07 — Gaps, Open Questions and Honest Tensions
1. Must be written fresh
| # | Page | Why |
|---|---|---|
| G1 | The front page | Nothing in the corpus opens this argument for a cold reader. The pieces exist — underwriting, no-deny, unaccepted-is-critical — but nobody has assembled them into 300 words |
| G2 | /agents/ and the definitions endpoint | The commissioned audience has no surface today. 42 concepts as JSON is the single highest-value artefact this site can ship |
| G3 | /shipped/ | Nothing is implemented. Without this page the site over-claims and breaks the convention the siblings are built on |
| G4 | /concepts/ as an addressable index | The concepts exist across ~185 documents with no index, no anchors and no stable URLs. 01__concepts-index.md is the raw material |
| G5 | RAMM base levels | Levels 1, 2, 4 and 5 are named but only Level 3 has a stated predicate. The Agentic + variants are better defined than the base model they extend |
| G6 | The plug reconciliation | The corpus records a "no plug" correction that riskmandate.ai/plug.html does not reflect. One of the two is wrong |
2. Open questions worth publishing unresolved
Following the pki.sgit.ai convention of numbering open questions in public. A model this opinionated earns credibility by naming what it has not settled.
| # | Question | Where the corpus gets closest |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | What is the formula language? Node Type Formulas are the mechanism the whole ontology rests on, and the notation is undefined | C7's canonical brief names this as its own open question |
| Q2 | Who sets acceptable, and what stops it being set to whatever is convenient? | C5 defines it as "the moment the business is happy to stop funding remediation" — it does not say who decides or what constrains them |
| Q3 | What happens when the named acceptor refuses to sign? | The no-deny mechanic removes denial of the risk; it does not address refusal of the act |
| Q4 | Does unaccepted = critical survive contact with a large estate? | On a register of thousands, everything unaccepted being critical may make critical meaningless. C28's register-density argument circles this without resolving it |
| Q5 | How is the interval enforced? Expiry-as-cost is asserted; the mechanism is not specified | C3, C2 |
| Q6 | Is recoverability measurable, or only classifiable? | C23 splits reversible from irreversible; nothing grades the middle |
| Q7 | What is the stopping rule for the grounding ladder in practice? | C6 states the test — "the last node where going deeper would neither improve observability nor change a decision" — but no worked example applies it to a hard case |
| Q8 | How do you stop a register being gamed once acceptance carries personal liability? | C31 argues accountability manufactures demand for evidence; the opposite incentive — avoid ever being the named acceptor — is acknowledged but not answered |
3. Honest tensions
Following pki.sgit.ai's /roadmap/#tensions.
- The model rates the ability to stop but does not provide it. The corpus states this refusal itself: "a customer who scores badly will ask us to supply the stop button, which is exactly the enforcement role the corpus refuses." That boundary is principled — and commercially uncomfortable.
- No-deny is the strongest idea and the hardest sell. Removing the deny button removes the thing most executives use a register for. The corpus is honest that this is a forcing function, not a convenience.
- Personal liability is the mechanism and the risk. Making acceptance a personal act is what generates demand for evidence. It also gives every rational actor a reason to avoid being named.
- Nothing is built. ~496,000 words of design against zero lines of implementing code. That is fine for a research site if stated; it is fatal if implied otherwise.
- The corpus names real vendors critically. The OSMM assessment scores two named real vendors [REDACTED · Tier-3 · see PUBLIC.md] at Level 1 and concludes one presents more exposure on the axis it markets hardest. Rigorous, sourced, and a legal exposure.
- Two sites, one voice. riskmandate.ai and risks.sgit.ai share an author and a thesis. If the research site reads like marketing, the split has failed; if the commercial site reads like research, it will not sell.
- The EU AI Act thread is neither risk nor graphs. ~40,000 words across four brief clusters. Risk's genuine claims within it are narrow and sharp — Article 9(5)'s undefined "acceptable", Article 14 as the plug obligation, Article 26(5)/(6) as the worked example. The rest may deserve its own property.
4. Loose ends inside the acceptance thread itself
From the corpus's own record, worth carrying onto the site rather than quietly resolving:
- The 4h-for-everyone problem. In the 2FA example the governance air gap propagates GRC → CIO → CEO → Board with each accepting at 4h because that is the only option open to them. Either the ladder needs a per-altitude variant, or that uniformity is a finding about the model.
- Compound pre-approval is proposed and never worked through.
- Override is named in the workflow brief without a stated authority model.
- The level ledger (C27 — accept first, then adjust the level) sits awkwardly with the no-deny mechanic: if you can adjust the level after accepting, denial re-enters through the back door.
5. Fixes worth doing at source
- Reconcile the plug correction across the corpus and
riskmandate.ai/plug.html. - Specify RAMM levels 1, 2, 4 and 5 to the standard already set by Level 3 and the Agentic variants.
- Legal read on the OSMM vendor assessment before it goes anywhere public, with a right-of-reply process.
- Verify what "Odysseus" refers to — 42 mentions across three documents, reads as a codename for a real product or engagement.
- Decide the EU AI Act thread's home before it accretes further.
- Coordinate the mandate split with pki.sgit.ai, whose own 19 August site review says "mandate is the gap, registry is the missing half."
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).
== briefs/08__source-manifest.csv — source document, verbatim
tier,concept,repo_path_or_url,title,words,proposed_page,publishability,why_it_matters 0,C9 register,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/26/risk-register-and-five-whys/v0.33.35__arch-brief__sg-send-risk-register-graph-of-graphs-facts-only-no-deny-cascade-cia-blast-radius.md,The Risk Register as a Graph of Graphs,3187,/register/,clean,"The founding register document. Facts-only, no-deny, cascade, air gaps, CIA blast radius, told as a five-movement narrative." 0,C6 grounding ladder,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/28/ontology-and-definitions/v0.33.36__arch-brief__sg-send-grounding-ladder-fact-evidence-measure-vulnerability-risk-definitions.md,The Grounding Ladder,2325,/ladder/,clean,THE most rigorous document in the corpus and what agents most need. Reality-Twin-Measure-Evidence-Fact-Vulnerability-Risk as one formula. 0,C7 node type formulas,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/28/ontology-and-definitions/v0.33.36__arch-brief__sg-send-node-type-formulas-classification-as-testable-path-pattern-not-judgment.md,Node Type Formulas,1511,/ladder/formulas/,clean,"Classification as a computed path query. Bias relocated from the classifier into the formula, where it is visible and arguable." 0,C8 ontologies of ontologies,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/28/ontology-and-definitions/v0.33.36__arch-brief__sg-send-ontologies-of-ontologies-three-layers-formulas-bridges-multiple-definitions.md,Ontologies of Ontologies,1275,/ladder/bridges/,clean,"Three layers: shared factual graph, per-party formulas, declared bridges. Merging erases the disagreement." 0,C8 worked bridge,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/28/ontology-and-definitions/v0.33.36__arch-brief__sg-send-bridge-vulnerability-formula-system-fault-security-failure-conditions-manion-jacobs.md,Bridging a Security-Centric Vulnerability Formula,1713,/ladder/bridges/,clean - names 3 real researchers favourably,"The first worked external bridge. Their Security Failure is structurally the promotion edge, differing only in terminus." 0,C2 no-deny,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/23/risk-mandate-product-and-workflow/v0.33.33__dev-brief__sg-send-risk-acceptance-service-demo-no-deny-time-boxed-acceptance-expiry-as-cost-graph-evidence.md,The Risk Acceptance Service,1831,/acceptance/no-deny/,clean,The no-deny button and the expiry-as-cost table. The most immediately graspable idea in the corpus. 0,C15 underwriting graph,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/23/risk-mandate-product-and-workflow/v0.33.33__arch-brief__sg-send-risk-acceptance-workflow-multi-stakeholder-graph-underwriting-propagation-override-pre-approval.md,The Risk Acceptance Workflow,2003,/acceptance/workflow/,clean,"Two dimensions, underwriting graph, altitude, override, compound pre-approval. Override and pre-approval are loose ends." 0,C3 interval ladder,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/17/registers-mandate-and-intervals/v0.33.49__arch-brief__sg-send-acceptance-interval-ladder-hour-to-six-months-default-one-month-interval-implies-response.md,The Acceptance Interval Ladder,2449,/acceptance/the-ladder/,clean,THE SINGLE CLEANEST ARTEFACT IN THE CORPUS. The interval IS the decision. Publish as a table. 0,C10 fractal registers,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/17/registers-mandate-and-intervals/v0.33.49__arch-brief__sg-send-fractal-risk-registers-one-per-accepting-role-domain-language-relevance-fade.md,Fractal Risk Registers,2674,/register/,clean,One register per accepting entity; relevance fade as an education mechanism. 0,C5 accepted != acceptable,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/28/regulation-graph-and-acceptability/v0.33.53__strategy-brief__sg-send-accepted-is-not-acceptable-orthogonal-axes-appetite-renamed-article-9-mandates-judgement-without-defining-it.md,Accepted Is Not Acceptable,3291,/acceptable/,clean,"Two orthogonal axes, four quadrants, the Article 9(5) definitional gap. Moves off riskmandate.ai." 0,C25 appetite,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/30/risk-acceptance-and-appetite/v0.33.38__strategy-brief__sg-send-risk-appetite-band-fractal-two-signals-goldilocks-zone-revealed-dataset.md,Risk Appetite: The Band a Company Reveals,1970,/acceptable/,clean,"Appetite as a fractal, revealed band. Two signals. The Goldilocks zone." 0,C26 psychology,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/30/risk-acceptance-and-appetite/v0.33.38__strategy-brief__sg-send-risk-acceptance-psychology-accountability-liability-physical-act-revealed-appetite.md,The Psychology of Risk Acceptance,1666,/practice/,clean,Why the physical act matters. Accountability becomes liability; liability becomes the forcing function. 0,C20-C23 the plug,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/24/who-can-pull-the-plug/v0.33.51__strategy-brief__sg-send-who-can-pull-the-plug-ability-to-stop-an-ai-system-fractal-maturity-model-detection-authority-blast-radius-reversibility-intersect-in-time.md,Who Can Pull The Plug,3940,/plug/,clean,"Two symmetric risks, fractal maturity model, four-way time intersection, EU AI Act Art 14. Detection floor 12-18h." 0,RAMM,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/02/authorization-and-maturity-model/v0.33.40__arch-brief__sg-send-risk-acceptance-maturity-model-ramm-graph-native-levels-agentic-crosswalk.md,RAMM,2265,/ramm/,clean - FIX BASE LEVELS,Five levels as graph predicates plus Agentic RAMM. Only Level 3 has a stated predicate. 0,worked example,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/08/02/vault-as-substrate/v0.33.55__arch-brief__sg-send-end-to-end-worked-example-article-26-5-creditworthiness-agent-fact-to-board.md,"End To End: One Provision, One Agent, One Graph",4272,/examples/article-26-5/,clean - org invented and marked,"8 facts, 5 risks, 4 stakeholders, 9 questions (5 unanswered). The 30-days-vs-6-months arithmetic finding." 0,C1 underwriting,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/18/agentic-permissions/v0.33.40__arch-brief__sg-send-risk-acceptance-underwriting-flows-upward-cross-domain-the-risk-already-exists.md,Risk Acceptance as Underwriting,2265,/acceptance/underwriting/,clean,THE FOUNDING INVERSION. The insurance analogy carries it with no GRC background. 0,worked example,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/12/worked-business-case/v0.33.48__briefing__sg-send-browser-isolation-agentic-automation-business-case-facts-vulnerabilities-risks-five-levels-graph.md,Browser Isolation Business Case,4601,/examples/browser-isolation/,clean,"59 nodes 75 edges, drop-in renderable. Includes 3 risks OF THE MITIGATION. 5 altitudes." 0,worked example,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/26/semantic-graph-and-query-paths/v0.33.35__data__sg-send-2fa-mappings.json,2FA instance graph (DATA),1253,/examples/2fa/,clean - CC BY 4.0 inline,51 nodes 53 edges. THE ONLY DOWNLOADABLE GRAPH. Declares its own principles inside the file. 0,scenarios,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/02/risk-acceptance-and-scenarios/v0.33.40__strategy-brief__sg-send-how-long-would-you-accept-risk-scenario-slides-gamified-survey-vault-capture.md,The Ten Scenarios,1621,/examples/scenarios/,clean,"Hook-reveal-punchline, punchline always 'how long?'. The shipped MVP content." 1,C19 blast radius,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/05/aws-configuration-risk-engine/v0.33.44__arch-brief__sg-send-aws-iam-config-risk-ontology-taxonomy-nodes-edges-formulas-bridges.md,AWS IAM Config Risk Ontology,2968,/blast-radius/,clean,"6 layers, ~31 node types, 20 edge types (40 readings), 7 Node Type Formulas. AuthorizationClosure as the agentic union." 1,C39 observability,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/24/who-can-pull-the-plug/v0.33.51__strategy-brief__sg-send-the-plug-is-a-sledgehammer-blast-radius-and-side-effects-of-pulling-it.md,The Plug Is A Sledgehammer,1384,/plug/,clean,The blast radius and side effects of pulling it - the symmetric risk. 1,C23 recoverability,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/24/who-can-pull-the-plug/v0.33.51__strategy-brief__sg-send-what-money-cannot-buy-back-recoverability-the-hard-limit.md,What Money Cannot Buy Back,1714,/plug/,clean,Recoverability as the hard limit. The dimension that separates catastrophic-but-reversible from smaller-and-permanent. 1,C35 do not internalise,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/31/keeping-the-register-healthy/v0.33.54__strategy-brief__sg-send-do-not-internalise-the-risk-accountability-without-authority-relocated-not-augmented-mental-load.md,Do Not Internalise The Risk,3338,/practice/,clean,63-76% of security leaders experiencing or witnessing burnout in a single year. The register is the boundary. 1,C36 evidence economy,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/05/evidence-economy/v0.33.44__strategy-brief__sg-send-evidence-economy-force-of-proof-fact-certification-two-prices-evidence-based-revenue-models.md,The Force of Proof,1980,/practice/,clean - DEMAND side only,The risk-acceptor / fact-certifier split. Supply side belongs to newsroom.sgit.ai. 1,C41 twins,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/26/digital-twins-and-world-models/v0.33.35__arch-brief__sg-send-digital-twins-twin-of-anything-dimensions-discipline-of-reality-simulation-testing.md,Digital Twins of Anything,1593,/ladder/,CITE graphs.sgit.ai,Twins are where the graph stops modelling and continues into a real system. General form belongs to graphs. 1,origin doc,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/04/nhi-2.0/v0.32.3__strategy-brief__sg-send-nhi-2.0-risk-management-acceptance-underwriting-roi.md,"NHI 2.0: Risk Management, Acceptance, Underwriting, ROI",3010,/origins/,CITE nhi.sgit.ai,RISK'S ORIGIN DOCUMENT - first appearance of 'the risk already exists'. Lives on nhi.sgit.ai; cite from here. 1,live vault,https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/risk-graph-explorer/,Risk ↗ Graph Explorer (LIVE),0,/examples/vaults/,published,"7 views, 18 facts / 37 risks / 14 provisions in the Exposed preset. Ghosted edges = unanswered. permissions: {}" 1,live vault,https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/agentic-browser-isolation/,Agentic ↗ Browser Isolation (LIVE),0,/examples/vaults/,published,"17 entry points, 5 altitudes, acceptance-gated escalation with NO DENY BUTTON. C2 and C4 on real data." 1,live vault,https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/risk-mandate/,Risk ↗ Mandate vault (LIVE),0,/examples/vaults/,published,"124 files, 98 commits, 8 app entries. The most-committed published vault - the method applied to its own build." 1,live vault,https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/regulation-graph/,Regulation ↗ Graph (LIVE),0,/examples/vaults/,published,"1,523 nodes / 1,944 edges. Supplies Art 9(5), 14, 26(5)/(6) - the provisions the concepts hang on." 1,prior art,https://docs.diniscruz.ai/2025/07/06/finding-the-good-enough-threshold-optimizing-risk-creativity-and-product-decisions.html,Finding ↗ the Good Enough Threshold,4924,/acceptable/,PUBLISHED - CC0 at source,The appetite argument before it had the vocabulary. 15 risk-acceptance mentions - highest density on the site. 1,prior art,https://docs.diniscruz.ai/2025/04/02/maturity-modes-vs-traditional-standards-in-application-security.html,Maturity ↗ Models vs Traditional Standards,2701,/ramm/,PUBLISHED - CC0 at source,"The ancestor of RAMM, a year early." 2,EU AI Act thread,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/28/regulation-graph-and-acceptability/,Regulation graph cluster (4 docs),13895,/acceptable/ (narrow claims only),needs a home decision,"~40,000 words across 4 clusters. Neither risk nor graphs. Risk's claims are narrow: Art 9(5), 14, 26(5)/(6)." 3,vendor assessment,[REDACTED - Tier-3 - see PUBLIC.md],OSMM Assessment 001,2811,HOLD - LEGAL READ,legal read + right of reply,"Names two real vendors and scores both Level 1. Rigorous and sourced - and a legal exposure. Names and path redacted for publication." 3,competitor map,[REDACTED - Tier-3 - see PUBLIC.md],Competitor comparison,2090,DO-NOT-PUBLISH,INTERNAL ONLY,"Competitor map naming two large vendors. Commercial positioning, not research. Names and path redacted for publication." 3,investor,team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/06/02/v0.31.9__strategy-brief__sg-send-investment-strategy-why-now-alchemist-guidance.md,Investment strategy,2821,DO-NOT-PUBLISH,INTERNAL ONLY,"Illustrative revenue, valuation and exit figures. Explicitly scenarios, not projections. Figures redacted for publication - see PUBLIC.md." 3,contract,[REDACTED - Tier-3 - see PUBLIC.md],Partnership contract draft,2452,DO-NOT-PUBLISH,INTERNAL ONLY,An actual contract draft with commercial terms.
== briefs/PUBLIC.md — source document, verbatim