06 — Gaps, open questions and honest tensions

1. Build-fresh items

#	Item	Why
G1	The backups doctrine	The only NFR on the corpus's own list with no material — in the estate with irreversible publishing and a keys-vault design. Write it or publish the stub
G2	"How a brief becomes work here"	The estate's PM system exists in ~4,000 documents and is described nowhere. The most original PM page available, and onboarding for every agent session
G3	The resilience doctrine	Every mechanism traces to a named incident; the pattern ("design for the failure you had") is unwritten
G4	The reality-doc freshness check	The best documentation rule in the estate, enforced manually, already failed twice. A CI check like the licence audit
G5	The scorecard generator	`00__` §4's table, regenerated per release, cells linked to evidence
G6	The memory-thesis page for `sgit.ai`	The network's purpose statement, currently living in a chat message

#	Question	Where it stands
Q1	Is a hub site worth its drift risk? Fourteen spokes, all moving	The mitigations are the link-never-restate rule and generated numbers. If those hold, yes; if not, the map alone (one page) is the fallback
Q2	Where does "consistency" live? On the eight-NFR list, but split across `coding.` (conventions), this site (sources of truth), and `skills.` (drift)	Recommend: this site owns the requirement, the map points at the three homes
Q3	Should IFD be published at all? It is the estate's competitive methodology — and the memory thesis says publish	The open-source position ("the moat is a rate, not a wall") answers yes; say so explicitly rather than assuming
Q4	Do the budget disciplines survive contact with real figures? Pre-approve-the-ladder is research-grounded and untested here	Publish as discipline with the research citations; mark the estate's own use as pending
Q5	Is "backups" actually the gap, or is the vault model the answer? Vault versioning + escrow may be the backup doctrine, unnamed	An hour of thinking, then either the doctrine page or the honest stub

A site about NFRs, from an estate whose own scorecard is mixed. One green column would be dishonest; the mixed table is the credibility. Every lapse cited is already published in a sibling pack — this site adds no new exposure, only assembly.
The hub teaches what the spokes measured. Its value is curation, and curation is the first thing to rot. The generate-or-date rule is load-bearing here more than anywhere.
The memory thesis makes every site's flaws teachable. If these sites are agent memory, then a stale page is a false memory — which raises the stakes of the staleness failures the estate has already had four of. The thesis and the freshness discipline arrive together or not at all.
"For agents to learn how we work" cuts both ways. An agent that learns the no-mocks rule also learns the 67.4%-CI-coverage reality. Teaching the practice honestly means teaching the gap between rule and practice — which is, in the end, what an NFR site is for.

Decide Q5 (backups vs vault-model) before writing G1.
Extract the eight-NFR sentence's history — did the list ever appear earlier than the villagers brief?
Check library/guides/development/ for guides not yet surfaced in any pack (the code-formating and dependencies folders were only skimmed).
Confirm the IFD guides' current version against actual practice — they are v1.2.x in a repo at v0.33.x, two version schemes side by side.
Count the day-indexes and debriefs for the G2 page — the PM system's scale is part of its argument.

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

== briefs/v0.33.62__nfrs-brief-pack__LICENCE.md