risks.sgit.ai — Brief Pack
Pack version: v1.0 · 22 August 2026
Target site: risks.sgit.ai — the conceptual and research home for risk
Sources: SGraph-AI__App__Send @ v0.33.62 · docs.diniscruz.ai @ v0.3.123 · riskmandate.ai↗ · the four risk vaults published on sgit.ai
Siblings: sgit.ai · nhi.sgit.ai · pki.sgit.ai · graphs.sgit.ai (v0.3.9) · sg-sentinel.sgit.ai · newsroom.sgit.ai · issues-fs.sgit.ai
0. The commission
Two jobs, and the second is what makes this site different from the others in the estate.
Job 1 — consolidate the concepts. ~496,000 words across ~185 documents, written between 18 June and 22 August 2026, plus a February pre-history. 42 distinct concepts, most of them well-developed, almost none of them published anywhere a reader or an agent can reach.
Job 2 — be the site riskmandate.ai references. riskmandate.ai is commercial: pricing, demos, partners, the customer/user angle of getting risks accepted. It currently also carries the concepts — nine library pieces, plug.html, acceptable.html, ramm.html. Those concepts should live here, and riskmandate.ai should link to them. §4 maps the refactor page by page.
The primary audience is agents. The brief says it plainly: "to handle the cases where I need agents to have a good understanding of some of those key concepts and ideas." That shapes everything — the concepts must be reachable in one fetch, stated as definitions rather than narrative, and machine-readable where possible.
1. The honesty constraint — read this before anything else
Essentially none of this risk corpus is implemented in code. Greps for risk_, RiskAcceptance, risk_register and riskmandate across sgraph_ai_app_send/**/*.py return zero matches. The Librarian's own reality file says so directly:
"All items below are PROPOSED. None have been code-verified. Do not describe any of these as existing features." —
team/roles/librarian/reality/ai-agents/proposed/risk-mandate.md
What has shipped: riskmandate.ai as a vault-powered static site, the ten "how long would you accept" scenario documents, and four published vaults with read keys (§5).
The honest sentence for /shipped/: "This is a research site. The concepts are argued, the worked examples are real graphs, and four vaults are live and browsable. The engine is not built."
That framing is not a weakness here — it is what separates a research property from a product one, and it is the reason the split from riskmandate.ai works.
2. The thesis in one paragraph
Traditional risk management predicts the probability of a future event. This model asks a named human to underwrite an exposure that already exists — insurance-style, with personal liability attached. From that single inversion everything else follows: if the risk is real, it cannot be denied, so there is no deny button — only how long you accept it before re-accepting. The interval is not metadata about the decision; the interval is the decision, because each rung implies a specific operational response. A risk nobody has accepted has not gone away — it has come to rest on whoever is nearest, so unaccepted is rated critical and rolls upward without anyone choosing to escalate it. And because someone must now sign, they demand evidence — which manufactures the demand for the grounding ladder underneath: Reality → Twin → Measure → Evidence → Fact → Vulnerability → Risk.
3. The ten concepts an agent must hold
Full inventory of 42 in 01__concepts-index.md. These ten carry the rest.
| # | Concept | The one line |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Acceptance is underwriting, not prediction | "we are not describing the risk of something happening, we are asking them to accept it, to underwrite it" |
| C2 | The no-deny mechanic | "the mistake of a lot of risk registers is that they allow the risk to be denied, which can only happen when the risk has not materialised" |
| C3 | The interval ladder | The interval is the decision. 1h / 4h / 1d / 1w / 1m / 6m. Default one month — deliberately just above the incident line |
| C4 | Unaccepted = critical | An un-underwritten risk rests on whoever is nearest. "that person right now is accountable for the business" |
| C5 | Accepted is not acceptable | Two orthogonal axes. Acceptable = "the moment that the business is happy to stop funding remediation activities" |
| C6 | The grounding ladder | Reality → Twin → Measure → Evidence → Fact → Vulnerability → Risk. Downward grounds; upward classifies |
| C7 | Node type formulas | "the ontology definition of a node type is its upward and downward path-pattern, not a sentence about what it contains" |
| C19 | Blast radius / authorization closure | What the agent can reach, computed — not what it did |
| C20–C23 | The plug | Who can stop it, how fast, at what cost, and recoverability — the dimension money cannot buy back |
| C17 | Not knowing is a fact | Absence of evidence is a first-class node, countable and assignable |
4. The refactor: what moves off riskmandate.ai
riskmandate.ai's own llms.txt groups its pages. Mapping them:
| riskmandate.ai page | Type | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
/plug.html — Who can pull the plug | Conceptual | → risks.sgit.ai /plug/. Five dimensions, recoverability maturity, the "no plug" correction. RM keeps a one-paragraph summary + link |
/acceptable.html — Accepted is not acceptable | Conceptual | → risks.sgit.ai /acceptable/. Two axes, four quadrants, the interval table, Article 9(5). RM links |
/ramm.html — acceptance maturity | Conceptual | → risks.sgit.ai /ramm/. Five levels as graph predicates, entity model, the Agentic + variants, crosswalks |
/library.html — nine concept pieces | Conceptual | → risks.sgit.ai /concepts/. ⚠️ Currently a landing page with no items actually linked — see §7 |
/how-it-works.html | Educational | Split. The mechanism → here; the product walkthrough stays |
/agents.html, /llms-full.txt, /.well-known/agent-content.json | Technical | Pattern to copy, not move. RM's agent surface is good; risks.sgit.ai needs its own |
/v0/.../index.html — "You own the risk" | Product | Stays. The positioning line |
/scenarios.html, /statics.html | Product | Stays — but the ten scenarios' source (07/02) is a research artefact worth publishing here too |
/demos.html + 3 demo pages | Commercial | Stays — though the three vaults themselves are shared assets (§5) |
/pricing.html, /partners.html | Commercial | Stays |
The line to draw: riskmandate.ai answers "how do I get my risks accepted, and what does it cost?" risks.sgit.ai answers "what is a risk, what is acceptance, and why is it modelled this way?"
Every concept page that moves should leave behind a short summary and a link. And each moved page should carry a provenance note — see 06__boundaries-and-house-style.md §5.
5. The four risk vaults — live, published, with read keys
From sgit.ai/demos/vaults/↗. These are the site's proof and must be first-class, not an afterthought.
| Vault | What it is | Size | Why it matters here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk Graph Explorer | Public-by-design application, 7 views recomputed simultaneously | 33 files · 428 KB · 7 commits | "Exposed" preset = 18 facts, 37 risks, 14 provisions. Amber = exposure, green = assurance, ghosted = unanswered. permissions: {} — no network, no storage, all client-side |
| Agentic Browser Isolation | Living risk graph, 17 entry points | 104 files · 2.4 MB · 4 commits | 5 altitudes L1 IT → L5 Board. Acceptance-gated escalation with no deny button — C2 and C4 running on real data. ~70 JSON files. fs.write: [] |
| Risk Mandate | The software project itself, in a vault | 124 files · 1.9 MB · 98 commits · 8 app entries | The most-committed vault published. Shows the method applied to its own build |
| Regulation Graph | EU AI Act as a citable graph, 11 views | 207 files · 14.9 MB | 1,523 nodes · 1,944 edges. Supplies Article 9(5), 14, 26(5)/(6) — the provisions the concepts hang on |
⚠️ Read keys are published for all four. Never publish write keys, and escrow before publishing — the standing rule from 08/14/sgit-site-and-hub/…read-keys-yes-write-keys-never…. The Regulation Graph is already a redacted republication after an audit found a plaintext key; adopt its PUBLIC.md transparency convention.
6. The numbers the site can stand on
| Browser-isolation graph | 59 nodes, 75 edges · Risk 13, Owner 7, Evidence 6, Vulnerability 6, Fact 5 · gives_rise_to 22, backed_by 14, owned_by 11 |
| 2FA graph | 51 nodes, 53 edges · ontology 24 node classes, 34 edge types · MITRE T1110.004 |
| Article 26(5) instance | 8 facts (one unevidenced), 5 risks, 4 stakeholders, 9 questions — 5 unanswered, "the actual output of the exercise" |
| The arithmetic finding | 30 days retained vs 6 months required — "arithmetic, not judgement, which makes it the most defensible finding in the graph" |
| Detection floor | 12–18 hours hyperscaler cost-reporting delay · the founder's AWS figure: 16 hours |
| Interval ladder | 1h / 4h / 1d / 1w / 1m / 6m — default one month |
| Altitudes | 5 — L1 endpoint/IT → L2 security → L3 business → L4 enterprise → L5 board |
| Plug profile | 5 dimensions · 4-way time intersection (detection ∧ decision ∧ blast radius ∧ reversibility) |
| Corpus | ~496,000 words, ~185 documents, 1,450 files mention "risk" |
| Prior art | 59,131 words across 8 published articles on docs.diniscruz.ai, Feb–Jul 2025 |
| This pack's manifest | 37 rows — 19 Tier-0, 13 Tier-1, 1 Tier-2, 4 Tier-3 (do-not-publish). 69,724 words of Tier-0+1 source, every path verified to exist at v0.33.62 |
7. Three things to fix while you are here
riskmandate.ai/library.htmllinks nothing. It describes "recorded talks, the full proposition deck, and the long-form pieces" and lists nine concepts — but the page ships no links to them. That is the strongest argument for the split: the concepts have nowhere to live on a commercial site.- RAMM's base levels are underspecified. Levels 1, 2, 4 and 5 are named; only Level 3 has a stated predicate ("all acceptance nodes have the five required edges"). The Agentic
+variants are better defined than the base model. - The plug material contradicts itself in one place — the corpus records a "no plug" correction that the published page does not reflect. Worth reconciling before republishing.
8. Build order
| Step | Section | Why here |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | /acceptance/ — underwriting, no-deny, the ladder, unaccepted=critical | The founding inversion. Four concepts, one page each, all publishable near-as-is |
| 2 | /acceptable/ — the two axes | Moves off riskmandate.ai. Already written for a public audience |
| 3 | /ladder/ — the grounding ladder + node type formulas | What agents most need. Definitional, machine-readable |
| 4 | /examples/ — the three worked graphs + the four vaults | Proof, with real numbers and live read keys |
| 5 | /plug/ — five dimensions, recoverability | Moves off riskmandate.ai |
| 6 | /register/ — graph of graphs, fractal registers, relevance fade | The register model |
| 7 | /agents/ — the machine surface | The commissioned audience. Copy RM's pattern |
| 8 | /shipped/ — what is argued vs what runs | Non-negotiable; §1 |
| 9 | /ramm/ + /maturity/ | Moves off riskmandate.ai; fix the base levels first |
| 10 | /network/ — the seven-site boundary map | The split is the point; state it |
9. What is in this pack
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
00__BRIEF.md | This document |
01__concepts-index.md | 42 concepts with canonical paths, maturity, newcomer-readiness and best quote |
02__risk-acceptance.md | The acceptance thread traced in full — the commissioned centrepiece |
03__worked-examples-and-vaults.md | Three worked graphs, four live vaults, every citable number |
04__riskmandate-refactor.md | Page-by-page split, with the leave-behind text |
05__site-architecture.md | Page-by-page IA with sources |
06__boundaries-and-house-style.md | Seven-site boundary map, redaction watch-list, conventions |
07__gaps-and-open-questions.md | Write-fresh list, open questions, honest tensions |
08__source-manifest.csv | Machine-readable, every path verified at v0.33.62 |
sources__docs-diniscruz-ai-risk.json | 8 published articles with dates, authors, PDFs, LinkedIn URLs |
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).