Benjamin Admin
86a783e72f
Transition Pattern, Playbook and Reference Scenario describe the same transition from different
angles. The hypothesis: a single underlying object, the Journey, is the unit of knowledge; everything
else is a renderer ("rendered, not modeled"). Per the user's request this is a SPECIFICATION to
validate the assumption BEFORE any code — not a runtime module, not new architecture, decision pending.
- Conceptual Journey schema: identity (from->to) + source_variants + likely_covered[] + delta[] +
rejected_assumptions; questions/measures/evidence/verification are DERIVED. Truth hierarchy:
Atomic Requirement -> Capability -> Journey (x Company context on instantiation).
- Renderers: Transition Pattern (= the curated Journey core), Interview, Roadmap, Reference Scenario,
Evidence view, role views (Sales/Auditor/Developer/GF) — four views, one Journey.
- GROUNDED validation against the real ISO 27001 -> CRA artifacts (TP-ISO27001-CRA-v1, the
sbom/CVD playbooks, RTS-001/002/003). Honest finding: the unification HOLDS with two refinements
that AVOID premature abstraction:
1. Reference Scenario = Journey x Company context + expected outcome (no duplicated transition data).
2. Playbook = a CAPABILITY renderer (reused across journeys), NOT a Journey renderer — stays
capability-owned (ADR-004); the Journey aggregates, it does not own.
=> a transition is curated exactly once; ISO9001->MaschinenVO becomes one object, not four.
- Proposes the principle "rendered, not modeled" alongside computed-not-stored / derived-not-curated.
No code, no runtime change (Freeze). Non-runtime doc -> no deploy (ADR-001). If accepted -> ADR-011.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
backend-compliance
Python/FastAPI service implementing the DSGVO compliance API: DSR, DSFA, consent, controls, risks, evidence, audit, vendor management, ISMS, change requests, document generation.
Port: 8002 (container: bp-compliance-backend)
Stack: Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLAlchemy 2.x, Alembic, Keycloak auth.
Architecture
compliance/
├── api/ # Routers (thin, ≤30 LOC per handler)
├── services/ # Business logic
├── repositories/ # DB access
├── domain/ # Value objects, domain errors
├── schemas/ # Pydantic models, split per domain
└── db/models/ # SQLAlchemy ORM, one module per aggregate
The service follows this layered target structure but not all files are fully refactored yet. Phase 1 backlog is tracked in .claude/rules/loc-exceptions.txt (27 backend-compliance files currently excepted).
See ../AGENTS.python.md for the full convention and ../.claude/rules/architecture.md for the non-negotiable rules.
Run locally
cd backend-compliance
pip install -r requirements.txt
export COMPLIANCE_DATABASE_URL=... # Postgres (Hetzner or local)
uvicorn main:app --reload --port 8002
Tests
pytest compliance/tests/ -v
pytest --cov=compliance --cov-report=term-missing
Layout: tests/unit/, tests/integration/, tests/contracts/. Contract tests diff /openapi.json against tests/contracts/openapi.baseline.json.
Public API surface
404+ endpoints across /api/v1/*. Grouped by domain: ai, audit, consent, dsfa, dsr, gdpr, vendor, evidence, change-requests, generation, projects, company-profile, isms. Every path is a contract — see the "Public endpoints" rule in the root CLAUDE.md.
Environment
| Var | Purpose |
|---|---|
COMPLIANCE_DATABASE_URL |
Postgres DSN, sslmode=require |
KEYCLOAK_* |
Auth verification |
QDRANT_URL, QDRANT_API_KEY |
Vector search |
CORE_VALKEY_URL |
Session cache |
Don't touch
Database schema, __tablename__, column names, existing migrations under migrations/. See root CLAUDE.md rule 3.