diff --git a/docs/requirements/rollup-projection.md b/docs/requirements/rollup-projection.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4f0c0157
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/requirements/rollup-projection.md
@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
+# Roll-up Projection Contract (S2 contract 8)
+
+Status: DRAFT — awaiting ratification (webui-audit S2, contract 8 of 9).
+Authority: `native-kanban-sot.md` §8 (A1 amendment) — "task and status
+visualization bubbles up the hierarchy as aggregation over workspaces
+the reader is authorized on" (§8.1.3); roll-up is never a write and
+bubble-up views are generated projections, non-authoritative and never
+import sources (§8.2.2); the express, narrow carve-out from the
+portfolio-analytics non-goal covers per-workspace task counts and
+statuses aggregated up the parent chain over readable workspaces, and
+nothing beyond that boundary (§8.2.4); acceptance requires that roll-up
+endpoints cannot mutate state and that a reader sees aggregates only
+over workspaces they are authorized on, with no cross-tenant existence
+oracles (§8.3). A5 rank 5 names the deliverable: an authorized
+read-only roll-up query over only readable workspaces, at every
+hierarchy level, as its own non-mutating query tool, dependent on ranks
+1–3.
+
+Revision 2 (terra review F1–F7): membership-only readability is now
+workspace-local — it contributes at the workspace node only and never
+promotes ancestor visibility; upward aggregation requires an effective
+chain role, and §1 defines direct vs effective grants in contract 2's
+terms (F1). The no-oracle rule gains a defined equivalence predicate
+(normalized byte equality with an enumerated volatile-field set) and a
+partial-scope hidden-sibling witness (F2). §2.5 enumerates the closed
+semantic result and denial schemas field-by-field, including the
+explicit-zero representation (F3). Cache invalidation, when a cache
+exists, is witnessed per invalidator class (F4). Non-authoritative and
+never-gate rules gain an import-graph/data-flow witness, and the
+mutation check is aligned to contract 1 §6.7's both-table zero-write
+assertion (F5). The fixture gains a second estate with distinct counts
+and explicit company-, estate-, project-grant, and membership cases
+(F6). The §5.3 legacy-row exclusion and pre-rank no-obligation rules
+are disclosed as drafting additions (F7).
+
+Revision 3 (terra re-review residuals): the partial-scope witnesses are
+reconstructed at levels where chain grants can actually differ —
+platform-project siblings under one estate and estate siblings under
+one company — because contract 1 §3.1/§3.4 defines no workspace-level
+grant target, so no reader can hold a chain grant on two of three
+sibling workspaces (F2). §2.5 now defines one field-exact recursive
+record — every node, including the queried node and every leaf, is the
+same five-field shape with a required, deterministically ordered
+`children` array that is empty at workspaces — and the whole-result
+rules (no optional fields, denial envelope, wire faithfulness) are
+their own §2.6 at section scope (F3). The fixture assigns workspaces
+to named platform-projects, and §6.1's grant-level cases are the three
+levels contract 1 defines, with workspace-level access covered by the
+membership case and stated as having no direct chain grant (F6).
+
+This contract binds the projection semantics (§2), reader authorization
+semantics (§3), read-only enforcement (§4), dependencies and phase
+timing (§5), witnesses (§6), and disclosed drafting additions (§7). It
+defines the roll-up only: hierarchy shape stays with contract 1
+(`hierarchy-schema.md`), grant vocabulary and evaluation with contract 2
+(`rbac-grant-model.md`), the task lifecycle and status taxonomy with
+`native-kanban-sot.md`'s typed surface, and the tool↔Gateway mapping
+row with contract 5 (`tool-gateway-mapping.md`).
+
+## 1. Definitions
+
+1. **Roll-up**: the read-only projection of per-workspace task counts
+   by status, aggregated up the contract 1 parent chain (workspace →
+   platform-project → estate → company).
+2. **Effective chain role** (at a node, for a reader): the role
+   contract 2 §3 evaluation yields at that node — from a grant on the
+   node itself (a **direct grant**) or from a grant on an ancestor
+   whose domain covers it (an **inherited grant**, contract 2 §3.2).
+   The role vocabulary is contract 2 §2's; this contract adds no role
+   and no new authority source.
+3. **Chain-readable workspace** (for a reader): a workspace where the
+   reader's effective chain role permits reading task state.
+4. **Member-readable workspace** (for a reader): a workspace readable
+   only through workspace membership under the SOT's own membership
+   rules (REQ-ID-001), with no effective chain role. Membership
+   confers workspace-local semantics only (contract 2 §3.1, §7.4): it
+   never contributes authority, visibility, or aggregation upward.
+5. **Aggregation scope** (of a hierarchy node, for a reader): the set
+   of chain-readable workspaces in that node's descendant subtree;
+   plus, when the node is itself a workspace, that workspace if it is
+   chain-readable or member-readable. A member-readable workspace
+   therefore contributes to exactly one node's aggregation scope: its
+   own.
+6. **Projection**: a generated, non-authoritative view in the sense of
+   `native-kanban-sot.md` §3 invariant 5 — derived from SOT rows,
+   never an import source, never authoritative.
+
+## 2. Projection semantics
+
+1. **Aggregate content.** The roll-up for a node reports, per
+   workspace in the reader's aggregation scope and as subtree totals:
+   task counts keyed by the typed lifecycle's status values (owned by
+   `native-kanban-sot.md`; this contract introduces no status), and
+   nothing else. Direct count/status aggregation is the entire
+   surface.
+2. **Every level.** The roll-up is queryable at workspace,
+   platform-project, estate, and company level. A node's totals equal
+   the sum over its aggregation scope; chain resolution is contract 1
+   §2.5's (every workspace resolves to exactly one chain), so no
+   workspace is counted twice and none is orphaned.
+3. **Carve-out boundary.** Everything beyond direct count/status
+   aggregation — metrics, trends, forecasting, scoring, velocity,
+   cross-workspace derived analytics, dashboards computed across
+   workspaces — remains a `native-kanban-sot.md` §6 non-goal
+   (§8.2.4). The response schema is closed (§2.5; §6.7 witness):
+   adding any field is an amendment to this contract.
+4. **Non-authoritative.** No consumer may treat roll-up output as a
+   source of record; it is recomputable at any time from SOT rows and
+   is never imported, persisted as authoritative state, or used to
+   gate or deny work (witness §6.8 — both the write-path and the
+   decision-path prohibitions are witnessed).
+5. **Closed semantic schema.** The successful result is exactly one
+   **roll-up node record**, a single recursive shape used at every
+   depth. A roll-up node record consists of exactly these five
+   fields, and no others:
+   - `id`: the node's identifier.
+   - `type`: one of the four contract 1 levels.
+   - `name`: the node's name.
+   - `totals`: one entry per status value of the typed lifecycle —
+     every status key present, a count of zero represented explicitly
+     as `0`, never by key absence. At a workspace node, `totals` is
+     that workspace's own counts; at any other node, `totals` is the
+     sum over the node's aggregation scope (§2.2). This is how §2.1's
+     "per workspace and as subtree totals" content is carried:
+     per-workspace counts are the leaf records' `totals`, subtree
+     totals are the interior records' `totals`.
+   - `children`: a required array, present on EVERY node record. Its
+     elements are the reader-visible (§3.2) child nodes of this node,
+     each itself a complete roll-up node record, recursing down to
+     the workspaces in the reader's aggregation scope. At a workspace
+     node the array is exactly `[]` — a workspace record never has
+     children. The array is ordered deterministically, ascending by
+     `id`; the implementing PR asserts that ordering. A node outside
+     §3.2 visibility never appears at any depth.
+
+   The queried node's record IS the whole result — there is no
+   wrapper field around it.
+
+6. **Whole-result rules.** There are no optional result fields at any
+   depth. The denial/nonexistent response is the contract 5 §4.2
+   not-found-class error envelope with no fields beyond that
+   envelope. The wire DTO is expressed under contract 5 §4.1, and
+   MUST be a faithful serialization of exactly the §2.5 recursive
+   record: a wire field with no corresponding semantic field is a
+   conformance defect.
+
+## 3. Reader authorization semantics
+
+1. **Scope rule.** A reader's roll-up over any node aggregates ONLY
+   the reader's aggregation scope (§1.5). An unreadable workspace
+   contributes nothing to any total — not a count, not a row, not a
+   presence marker. A member-readable workspace contributes only at
+   the workspace node itself (§1.4–§1.5): querying it directly
+   succeeds; it never appears in, and never adds to, any ancestor's
+   response for that reader.
+2. **Node visibility.** A node appears in a roll-up response iff the
+   reader's aggregation scope at that node is non-empty, or the
+   reader holds an effective chain role at the node (§1.2 — direct or
+   inherited; contract 2 §3.2 makes a grant's domain the node and its
+   subtree, so an ancestor grant makes empty descendants visible per
+   the ruling). Per the ruling below, a node with an effective chain
+   role but an empty aggregation scope appears with zero counts.
+   Workspace membership alone never makes any non-workspace node
+   visible. A node where the reader has neither an effective chain
+   role nor a non-empty aggregation scope does not appear at all.
+3. **No existence oracle.** The response MUST NOT disclose the
+   existence, count, name, or any property of unreadable workspaces
+   or of nodes outside §3.2 visibility — no "N workspaces hidden"
+   fields, no total-vs-visible discrepancy fields. A query naming a
+   node outside §3.2 visibility MUST satisfy the §3.4 response
+   equivalence with a query naming a nonexistent node (fail closed,
+   `rbac-grant-model.md` §3.5 pattern: a decision path that cannot
+   read grant state denies).
+4. **Response equivalence predicate.** Two responses are equivalent
+   when they carry the identical HTTP status, the identical contract
+   5 §4.2 error code, and byte-identical bodies after normalizing
+   exactly the declared volatile envelope fields — correlation id and
+   response timestamp, and nothing else. The implementing PR declares
+   that volatile-field list in the witness; any additional
+   normalization is a conformance defect. This is contract 5 §4.2's
+   same code/status/shape rule made executable.
+5. **Live evaluation.** Readability is evaluated per contract 2 §3.5
+   (live rows or transactionally-invalidated cache). Revocation
+   propagates per contract 2 §6: the next roll-up query decided after
+   the revoking transaction commits excludes the revoked scope.
+
+## 4. Read-only enforcement
+
+1. **Never a write.** No roll-up path may mutate, claim, order, or
+   gate work in any workspace (§8.2.2). The roll-up ships as a
+   non-mutating query tool (A5 rank 5) — a query surface with no
+   command counterpart.
+2. **Mechanical enforcement.** The implementing PR executes roll-up
+   database work inside read-only transactions (or an equivalently
+   privilege-restricted path), so a mutation attempt fails at the
+   database boundary, not only by convention.
+3. **Freshness.** v1 computes the roll-up live from SOT rows at query
+   time. A cache is an implementation option only if it is
+   invalidated in the same transaction as any task, hierarchy, grant,
+   or membership mutation that affects it (each invalidator class
+   witnessed, §6.5), and it is never authoritative (§1.6).
+
+## 5. Dependencies and phase timing
+
+1. The roll-up depends on A5 ranks 1–3: contract 1's hierarchy tables
+   (the parent chain), contract 2's evaluator (readability), and the
+   typed Kanban lifecycle (the task state being counted). It ships
+   after them and reads their surfaces; it defines none of them.
+2. The roll-up query is one tool with one Gateway mapping row under
+   contract 5's regime (request/result/error/audit contracts there);
+   this contract binds its semantics (§2.5 defines the semantic
+   fields the contract 5 §4.1 DTO serializes), not its wire encoding.
+3. Legacy task rows outside the typed lifecycle are not aggregated;
+   the roll-up begins counting a workspace's tasks when they exist in
+   the typed surface. No roll-up obligation attaches to v1 before
+   ranks 1–3 exist. Both rules are drafting additions disclosed in §7
+   (they trace to no §8 sentence).
+
+## 6. Verification requirements
+
+Binding on the implementing PRs. Every witness names, in its
+implementation, the exact endpoints/tools, tables, and fixtures it
+exercises. The base fixture seeds two companies; under company A **two
+estates with distinct, non-identical count profiles**: estate A1 with
+two platform-projects — P1 holding workspaces W1 and W2, P2 holding
+workspace W3 — and estate A2 with one platform-project P3 holding one
+workspace W4, all with known task counts across at least three
+statuses; under company B one workspace.
+
+1. **Correctness witnesses:** for a reader holding a direct company-A
+   grant, roll-up totals at every level equal the seeded sums — each
+   workspace, each platform-project, estate A1 and estate A2
+   separately (their distinct profiles asserted distinct), and the
+   company total equal to A1+A2 — keyed by the typed status values,
+   with no double count across the chain. For a reader holding a
+   direct estate-A1 grant, the estate-A1 result equals the A1 sum and
+   a company-A query returns company A with exactly A1's contribution
+   (estate A2 invisible). Each of the three chain grant levels
+   contract 1 §3.1 defines — company, estate, platform-project
+   (below, §6.2) — has an explicit direct-grant case, none simulated
+   by unioning lower access. Workspace-level access has NO direct
+   chain grant (contract 1 §3.1/§3.4 define no workspace grant
+   target) and is covered by the §6.2 membership case.
+2. **Scope witnesses:** a reader with a direct grant on
+   platform-project P1 only sees exactly P1's subtree counts
+   (W1+W2): a P1 query returns W1+W2; an estate-A1 query returns the
+   estate node with exactly P1's contribution, sibling project P2 and
+   its workspace W3 absent at every depth; a company-A query likewise
+   carries only P1's contribution. An estate-sibling case: a reader
+   with a direct grant on estate A1 only queries company A and
+   receives exactly A1's contribution, estate A2 absent. (Chain
+   grants exist only at company, estate, and platform-project —
+   contract 1 §3.1 — so partial scope among SIBLING WORKSPACES of
+   one project is not constructible by grants and is not witnessed;
+   the constructible partial-scope cases are the project- and
+   estate-sibling ones above.) **Membership locality (§1.4):** a member-only reader queries
+   the workspace directly and receives its counts; the same reader
+   querying the workspace's parent (or any ancestor) receives the
+   §3.4-equivalent nonexistent-node response, and no ancestor
+   response for any other reader changes because of that membership.
+3. **No-oracle witnesses:** the P1-only reader's estate-A1 response
+   above contains no field disclosing P2's or W3's existence
+   (closed-schema comparison against an estate-A1-granted reader's
+   response: identical field set, differing only in counts and
+   visible nodes). **Partial-scope hidden node:** the P1-only reader
+   — who sees estate A1 and the P1 subtree — queries hidden sibling
+   project P2 by its real id, and separately hidden workspace W3 by
+   its real id; each response satisfies the §3.4 equivalence
+   predicate against the same query naming a nonexistent id, under
+   one fixed request context with the declared volatile-field
+   normalization. **Cross-tenant:** an unauthorized reader naming company B receives
+   a response §3.4-equivalent to naming a nonexistent id. Each
+   equivalence check is executable byte comparison after the declared
+   normalization, not a shape judgment.
+4. **Empty-vs-hidden witness (ruling):** a reader granted (direct
+   chain grant) on an empty platform-project receives it with zero
+   counts — every status key present at `0` (§2.5); with the grant
+   deleted, the same query returns the §3.4-equivalent
+   nonexistent-node response. An inherited-grant case: a company
+   grant makes an empty descendant platform-project visible with zero
+   counts.
+5. **Cache-invalidation witnesses (conditional):** bound only if the
+   implementation caches — for EACH invalidator class, prime the
+   cache, commit one mutation of that class, and assert the next
+   query reflects it: a task status change, a task creation, a
+   membership removal (the member-readable workspace disappears from
+   its own node's next query), a workspace reparenting (both old and
+   new parent totals correct), and a grant revocation. A live
+   (cacheless) v1 implementation records that fact and the witnesses
+   bind at the PR that introduces a cache.
+6. **Mutation witnesses:** the roll-up surface rejects every mutating
+   verb/command; a crafted attempt to issue a write through the
+   roll-up's database path fails at the read-only boundary (§4.2);
+   after any roll-up query, the row diff is empty across BOTH the
+   workspace tables and the hierarchy tables (contract 1 §6.7's
+   both-table zero-write assertion).
+7. **Closed-schema witness:** the response is asserted field-exact
+   against the §2.5 recursive record at every depth — exactly
+   `id`/`type`/`name`/`totals`/`children` on every node, every typed
+   status present with explicit zeros, `children: []` at every
+   workspace record, the declared ascending-`id` ordering, no
+   wrapper field — and a response carrying any field outside the
+   record at any depth fails the assertion (carve-out boundary,
+   §2.3). The denial envelope is asserted field-exact against
+   contract 5 §4.2's envelope (§2.6).
+8. **Non-authoritative and never-gate witnesses:** (a) a static
+   production import-graph inventory (hierarchy contract §6.3 style,
+   production code over `apps/` and `packages/`, tests excluded)
+   shows no production module imports the roll-up query module or its
+   result DTO into any SOT write path, any authorization/gating
+   decision path, or any persistence beyond the response lifetime —
+   asserted in both directions (the roll-up module's consumers are
+   enumerated and each is a presentation surface); (b) a behavioral
+   probe: with roll-up output artificially perturbed (test double),
+   no authorization outcome and no work-gating decision anywhere in
+   the fixture suite changes — proving no gate consumes it.
+9. **Revocation witness:** after revoking the grant that made a
+   subtree readable, the next roll-up query excludes it (contract 2
+   §6.2 bound).
+
+## 7. Drafting additions (PRD §12.1 disclosure)
+
+Proposed drafting additions, visible here for ratification, each
+severable; the aggregation itself, its authorization scope, its
+read-only nature, and the no-oracle acceptance are traced to
+`native-kanban-sot.md` §8 and are not additions:
+
+1. The §3.2 node-visibility rule and the granted-but-empty behavior
+   (the ruling below).
+2. The §3.3–§3.4 nonexistent-node response equivalence, with its
+   normalized-byte-equality predicate, as the concrete no-oracle
+   mechanism.
+3. The §4.2 read-only-transaction mechanical enforcement.
+4. The §4.3 cache option with transactional invalidation and the
+   §6.5 per-invalidator witnesses.
+5. The §2.5 closed response schema as an amendment boundary.
+6. The §1.4 membership-locality rule — membership-only readability
+   contributes at the workspace node only (this contract's
+   reconciliation of `native-kanban-sot.md` §8.1.3 "authorized on"
+   with contract 2 §3.1/§7.4's workspace-local membership).
+7. The §5.3 legacy-row exclusion and the §5.3 pre-rank no-obligation
+   rule.
+
+## Ruling request
+
+Ruling requested (one decision): shall a node the reader holds an
+effective chain role on (direct or inherited, §1.2) but whose
+aggregation scope is empty appear in the roll-up with zero counts
+(recommended — it lets the UI show a granted-but-empty subtree
+honestly) — or, as the alternative, be indistinguishable from a
+nonexistent node until it contains a readable workspace?