07 — Gaps and Open Questions

Must be retrieved

N1 · ~15,000 words of origin material sit in an external CBR repo. Three documents catalogued in team/town-planner/roles/librarian/reviews/02/21/v0.5.8__review__cbr-investment-catalogue.md and not present in __Send: provenance-of-trust-news.md, monetising-trust-and-knowledge__for-news-providers.md, personalised-news-feed-architecture.md. These look like where the thread began. Retrieve before finalising the site outline — the /library/ chronology may start earlier than February 2025.

N2 · Back-fill the 83 PDFs into git. They serve fine from S3 but exist in no repo. See 02 §4. A site arguing for durable provenance should not have its own evidence chain terminate in one mutable bucket.

Must be written fresh

N3 · The front page. No document in either corpus opens this argument for a cold reader. The pieces exist — the broken link, the 10,000-hours story, the correction that reaches nothing — but nobody has assembled them into 300 words.

N4 · /shipped/. Nothing in the newsroom stack runs; the reality tree marks the entire evidence-economy cluster PROPOSED. Without this page the site over-claims and breaks the convention that makes the siblings credible.

N5 · The practitioner page. Almost everything is written from the architecture inward. The one exception is Journalists' Challenges with Digital Content Provenance and Trust (2025-03-24), written from the journalist's problem outward. The site needs more in that register and currently has one.

N6 · The metering mechanism. Theme 4 is well argued and mechanically unspecified. How is a read of a cited source detected, attributed, priced and settled? x402 supplies the rail; nothing supplies the meter. State it as an open question rather than implying it is solved.

Open questions worth publishing unresolved

Following the pki.sgit.ai convention of numbering open questions in public.

#	Question	Where the corpus gets closest
Q1	Who pays for contextual validation, and what stops it becoming a toll on inconvenient facts?	"In companies that's okay… but in the real world at the moment we don't have that." The commons has no maintenance budget
Q2	What is the unit that gets paid — the claim, the paragraph, the evidence pack, or the graph?	Named as "facts, trust, and evidence packs" but never resolved to one billable unit
Q3	Who decides an edge is `contradicts` rather than `partially supports`?	Typed citation edges are proposed; the adjudication is not
Q4	Does agenda-tagging survive contact with a motivated reader?	The corpus asks this of itself: "the same tool that helps a reader discount a vendor's study helps them discount a regulator's finding." Publish the question with the self-critique attached
Q5	What happens when the author refuses to be the oracle, or is dead?	The Ericsson case is exactly this and the corpus does not resolve it
Q6	Can a newsroom that publishes its costs survive competitors that do not?	The £8.40 page is a transparency asset and a commercial exposure. Unaddressed
Q7	Is CC-Signed enforceable in any jurisdiction, or is it a norm dressed as a licence?	The brief asserts the stick; no legal review exists

Honest tensions

Following pki.sgit.ai's /roadmap/#tensions.

Provenance is the product — and provenance is expensive. The £8.40 story cost is the argument and the objection. A wire story costs less.
Corrections propagating is a feature until it is a liability. A graph that can answer what rests on claims since corrected can also be subpoenaed for it.
"More humans, not fewer" is a design principle, not an economic result. The corpus asserts agents make more human roles affordable. Nothing tests it.
Selling trust makes the seller a target. A fact-certifier with warranted output has created a liability surface the corpus notes but does not size.
The site inherits sgit.ai's crawler-invisibility problem. A client-side-assembled vault site is hard to index — measured, documented, unsolved. For a news site that is existential. Decide rendering before content.
Two licences over one thread. docs.diniscruz.ai is CC0; *.sgit.ai is CC BY 4.0. A site about attribution should resolve that deliberately — 02 §5.1.

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

== briefs/09__risk-and-governance-newsroom.md