The real bottleneck is domain MODELLING. Phase B is organized as one program with sub-programs per domain, each run through the SAME 7-stage production line. No new runtime framework, no new module (ADR-009, Freeze v1.0) — only program data + a derived reporting view. - Customer enters by INDUSTRY, not regulation: Industry -> Domain Model -> Requirement Sources -> Requirements -> Capabilities -> ... -> Completeness. - 7-stage checklist identical for every domain (Domain Model / Requirement Sources / Capability Registry / Transition Patterns / Playbooks / Reference Scenarios / Completeness) with per-stage ownership. README generalized to the framework. - Each domain lists typical_requirement_sources + typical_certifications -> pre-onboarding capability HYPOTHESIS (the ETO insight; feeds Company 2A as inferred, never confirmed). - Backlog v1 (by customer value): 1 Industrial Automation, 2 Environmental, 3 Automotive, 4 Medical, 5 Energy. Five domain-definition shells (environmental restructured to the unified shape, law-first preserved). - Per-domain KPI is DERIVED from the real corpus (computed-not-stored; sources modelled / transition patterns / playbooks / reference scenarios), NOT a curated number. Reference suite renders maturity bars: Industrial Automation 43% (3/7 sources) leads, Environmental 0% (work ahead). Backlog (value) and KPI (corpus state) are deliberately separated. - ADR-009: Domain Knowledge Program framework. Honest known refinement: regulation-ID normalization (CRA vs Cyber Resilience Act) aliased in the KPI. 7 program-contract tests (backlog order + industry-first + derived-not-stored), check-loc 0. Knowledge data + ADR + reference harness = non-runtime -> no deploy (ADR-001). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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.