v0.2.0: A rule this site published in the morning was wrong by the afternoon, and the correction is on the page
The foundation document says twice that the delta is computed and never stored. Half of that was right. The corrected rule is harder, the passages were not rewritten, and the check that enforced the old rule was inverted to enforce the new one.
Source: https://abp.sgit.ai/articles/a-rule-corrected-nine-hours-later/index.html↗ · site v0.11.0 · this file is generated from the same content
as the page, so the two cannot drift. Every page on this site has a .md twin; internal links
below point at them.
v0.2.0: A rule this site published in the morning was wrong by the afternoon, and the correction is on the page
The foundation document says twice that the delta is computed and never stored. Half of that was right. The corrected rule is harder, the passages were not rewritten, and the check that enforced the old rule was inverted to enforce the new one.
This is the article for release v0.2.0, published 11 September 2026. Every release of this site gets one, and it explains what that release changed and why rather than restating v0.2.0's own release record↗. It is release 2 of 14 on this site. Every screenshot below was captured from a checkout of the
v0.2.0tag, so it shows the site as it stood at that release and not as it stands today. Read on to v0.3.0↗, or back to v0.1.0↗.
The rule that was wrong by lunchtime
The foundation document was published on the morning of 11 September. It says, twice, that the delta is computed and never stored. Nine hours later the project lead corrected it, and v0.2.0 is that correction applied in the open.
The first half was right and the second half was wrong. The corrected rule is that the delta is derived and never authored, which is the harder rule, because it forbids the act rather than the artefact.
A two column table showing the old wording beside the corrected wording ↗ (image on the live page; not in the snapshot)
The correction, on the page, with both passages quoted in full. A document corrected by silently editing it is a document nobody can trust, so the old wording is not deleted: it is shown beside what replaced it. (abp.sgit.ai at v0.2.0, captured 20 September 2026 from a checkout of the v0.2.0 tag.)
What the old rule was protecting, and why all of it survives
The sentence being corrected was guarding against three real things, and the correction loses none of them.
| The fear | Does the correction still handle it |
|---|---|
| A stored delta becomes a stale claim about somebody's environment | Yes. It carries the versions of its inputs and the time it was computed, so its staleness is a fact rather than a surprise |
| A delta gets hand edited into a fiction | Yes, and more strongly. Never authored forbids the act; never stored only forbade the artefact |
| A delta is treated as authoritative after the inputs move | Yes. It reacts. A recompute is cheap because the inputs are graphs with a schema rather than prose |
And the correction gains the history, which the old rule made impossible. Asking whether a control was in place throughout a period is a question about a series, and a recomputed present cannot answer it.
The word for this already existed
A stored result of a computation over other data, refreshed when its inputs change, never edited directly, is a materialised view. The vocabulary is decades old and it carries exactly the right properties: it exists for use, it has a refresh policy, its staleness is knowable, and writing to it directly is a category error rather than a permission question.
It is the fourth instance of a pattern already in force here. Indexes are generated from the data they index. Prose is derived from the graph and never hand edited. A bill of materials is generated from the dependency files. And the delta is derived from the grant and the mandate. In every case the artefact is stored, and what is forbidden is writing it.
The fields of a stored delta record: the pinned input versions, when it was computed and by which version of the computation ↗ (image on the live page; not in the snapshot)
Eight fields, none of them writable by a person. computed_by is the version of the code, because the code changes and a record that does not say what computed it cannot be compared with one produced later. (abp.sgit.ai at v0.2.0, captured 20 September 2026 from a checkout of the v0.2.0 tag.)
The check was inverted rather than removed
Until this release the release gate refused any file carrying a delta, which is how a machine holds a rule that says never stored. The corrected rule needs the opposite check, and it is the more useful one.
validate: OK -- v0.2.0 on abp.sgit.ai, 55 pages, links resolve,
every page has a twin and is in llms.txt, no score vocabulary,
no forbidden word, no em dash outside the promoted data,
the upstream bytes hash to their manifest, and
EVERY STORED DELTA RECOMPUTES FROM ITS OWN PINNED INPUTS.The gate does not take a stored record on trust. It recomputes every one of them from the profile and the mandate it names and fails on a single row of disagreement, including the ordering. That check is a few lines, because the computation is a set difference, and it is a set difference because the grant and the mandate are held as graphs with a schema rather than as prose. That is the underlying capability. All of it can be done by hand today and almost nobody does it.
Reality is the third input
The grant is a model of what the agent can do and the mandate is a statement of what somebody meant. Both are interpretations and both improve. A capability nobody had listed turns up; a barrier was recorded at the wrong kind; something in the mandate never happens.
One row of that table cannot resolve itself. An agent doing something outside its mandate, repeatedly, without anybody complaining, means either that the mandate was written too narrowly or that something is happening nobody authorised. This site publishes the observation. Which of the two it is belongs to the risk layer and to a person.
A table of three clocks: the ABP's, the twin's, and reality's ↗ (image on the live page; not in the snapshot)
An ABP is exactly as fresh as the twin, and the twin is exactly as fresh as its connection. That is a parameter rather than a defect to hide, and it went onto the validity statement on every example page in this release. (abp.sgit.ai at v0.2.0, captured 20 September 2026 from a checkout of the v0.2.0 tag.)
The document was not rewritten
The foundation document is the definition the rest of the site stands on, and it is the document being put in front of people for feedback. Both corrected passages stand exactly as published, each with its correction rendered immediately above it.
A correction notice rendered above the passage it corrects ↗ (image on the live page; not in the snapshot)
The correction is attached to the passage rather than applied to it. The generator refuses to build if a correction finds no passage to attach to, because a correction that silently fails to render is worse than no correction. (abp.sgit.ai at v0.2.0, captured 20 September 2026 from a checkout of the v0.2.0 tag.)
What this release did not settle
- What the recompute policy is: on every event, on a schedule, on read, or a combination. It decides how much a receiver has to do.
- Who sets the thresholds a consequence hooks to: the customer, the underwriter, or a default published here. All three have different shapes, and a threshold crossing is a record while the consequence is something somebody set in advance.
- How a calibration contribution is submitted without revealing the deployment, since a correction to a capability row implies somebody runs that shape.
- What happens to a stored delta whose computation version is superseded: recomputed, marked, or left as the record of what was believed at the time. The third is the most honest and the least useful.
The delta↗ · The stored deltas as JSON↗ · v0.2.0's own release record↗