlende Procedure · fehlender Evidence-Typ.
+Zeigt sofort, was schon vollständig modelliert ist und wo Domäne 2 als Nächstes nacharbeiten muss.
+Traversal-Logik gehört Domäne 2 (cap.*→Obligation→Procedure→Evidence); der Feature→cap.*-Input kommt
+read-only von Domäne 3. Gated auf Feature Library v1.

obligations/capabilities.json

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+{
+ "schema_version": "capability_registry_v1",
+ "contract_version": "1.0",
+ "status": "stable_api_contract",
+ "note": "PRODUKTNEUTRALER Vertrag zwischen Product Knowledge Graph (Domaene 3, Feature->Capability) und Compliance Execution Graph (Domaene 2). Stabile cap.*-IDs NIE umbenennen. KEINE Business-Features hier (die besitzt die Product-Session). Siehe docs-src/development/session_ownership_model_v1.md + compliance_meta_model_v1.md (Freeze v1.0).",
+ "id_namespace": "cap.",
+ "contract_fields": [
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "description",
+  "guidance_basis",
+  "realizes_obligations",
+  "required_procedures",
+  "evidence_patterns",
+  "domains"
+ ],
+ "dropped": {
+  "access_control": "OVERLAP (credential_confidentiality <-> sbom_confidentiality), nicht materialisiert"
+ },
+ "candidate_capabilities_followup": [
+  "automatic_update_delivery",
+  "update_rollback",
+  "trusted_update_source",
+  "hash_verification",
+  "secure_boot",
+  "least_functionality",
+  "credential_storage"
+ ],
+ "capabilities": [
+  {
+   "id": "cap.multi_factor_authentication",
+   "slug": "multi_factor_authentication",
+   "name": "Multi-Factor Authentication",
+   "description": "Mehrfaktor-Authentisierung als technische Faehigkeit (Besitz/Wissen/Inhaerenz).",
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-63B",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "Out-of-Band-Authentifizierung",
+     "anchor": "",
+     "role": "implementation_guidance",
+     "merged_from": "out_of_band_authentication"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "Hardware-basierte Authentifizierung (AAL3)",
+     "anchor": "",
+     "role": "implementation_guidance",
+     "merged_from": "hardware_authenticators"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "E-Mail-Authentifizierungsmechanismen (SPF/DKIM/DMARC)",
+     "anchor": "",
+     "role": "implementation_guidance",
+     "merged_from": "email_authentication"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "IA-02",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "IA-02(1)",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "AC-17",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-53 IA-2",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "BSI",
+     "anchor": "ICS Security Kompendium",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "ISO",
+     "anchor": "ISO 27001 A.5.19",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "realizes_obligations": [
+    "mfa_required",
+    "privileged_op_reauth",
+    "remote_access_authentication",
+    "remote_access_mfa",
+    "remote_access_user_validation_ot",
+    "supplier_access_auth"
+   ],
+   "required_procedures": [],
+   "evidence_patterns": [
+    "iam_config_export",
+    "mfa_policy_export",
+    "auth_audit_log"
+   ],
+   "domains": [
+    "authentication",
+    "remote_access"
+   ],
+   "provenance": {
+    "source": "cross_domain_relationships.json SHARED_CAPABILITY"
+   }
+  },
+  {
+   "id": "cap.session_management",
+   "slug": "session_management",
+   "name": "Session Management",
+   "description": "Sichere Sitzungsverwaltung: Timeouts, Bindung, Re-Auth, Beendigung.",
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-63B 4.3",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-53 AC-12",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "OWASP",
+     "anchor": "ASVS V3",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "AC-2(5)",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "realizes_obligations": [
+    "reauth_after_inactivity",
+    "remote_session_management",
+    "session_binding_management",
+    "temporary_remote_access_mgmt"
+   ],
+   "required_procedures": [],
+   "evidence_patterns": [
+    "session_config_export",
+    "timeout_policy_export"
+   ],
+   "domains": [
+    "authentication",
+    "remote_access"
+   ],
+   "provenance": {
+    "source": "cross_domain_relationships.json SHARED_CAPABILITY"
+   }
+  },
+  {
+   "id": "cap.transport_encryption",
+   "slug": "transport_encryption",
+   "name": "Transport Encryption",
+   "description": "Verschluesselter Transport (TLS, mutual-TLS, Zertifikats-Auth, VPN/Tunnel).",
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "BSI",
+     "anchor": "TR-02102-2",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "IA-03",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SC-8",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "BSI",
+     "anchor": "IT-Grundschutz NET.3.3",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "OWASP",
+     "anchor": "API Security Top 10",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "IA-05(2)",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "realizes_obligations": [
+    "encrypted_auth_channel",
+    "mutual_authentication",
+    "reject_insecure_remote_protocols",
+    "remote_access_confidentiality_integrity",
+    "remote_access_encryption",
+    "service_to_service_auth",
+    "tls_certificate_auth"
+   ],
+   "required_procedures": [],
+   "evidence_patterns": [
+    "tls_config_export",
+    "cipher_scan",
+    "cert_inventory"
+   ],
+   "domains": [
+    "authentication",
+    "remote_access"
+   ],
+   "provenance": {
+    "source": "cross_domain_relationships.json SHARED_CAPABILITY"
+   }
+  },
+  {
+   "id": "cap.code_signing",
+   "slug": "code_signing",
+   "name": "Code & Update Signing",
+   "description": "Digitale Signatur + Integritaets-/Authentizitaetspruefung von Firmware/Software/Updates.",
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SI-07",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-147 BIOS Protection",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "realizes_obligations": [
+    "firmware_software_authentication",
+    "signed_update_integrity"
+   ],
+   "required_procedures": [],
+   "evidence_patterns": [
+    "signature_verification_log",
+    "sbom",
+    "signing_key_policy"
+   ],
+   "domains": [
+    "authentication",
+    "updates"
+   ],
+   "provenance": {
+    "source": "cross_domain_relationships.json SHARED_CAPABILITY"
+   }
+  },
+  {
+   "id": "cap.security_monitoring_alerting",
+   "slug": "security_monitoring_alerting",
+   "name": "Security Monitoring & Alerting",
+   "description": "Anomalie-/Bedrohungserkennung und Alarmierung aus Logs/Telemetrie.",
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "AU-6/SI-4",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    },
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SP 800-94",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "realizes_obligations": [
+    "log_monitoring_alerting",
+    "remote_access_threat_detection"
+   ],
+   "required_procedures": [],
+   "evidence_patterns": [
+    "siem_config_export",
+    "alert_rule_export",
+    "monitoring_audit_log"
+   ],
+   "domains": [
+    "logging",
+    "remote_access"
+   ],
+   "provenance": {
+    "source": "cross_domain_relationships.json SHARED_CAPABILITY"
+   }
+  }
+ ]
+}

obligations/controls_for_obligation_mapping.json

@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
 {
  "schema_version": "controls_for_obligation_mapping_v1",
- "purpose": "Accepted CRA->OWASP controls (Compliance Execution Graph) for the Obligation Registry to propose the SEMANTIC control->obligation_id, replacing the coarse citation_unit interim join. Fill proposed_obligation_id per control, then we adopt it into control_mapping.obligation_id.",
- "source": "ai-compliance-sdk control_mappings, mapping_status=accepted, reviewed_by=benjamin 2026-06-25",
- "filled_by": "obligation-registry-session 2026-06-25 (alle 7/7: 4 auth/crypto + 3 logging via cra_logging.json)",
+ "purpose": "Accepted CRA->Framework controls (Compliance Execution Graph) for the Obligation Registry to propose the SEMANTIC control->obligation_id, replacing the coarse citation_unit interim join. Fill proposed_obligation_id per control, then we adopt it into control_mapping.obligation_id.",
+ "source": "ai-compliance-sdk control_mappings, mapping_status=accepted, reviewed_by=benjamin 2026-06-25. OWASP ASVS (7, gefuellt) + NIST SP 800-53 (3, pending).",
+ "filled_by": "obligation-registry-session 2026-06-25. OWASP 7/7 (4 auth/crypto + 3 logging). NIST 3/3 GEFUELLT (Obligation-Session): SI-2->provide_security_updates (stark, (2)(c)/Art.13) · SI-7->signed_update_integrity (update-scoped; SI-7 breiter) · CM-7->remote_access_attack_surface_min (remote-scoped; CM-7 breiter). GAP-BEFUND (Cross-Domain-Review): generische Parent-Obligations software_integrity_protection + attack_surface_minimization FEHLEN — SI-7/CM-7 sind breiter als die domaenen-scoped Treffer. Kandidaten fuer neue generische Obligations (User-Entscheidung). Damit 10/10 proposed_obligation_id gefuellt.",
  "join_principle": "SEMANTISCH via obligation_id, NICHT via citation_unit/legal_basis-Anker. Die CRA-Anker sind im Registry teils approximativ (siehe anchor_quality_note) — daher ist obligation_id der stabile Primaerschluessel, nicht der Anker.",
  "anchor_quality_note": "Registry-legal_basis-Anker sind teils CRA-Part-I-fehlzugeordnet (Opus-Synthese): user_authentication_required steht auf (2)(d) statt (2)(c); Crypto-Obligations auf (2)(e) statt (2)(d). CRA Annex I Part I: (2)(c)=Zugriffsschutz, (2)(d)=Vertraulichkeit, (2)(e)=Integritaet. Korrektur kommt mit dem zitierfaehigen Re-Ingest (span-genau). Deshalb: NICHT auf Anker joinen. ABER: der Logging-Cut (V16.*) ist korrekt auf (2)(k) verankert (echte Logging-Subsektion, kein Fehl-Anker).",
- "count": 7,
+ "mapping_type_note": "NEU: mapping_type=primary_implementation = die kanonische Primaer-Control einer Anforderung (genau eine), staerker als implements/supports. related-Controls (SC-3(3), RA-5, AC-6, SI-16, SA-10, ...) folgen separat als supports. Eine Obligation kann mehrere Controls haben, aber genau einen primary_implementation-Einstieg.",
+ "count": 10,
  "controls": [
   {
    "framework": "OWASP ASVS", "control": "V6.3.1",
@@ -62,6 +63,30 @@
    "proposed_obligation_id": "event_logging_security_events",
    "mapping_method": "semantic",
    "mapping_note": "V16.1 = allgemeine Logging-Anforderung -> Umbrella-LM event_logging_security_events. Hohe Konfidenz."
+  },
+  {
+   "framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-7",
+   "source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(e) — Integritaet",
+   "citation_unit": "Annex I (2)(e)", "family": "integrity", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation",
+   "proposed_obligation_id": "software_integrity_protection",
+   "mapping_method": "semantic",
+   "mapping_note": "NIST SI-7 = Software/Firmware/Information Integrity (gesamte Produkt-Integritaet). #6 ADOPTIERT (2026-06-26) auf CORE software_integrity_protection (Annex I (2)(f)) — die in #5b materialisierte generische Integritaets-Obligation. Die domaenen-scoped signed_update_integrity (Update-Signatur, (1)(3)(f)) bleibt gueltig als DOMAIN, specializes->CORE. NICHT log_integrity_immutability (Audit-Log-Schutz, andere Ebene)."
+  },
+  {
+   "framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "SI-2",
+   "source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(l) — Sichere Updates",
+   "citation_unit": "Annex I (2)(l)", "family": "update", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation",
+   "proposed_obligation_id": "provide_security_updates",
+   "mapping_method": "semantic",
+   "mapping_note": "NIST SI-2 = Flaw Remediation. STARKER Treffer in eurer NEUEN updates-Familie (93-Stand): provide_security_updates (LEGAL_MINIMUM, Annex I (2)(c) + Art. 13) = DAS sichere-Update-LM. -> SI-2 primary_implementation = provide_security_updates. Verwandt (supports): vuln_remediation_patching (Part II Remediations-PROZESS), support_period_maintenance, update_testing_validation, update_rollback. Mein source_norm-Anker (2)(l) ist approximativ -> bitte (2)(c)/Art.13 via provide_security_updates nutzen."
+  },
+  {
+   "framework": "NIST SP 800-53", "control": "CM-7",
+   "source_norm": "CRA Annex I Part I (2)(i) — Angriffsflaeche minimieren",
+   "citation_unit": "Annex I (2)(i)", "family": "attack_surface", "mapping_type": "primary_implementation",
+   "proposed_obligation_id": "attack_surface_minimization",
+   "mapping_method": "semantic",
+   "mapping_note": "NIST CM-7 = Least Functionality (deaktivierte Ports/Dienste/Funktionen, GESAMTE Angriffsflaeche). #6 ADOPTIERT (2026-06-26) auf CORE attack_surface_minimization (Annex I (2)(j)) — die in #5b materialisierte generische Obligation. Die domaenen-scoped remote_access_attack_surface_min (nur Remote-Access-Flaeche) bleibt gueltig als DOMAIN, specializes->CORE. related (supports): SC-3(3)/AC-6/SI-16."
   }
  ]
 }

obligations/cra.json

@@ -966,7 +966,10 @@
    "relationships": [],
    "citation_anchor_ids": [],
    "citation_status": "pending_span_anchor",
-   "review_status": "draft"
+   "review_status": "draft",
+   "merged_into": "provide_security_updates",
+   "status": "deprecated_alias",
+   "merge_note": "SAME_OBLIGATION (Cross-Domain-Review). Kanonisch: provide_security_updates ((2)(c)/Art.13). ID bleibt als Alias aufloesbar; downstream provide_security_updates nutzen."
   },
   {
    "id": "vuln_handling_process",

obligations/cra_authentication.json

@@ -10281,7 +10281,11 @@
     "cluster_size": 4,
     "llm_model": "claude-opus-4-8",
     "synthesis_version": "v1"
-   }
+   },
+   "specializes": "software_integrity_protection",
+   "objective_tags": [
+    "integrity"
+   ]
   }
  ],
  "relationships": [

obligations/cra_core.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+ "schema_version": "obligation_registry_v1",
+ "regulation": "CRA",
+ "regulation_code": "CRA",
+ "family": "core",
+ "theme": "CORE Security Objectives (CRA Annex I als regulierungs-agnostische Sicherheitsziele)",
+ "generated_by": "materialize_capabilities.py (#5b, Modell C)",
+ "note": "CORE Legal Obligations = Sicherheitsziele (Modell C: KEINE eigene SecurityObjective-Klasse). DOMAIN-Obligations specializes-en hierauf. objective_tags = Vorwaerts-Kompat zu Modell B.",
+ "citation_status": "pending_span_anchor",
+ "obligations": [
+  {
+   "id": "attack_surface_minimization",
+   "name": "Minimierung der Angriffsflaeche",
+   "family": "core",
+   "description": "Das Produkt minimiert seine Angriffsflaeche: unnoetige Funktionen/Ports/Dienste/Schnittstellen sind deaktiviert (Least Functionality).",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS",
+   "applicability": "universal",
+   "objective_tags": [
+    "attack_surface"
+   ],
+   "legal_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "CRA",
+     "anchor": "Annex I Part I (2)(j)",
+     "citation": "limit attack surfaces, including external interfaces"
+    }
+   ],
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "CM-7 Least Functionality",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "specialized_by": [
+    "remote_access_attack_surface_min",
+    "component_remote_interface_security"
+   ],
+   "primary_implementation": "NIST CM-7",
+   "citation_status": "pending_span_anchor",
+   "review_status": "core_from_5b"
+  },
+  {
+   "id": "software_integrity_protection",
+   "name": "Schutz der Software-/Firmware-Integritaet",
+   "family": "core",
+   "description": "Das Produkt schuetzt Integritaet und Authentizitaet von Software/Firmware (Manipulationserkennung, Secure Boot, Signaturpruefung, Runtime-Integritaet).",
+   "tier": "LEGAL_MINIMUM",
+   "source_role": "LEGAL_BASIS",
+   "applicability": "universal",
+   "objective_tags": [
+    "integrity"
+   ],
+   "legal_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "CRA",
+     "anchor": "Annex I Part I (2)(f)",
+     "citation": "protect the integrity of stored, transmitted or processed data, software and configuration"
+    }
+   ],
+   "guidance_basis": [
+    {
+     "source": "NIST",
+     "anchor": "SI-7 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity",
+     "role": "best_practice"
+    }
+   ],
+   "specialized_by": [
+    "signed_update_integrity",
+    "firmware_software_authentication"
+   ],
+   "realized_by_capabilities": [
+    "code_signing"
+   ],
+   "primary_implementation": "NIST SI-7",
+   "citation_status": "pending_span_anchor",
+   "review_status": "core_from_5b"
+  }
+ ],
+ "relationships": []
+}