07 — Boundaries and licensing

1. Licensing

This site's content is CC BY 4.0, consistent with the network. Stamp every raw markdown document; gate with licence-audit.py --check.

The code quoted throughout is Apache-2.0 — SGraph-AI__App__Send and the vault-html guides carry it. Retain the notice where snippets run long, and do not imply the code carries the site's CC BY licence.

The samples in code__chat-pane-samples.md are written for this pack and are CC BY 4.0. The sg.llm.* calls inside them are the shipped API; the surrounding UI is ours. Say so, so a reader knows which half is a contract and which half is an example.

2. ⚠️ Do not create a second source of truth

The corpus already refused to do this, deliberately, and gave its reasons:

"No — and deliberately. It belongs in the two homes that already exist: AUTHORING.md — the canonical window.sg.* contract. Adding a competing document would create a second source of truth that drifts."

That was about a proposed skill, and the same logic applies to this site. A hand-written API reference on llms.sgit.ai will drift from AUTHORING.md within a release.

The resolution: AUTHORING.md stays canonical; the site generates its reference from it and says so on the page. That gives a human-readable public surface without a competing contract — which is the gap the corpus's own reasoning leaves open, since AUTHORING.md is an agent authoring contract that no human reader will find. 08__ Q1.

3. Do not publish

• Any OpenRouter key, or any vault key. Rule 13 of the estate's code rules: "No vault keys in Git… If one appears in a diff, block the commit." This site's subject matter makes it the most likely place in the estate for a key to end up in a sample.
• The demo vault's write key, if the demo in 06__ §4 is built. Read key only, and only after the spend caps are set.
• library/alchemist/materials/ — the whole tree.
• team/roles/grc/reviews/02/19/ — names a private individual with signature blocks.
• team/roles/appsec/reviews/02/21/…pki-architecture-security-revised.md — classified as "an attack roadmap for live code."
• The competitor and positioning briefs.

And a rule specific to this site: every sample must use a placeholder that is obviously a placeholder. Not a realistic-looking key. Add sk-or-, sgit_vk1_ and OpenRouter key shapes to the CI key-leak check before the first sample page ships.

4. Publish the security gap — do not soften it

03__ §5. The corpus states plainly that the CSP egress lockdown is not built and that this is "the gap that turns the current design from a convenience into a guarantee."

Publishing a known limitation of your own security design is the estate's own standard — the vault catalogue publishes its own key-exposure incident; the reality-document rule is "briefs are aspirations, not facts." A site that omitted this would be below the standard the rest of the network keeps.

Do not publish an exploitation path, and do not frame it as a vulnerability disclosure. It is a scope statement: the bridge protects the credential you trusted us with; it does not prevent all egress.

5. Network boundaries

6. House style

• Every sample is runnable, and tested by being a real vault app (06__ §4).
• Every API claim is traceable to AUTHORING.md, with the date the contract shipped.
• Estimates are rendered with ~. The site's own cost figures follow the rule it teaches.
• State the grant before the call. Default-deny is the model; the grant is the first thing a reader needs.
• Publish the traps. The 8190 bug shipped three times — that is documentation, not embarrassment.
• -ise, not -ize, and no em-dashes in the markdown deliverables.

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).