docs: company visibility classes (Ruling 4b amendment, contracts 1+3) (#1461)
ci/woodpecker/push/publish Pipeline was successful
ci/woodpecker/push/publish Pipeline was successful
This commit was merged in pull request #1461.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -397,6 +397,14 @@ seed-workspace-scoped mutant, correctly refusing outside the seed
|
||||
set, passes branch (c), so the two branches detect distinct
|
||||
mutants. No other change.
|
||||
|
||||
Amendment 1 (Ruling 4b, 2026-08-28): §5.2's embedded decision was RULED
|
||||
AGREED (Jason, 2026-08-27), and Ruling 4b adds company visibility
|
||||
classes (hierarchy schema §2.8): open top-level creation always yields
|
||||
a **private** company; publishing a company into the deployment-wide
|
||||
directory is a separate, gated visibility mutation (hierarchy schema
|
||||
§5.5) that is never part of the creation command. §5.2 is amended to
|
||||
state both.
|
||||
|
||||
Scope: the Gateway-backed product onboarding wizard. Out of scope: the
|
||||
host-local install wizard (`mosaic wizard`, which drives host install and
|
||||
gateway bootstrap and is not this artifact — audit REPORT.md layer 3);
|
||||
@@ -1169,15 +1177,18 @@ collects no sensitive category, so v1 ships no custody surface.
|
||||
party, service actor, or wizard-privileged writer exists in this
|
||||
flow.
|
||||
2. **Post-bootstrap top-level company creation** — the "N companies" flow
|
||||
— is decided by the ruling below: any **eligible platform user** MAY
|
||||
— RULED AGREED (Jason, 2026-08-27): any **eligible platform user** MAY
|
||||
create a top-level company and MUST name an initial `owner` grant in
|
||||
the same audited operation (contract 2 §4.3); the creator naming
|
||||
themselves is the default. Eligible means, in identity-contract
|
||||
terms: an authenticated account (identity §2) that is not banned
|
||||
(identity §7.1 — deactivation on this platform IS the better-auth
|
||||
ban; no separate deactivated state exists). No further role or grant
|
||||
is required. Until that ruling, deny-by-default holds (contract 2
|
||||
§3.1): no implicit creation authority exists.
|
||||
is required. Creation always yields a **private** company
|
||||
(`visibility = 'private'`, hierarchy schema §2.8, Ruling 4b): the
|
||||
creation command accepts no visibility argument, and publishing into
|
||||
the deployment-wide directory is a separate, gated mutation
|
||||
(hierarchy schema §5.5) that standard users cannot perform.
|
||||
3. Child-node creation inside the wizard (estate, project, workspace
|
||||
under the seeded company) follows contract 2 §4.3: parent
|
||||
`owner` authority, no automatic grant needed — for canonical seed
|
||||
@@ -1932,7 +1943,13 @@ contracts and are not additions:
|
||||
suffix at all — each contradicting PRD D4's no-lock-in
|
||||
requirement (§4.4).
|
||||
|
||||
## Ruling request
|
||||
## Ruling request — RULED AGREED (Jason, 2026-08-27; Amendment 1)
|
||||
|
||||
The §5.2 decision below was ruled agreed: open eligible-user creation
|
||||
stands (yielding private companies per Amendment 1), and the
|
||||
"alternative if rejected" did not take effect. The request is retained
|
||||
below as historical record of what was put to ruling; it is no longer
|
||||
live.
|
||||
|
||||
Ratify sections 1–7 as written, with one decision embedded:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user