title: The briefs, published raw description: "Every brief this site and its vault were built from, published unedited, with a decision-by-decision account of what was accepted, modified and rejected." lead: "A site arguing for published provenance that hides its own inputs has refuted itself. So both packs are here, raw and unedited — including the parts this session found to be wrong." order: 11 toc: true
The two packs
| Pack | What it is |
|---|---|
2026-09-09__pack__ungovr-site-and-vault/↗ | The brief for this session: the two deliverables, the house pattern, the vault MVP, the site, and the acceptance tests for both |
2026-09-09__vault__government-graph-pack/↗ | The vault's own specification, published as the vault's first commit before any implementation existed |
Both are CC BY 4.0. Neither has been edited to match what was built.
What was accepted
- The scope discipline. One county, one law, one acceptance, and a refusal to widen it.
- The two-edge rule — nodes derived from their data visibly distinct from nodes that are our model, with origin and assertion class carried by different visual channels.
- Retrieve, hash, log, then parse. Every row of the retrieval log↗ follows it.
- Ship the site at v0.1.0 with all nine sections, several honestly thin, rather than waiting.
- Do not substitute a lossy path. Not needed — egress worked↗ — but the precedent was inherited and would have been followed.
What was modified
The framing of the finding. The pack anticipated a low-but-nonzero coverage number and a gap to be described. The measurement is 0 of 49, and a bare zero reads as an accusation. So the site leads with what the Atlas is, states the zero with its interval and its framing sentence, and pairs it immediately with the 96.6% that says the gap is one derivable hop. There is a build check that refuses to let the number appear on any page without the sentence that says it is not a defect count.
The spec/unrun expectation. The pack predicted a ledger that would be mostly spec and unrun, on the assumption that egress would stay blocked. Egress worked, so most of the ledger is verified and measured instead. The example files are verified rather than unrun because they are the scripts that produced the numbers, not illustrations of them.
What was rejected, or found wrong
These are corrections filed against the packs, beside them rather than as edits to them — the house rule, and the third and fourth such corrections on this project.
| # | Against | Correction |
|---|---|---|
| C3 | 03__vault-mvp.md, step 3: "fetch one country subset and compute the coverage of their open_records.law edge" | Not possible as described. open_records is absent from every bulk surface — country subsets, state slices and full-depth indexes all carry a compact record without it. Coverage can only be sampled, one request per entity, and the pack's plan would have measured nothing. The measurement was redesigned as a seeded stratified sample with an interval.↗ {{claim:law-not-in-bulk}} |
| C4 | 04__the-site.md §2, and the vault pack's model | The records-law corpus is far richer than assumed. It is sub-national — 254 of 398 rows — and the California record carries structured obligation data, not just a citation. The gap is not "no structure below the law"; it is no addressable provision, and no edge from the entity. That is a narrower and more defensible finding. {{claim:cpra-in-corpus}} |
| C5 | 03__vault-mvp.md, step 5: Akoma Ntoso for legislative text | No Akoma Ntoso exists for the CPRA. Both source URLs serve JSF-rendered HTML. The akn: identifier in the graph is therefore minted by us following the naming convention, not retrieved, and is marked inferred for exactly that reason. Acceptance test 3 is recorded as unpassable for this instrument rather than weakened. {{claim:cpra-no-akn}} |
| C6 | 03__vault-mvp.md, step 2, retrieval 8: /v1/cgj/counties/{code}.json with an entity slug | Two identifier schemes in one API. The CGJ corpus is keyed by bare county code (santa-barbara), the entity API by slug (us--ca--santa-barbara). The pack's URL 404s. Logged as a failure rather than silently corrected |
| C7 | 01__what-is-already-built.md, blocker B2 | B2 closes by registering, not by paying. An API key is free. The pack treats the gated corpora as a commercial unknown; they are a registration decision, and therefore a relationship decision↗. Closed the same day: a key was issued to the project mid-session |
| C8 | 04__the-site.md §2: "the AI-law endpoints return a verdict, not provisions… a reader can neither check it nor disagree" | Wrong, and the corpus is much stronger than predicted. It carries 2,915 instruments across 271 jurisdictions with citations, effective dates and statuses, a per-scenario basis naming controlling authority, and a provenance block with as_of_date, confidence and stale. The prediction was made without a key and did not survive contact with one. {{claim:ai-laws-is-instruments}} |
| C9 | The whole pack, and 02__the-house-pattern.md on licensing | The API is not uniformly CC BY 4.0. The OpenAPI document declares it so; the AI-law payloads carry their own, more restrictive licence. Nothing in either pack anticipated a per-corpus licence split, and it changes what may be republished {{claim:ai-laws-licence}} |
| C12 | 01__what-is-already-built.md, the Read URL row | The URL form does not open the vault. The brief gives https://dev.vault.sgraph.ai/en-gb/#<read-key>:dkeclt5r; the /en-gb/ segment breaks the client-side fragment routing, and the working form is https://dev.vault.sgraph.ai/#<read-key>:<id>. Both return HTTP 200 — it is a single-page app, so the shell serves either way and only the browser can tell them apart, which is why this survived a curl check. The brief is republished unedited; the corrected form is on the vault page ↗ and in the vault's catalogue entry {{claim:vault-url-form}} |
| C11 | 04__the-site.md §3: "Do not iframe it… Link, do not embed." | Wrong, and the estate's real pattern is the opposite. Every published vault on sgit.ai/demos/vaults/ is embedded live through SG/Vault's embed protocol: a sandboxed frame, a postMessage handshake, and the read key posted to a pinned origin after the frame proves it is the right recipient. That is strictly safer than the link the brief prescribed, because the key never enters a URL. The vault now runs on this site that way. ↗ {{claim:vault-embed-pattern}} |
| C10 | 02__the-house-pattern.md §3, the patterns: front-matter example | It shows inline flow mappings (p0: { verdict: never, note: "…" }). The family's build.py YAML subset does not parse those — the block form is required, which is what the sibling's real front-matter uses. The file was written from the live sites rather than the repository, and §5 of that file predicted exactly this class of error |
What is still open
The handback list — what a human with access must decide, kept short enough for one sitting.
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | The vault write key. Handed over out of band. It must never enter this repository, and the scan that enforces that is wired ↗ |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Default branch. dev, confirmed from the sibling repository's origin/HEAD. CI deploys from it |
| 4 | May a dev.send.sgraph.ai vault be linked from a public site? Or does the vault move to production first — the link ships on the dev host today ↗ |
| 5 | ungovr.providers.sgit.ai get pointed? |
| 6 | Does the hub's contract take the open-data-provider correction? A change to a shared contract, so it is the project lead's call |
| 7 | Do we tell UnGovr before publishing? The licence permits it with attribution. Asking is not required and is probably right |
| 8 | Who is the named owner on the acceptance node? An acceptance without an owner is a note {{claim:acceptance-unowned}} |
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).