| Ask | Of whom | State |
N1 | Reconcile the “no plug” correction at source. The corpus records that the plug always exists and what looked like “no plug” was zero recoverability. The published product page this material moved from does not reflect that correction. One of the two is wrong, and until it is settled, two properties in the estate carry contradictory versions of the same finding. This site publishes the corrected version and says so on the page. | riskmandate.ai · the corpus | open |
N2 | Specify RAMM levels 1, 2, 4 and 5. Only Level 3 has a stated predicate, and the Agentic + variants are better defined than the base model they extend. The standard already exists — Level 3 sets it — so this is a matter of writing four predicates to a known shape. This site publishes the underspecification rather than inventing the missing four, which is the correct behaviour and not a satisfying one. | the corpus | needed |
N3 | Legal read and a right-of-reply process before any comparative vendor assessment is published anywhere public. The document in question is rigorous and scrupulous about its own limits, and it names real companies critically. It is not on this site and the gate fails the build if it appears. Nothing changes until both the legal read and the reply process exist. | the project · legal | needed |
N4 | Coordinate the mandate split with pki.sgit.ai. Their own 19 August site review says “mandate is the gap, registry is the missing half” — meaning they currently carry mandate material that arguably belongs with risk. A unilateral move by either site produces two half-treatments. Stated on the boundary map. | pki.sgit.ai | open |
N5 | Decide the EU AI Act thread's home before it accretes further. Roughly 40,000 words across four clusters, and it is neither risk nor graphs. This site takes only three narrow declared bridges — Article 9(5), Article 14 and Article 26(5)/(6) — and leaves the rest un-annexed. That is a holding position, not an answer. | the estate | open |
N6 | Offer a right of reply to the three named researchers whose published vulnerability formula the bridge document paraphrases. The treatment is favourable and explicitly marked as a paraphrase, and the corpus's own stance is “offered to be built on and challenged” — which is an argument for notifying them rather than waiting to be corrected. | the project | open |
N7 | Write the canonical “risk acceptance redefined” statement, or confirm it is lost. Eight documents cite a 7 July 2026 brief of that title. It is not in the repository, and neither are three others referenced alongside it. Either it exists somewhere and should be restored, or the citations should be repointed — at present eight documents reference something nobody can read. | the corpus | needed |
N8 | Take the execution boundary back to the correspondent who set the test, and ask specifically about the two results that were pre-registered as unwelcome rather than about the three that worked. Their framing was built to and not widened; whether the third verdict earns its cost in a system anyone actually runs is not a question this site can answer about itself. The instrument is instrumented for exactly one scenario, which is the constraint they asked for and also its main limit. | the correspondent | open |
N9 | Escrow the Execution Boundary vault's write key before anything else is published from it. The estate's own standing rule is that a write key is escrowed before publication, because a vault whose write key is lost is frozen — permanently readable, never updatable, with no recovery path. This vault was published with the key held by the author and the box left unticked in its PUBLIC.md. Recorded as an ask rather than quietly done, because the rule was broken in the direction the rule exists to prevent. | the project | needed |