05 — Site Architecture
Status: ✅ near-as-is · ✏️ needs framing · ✍️ write fresh · 🔗 links out · 📎 provenance block · ⚠️ correction first
briefs/ = team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/. Concept refs (C1…C42) are defined in 01__concepts-index.md.
Shape
Two audiences, and the second is the commissioned one: a human deciding whether this model makes sense, and an agent that needs the definitions. The IA serves the human by depth and the agent by addressability — every concept gets a stable URL and an anchor.
risks.sgit.ai
├── / the inversion, in one screen
├── /acceptance/ ★ underwriting · no-deny · the ladder · unaccepted=critical
├── /acceptable/ accepted ≠ acceptable · appetite as a revealed band
├── /ladder/ ★ the grounding ladder · node type formulas · ontologies of ontologies
├── /register/ graph of graphs · fractal registers · relevance fade
├── /blast-radius/ authorization closure · CIA expansion
├── /plug/ who can stop it · five dimensions · recoverability
├── /practice/ owners · altitude · psychology · density · meta-risks · health
├── /ramm/ RAMM · AOMM · the plug-pull maturity model
├── /examples/ ★ three worked graphs + four live vaults
├── /concepts/ all 42, addressable, one anchor each
├── /agents/ ★ the machine surface
├── /shipped/ what is argued vs what runs
├── /origins/ Feb 2026 GRC → the June inversion → Aug formalisation
├── /network/ the seven-site boundary map
├── /documents/ raw markdown, source of truth
├── /admin/{comms,versions,index} · /about/participant.html
└── /llms.txt + /llms-full.txt/ — the front page
| Element | Content | Status |
|---|---|---|
| The inversion | "We are not describing the risk of something happening. We are asking someone to underwrite it." | ✅ C1 |
| The mechanic | There is no deny button. Only how long you accept it before re-accepting | ✅ C2 |
| The consequence | A risk nobody accepted has not gone away — it rests on whoever is nearest, and it is rated critical | ✅ C4 |
| Proof strip | 59/75 · 51/53 · 1,523/1,944 · 4 live vaults · 5 altitudes · 6 intervals | ✅ §6 of 00 |
| Honesty line | "This is a research site. The concepts are argued, the graphs are real, four vaults are live. The engine is not built." | ✍️ |
| The split | One line on what riskmandate.ai is for, and a link | ✍️ |
/acceptance/ — build first
| Page | Concept | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
/acceptance/underwriting/ | C1 — "the analogy is insurance: you are underwriting the damage… The business executive is ultimately accountable for everything" | briefs/06/18/agentic-permissions/v0.33.40__arch-brief__…the-risk-already-exists.md | ✅ |
/acceptance/no-deny/ | C2 — "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" | briefs/06/23/risk-mandate-product-and-workflow/v0.33.33__dev-brief__…no-deny-time-boxed-acceptance-expiry-as-cost…md | ✅ the most graspable page on the site |
/acceptance/the-ladder/ | C3 — the interval is the decision. 1h / 4h / 1d / 1w / 1m / 6m, one month default, each rung with its operational consequence | briefs/07/17/registers-mandate-and-intervals/v0.33.49__arch-brief__…acceptance-interval-ladder…md | ✅ publish as a table |
/acceptance/unaccepted-is-critical/ | C4 — "that person right now is accountable for the business, which is very bad from a business point of view, but is also very bad for the individual" | same, + the Article 26(5) worked example | ✅ |
/acceptance/workflow/ | C15 underwriting graph · C33 decision as a node · override and pre-approval | briefs/06/23/…v0.33.33__arch-brief__…risk-acceptance-workflow-multi-stakeholder-graph-underwriting-propagation-override-pre-approval.md | ✏️ |
/ladder/ — what agents most need
Definitional, not narrative. Every node type stated as a required path pattern, machine-readable where possible.
| Page | Concept | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
/ladder/index.html | C6 Reality → Twin → Measure → Evidence → Fact → Vulnerability → Risk. Downward grounds; upward classifies. "A Fact becomes a Vulnerability purely because of its upward link to a Risk, so that legitimacy is conferred entirely from above." | briefs/06/28/ontology-and-definitions/v0.33.36__arch-brief__…grounding-ladder…md | ✅ the most rigorous document in the corpus |
/ladder/formulas/ | C7 — "the ontology definition of a node type is its upward and downward path-pattern, not a sentence about what it contains" | briefs/06/28/…v0.33.36__arch-brief__…node-type-formulas…md | ✅ |
/ladder/bridges/ | C8 three layers — shared facts, per-party formulas, declared bridges. Plus the worked Manion/Jacobs/Roytman bridge | briefs/06/28/…ontologies-of-ontologies…md + …bridge-vulnerability-formula-system-fault-security-failure-conditions-manion-jacobs.md | ✅ names three real researchers favourably |
/ladder/absence/ | C17 not knowing is a fact — countable, queryable, assignable | briefs/06/26/risk-register-and-five-whys/v0.33.35__arch-brief__…facts-only-no-deny-cascade-cia-blast-radius.md | ✏️ |
🔗 Cite graphs.sgit.ai, don't restate it. Node type formulas as a mechanism belong there; the grounding ladder as a risk formula belongs here.
/examples/ — the proof
| Page | Content | Status |
|---|---|---|
/examples/browser-isolation/ | 59 nodes, 75 edges, inline JSON. 5 altitudes, 3 risks of the mitigation itself. Vendor system cards: prompt-injection success falling ~50% → ~1% across one model generation, cited as the honest counterweight | ✅ |
/examples/2fa/ | 51 nodes, 53 edges, downloadable JSON. Ontology 24 node classes, 34 edge types. MITRE T1110.004. The R2 governance air gap accepted at 4h by the wrong owner, propagating GRC → CIO → CEO → Board | ✅ the only downloadable graph |
/examples/article-26-5/ | 8 facts (one unevidenced), 5 risks, 4 stakeholders, 9 questions — 5 unanswered. The 30 days vs 6 months arithmetic finding | ✅ |
/examples/vaults/ | 🔗 The four live vaults with read keys — see 03__worked-examples-and-vaults.md §A | 🔗 ✅ |
/examples/scenarios/ | The ten scenarios, hook → reveal → punchline, punchline always "how long?" | ✅ |
/examples/plug-register/ | The seven-row plug register, from "agent misuses the isolated session" to "unattributable transaction" (recoverability: zero) | ✅ |
The rest
| Section | Concepts | Notes |
|---|---|---|
/acceptable/ | C5 two axes, four quadrants, Article 9(5) · C25 appetite as a revealed band, the Goldilocks zone | 📎 Moves off riskmandate.ai |
/register/ | C9 graph of graphs · C10 fractal registers · C11 relevance fade · C12 one chain not parallel lists · C16 cascade and air gaps · C42 the narrative engine | ✅ |
/blast-radius/ | C19 authorization closure — what the agent can reach, computed · C18 CIA expansion | ✅ |
/plug/ | C20 two symmetric risks · C21 four-way time intersection · C22 five dimensions · C23 recoverability. Detection floor 12–18h | 📎 ⚠️ reconcile the "no plug" correction |
/practice/ | C13 technical vs business owner · C14 confirmed/validated/accepted · C24 altitude · C26 the physical act · C27 the level ledger · C28 density and calibration by surprise · C29 residuals · C30 meta-risks · C31 the self-maintaining register · C32 three moves · C34 a question is not a risk · C35 do not internalise (63–76% burnout) | ✏️ |
/ramm/ | RAMM five levels · AOMM · the plug-pull maturity model · C37 confidence bands · C38 two underwritings · C39 observability | 📎 ⚠️ base levels underspecified |
/concepts/ | All 42, one anchor each, addressable | ✍️ |
/origins/ | Feb 2026 classical GRC (team/roles/grc/) → 4 June "the risk already exists" → 23 June no-deny → 28 June the ladder → 17 July intervals → 28 July accepted≠acceptable → 2 Aug end-to-end | ✏️ |
/agents/ — the commissioned surface
The brief says the point of this site is that agents need a good understanding of these concepts. So this is not a courtesy page.
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
/llms.txt | Each entry carries the concept's single most important fact, not its topic. "C2 no-deny — a risk with a real vulnerability under it exists whether or not anyone acknowledges it, so there is no deny button; the only choice is how long" |
/llms-full.txt | The whole site in one fetch. Non-negotiable here — measured on sgit.ai, agent fetch tools refuse URLs a search has not returned, so link-following fails |
/.well-known/agent-content.json | Structured manifest — copy riskmandate.ai's pattern |
| The definitions endpoint | The 42 concepts as JSON: name, one-line definition, canonical source, maturity, related concepts. Nothing else in the estate has this and it is the single highest-value thing this site can ship |
| The ontology download | Node types and edge types with their path formulas, plus the 2FA instance graph |
| Per-page agent block | Every concept page ends with a pasteable summary an agent can carry into another session |
/shipped/ — non-negotiable
Nothing in the risk corpus is implemented. Greps for risk_, RiskAcceptance, risk_register, riskmandate across sgraph_ai_app_send/**/*.py return zero. The reality file says "Do not describe any of these as existing features."
What does exist: riskmandate.ai as a vault-powered static site · the ten scenario documents · four live vaults with read keys · three fully worked graphs as parseable JSON.
/network/ — the seven-site map
The split is the point of this site, so state it on a page rather than leaving it implicit. Full boundaries in 06__boundaries-and-house-style.md §1.
| Site | Boundary in one line |
|---|---|
| riskmandate.ai | Commercial. How do I get my risks accepted, and what does it cost? Cites this site |
| graphs.sgit.ai | Owns the graph machinery. Node type formulas as a mechanism are theirs; the grounding ladder as a risk formula is ours |
| nhi.sgit.ai | Owns agent identity. The 06/04/nhi-2.0/ series is theirs — but its risk-management brief is risk's origin document and should be cited here |
| pki.sgit.ai | Owns attribution and signing. ⚠️ Currently carries mandate material that arguably belongs here — coordinate a split |
| sg-sentinel.sgit.ai | Enforces. We measure and evidence; we never sit in-line. The corpus states this refusal explicitly |
| newsroom.sgit.ai | Owns the evidence supply side. We own the demand side — accountability is what generates it |
| sgit.ai | Owns vaults, publishing and the catalogue. Consume the topic-section pattern, don't re-argue it |
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).
== briefs/06__boundaries-and-house-style.md — source document, verbatim