Design the minimal project and asset evidence contract - #110
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Define the minimal project/asset contract before implementation. Work keeps its current comparison keys, grouping, row equality, selection and UI behavior while one producer adapter creates real evidence from session workspace inputs.
The proposal separates collection outcomes, positive factual evidence and assessments. Evidence references explicitly identify source, run and record; failed or uncollected inputs cannot create membership. Transcript invocations remain recorded claims and shell mentions remain references, without implying successful OS access. Coverage descriptions and diagnostic strings are display-only.
Phase 1 requires actual Work evidence generation and provenance tests. Phase 2 first preserves raw storage measurement validity in the decoder/DTO. Phase 3 extends the process producer/DTO with start identity and observation context before handling PID reuse and runtime attribution. The project/asset model grants no cleanup approval or execution authority.
Status: draft design for review; proposed Swift declarations are not shipped APIs. The implementation scope is identity/provenance/coverage types, one Work adapter, preserved UI identity and evidence-generation tests. Storage implementation remains a separate PR.
Validation: the revised Swift declaration example type-checks with warnings as errors and complete strict-concurrency checking. Markdown fences, the architecture link and whitespace checks pass. Changes remain limited to the two design documents; application runtime validation belongs to the subsequent implementation acceptance gate.